Between a rock (too much sugar) and a hard place (high fructose corn syrup)
In two years of writing this blog, there have been controversial topics that have provoked a lot of comment and argument. But few things compare to the reaction to this recent post on high fructose corn syrup.
Many believe that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is uniquely damaging to health. Others argue that the excessive consumption of sugar (in any form) is a bigger issue. Obviously, reducing ALL forms of refined sugar is the no-brainer solution.
But being forced to choose the lesser of two hypothetical evils might shed some light on the relative and practical importance of the issues involved here. So, just for fun:
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Want to have a say in the next round of Dietary Guidelines? | | Nutrition Data Blog | | Avoiding peanuts may be causing more peanut allergies |
Posted by: mark | Nov 21, 2008 8:34:09 PM
I have one word for everyone: Krisda. Krisda is amazing. It is a stevia sweetener. I lost weight shortly after switching from Splenda to Krisda. I would encourage everyone to try it.
www.steviashop.com
Posted by: seppi | Nov 18, 2008 1:23:48 PM
Clearly the main problem is that we eat too much sugar. And HCFS is a problem as it is one of the worst. The 2 choices you present are not related it reminds of the ole question:
Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Nov 17, 2008 7:41:04 PM
Seppi,
no I'm not suggesting that HFCS has fewer calories than sugar. This question is just a hypothetical one to consider whether HFCS is really the main problem or whether the main problem is that we simply eat too much sugar (in whatever form).
Posted by: seppi | Nov 17, 2008 5:53:37 PM
Monica, can you shed some light on how the model of calories really relates to what we eat and your choices above? how it effects digestion and the way nutrition is delivered in the body?
Your choices make no sense.
You suggest that HFCS is not sugar by how you posed the second question but are you saying HFCS has less calories than "sugar"? If so, why is that? I could choose to eat rocks with cyanide which have essentially no calories but that doesn't mean it's better than consuming something with more calories.
The "Calorie model" is seriously flawed as it does an extremely poor job at representing what happens to food in our bodies.
Help shed some light on what calories really means.
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Nov 17, 2008 5:46:33 PM
Welcome Dr. Fleckenstein.
What kind of choices are these? Hypothetical. Obviously, the only rationale answer is the option not given! It's just a thought question, intended to elucidate a debate already underway on the blog!
Posted by: Alexa Fleckenstein M.D. | Nov 17, 2008 5:21:36 PM
What kind of choices are those?? Don't we have an obesity epidemic?
It is a no-brainer that all refined sugars are unhealthy. Let's get our sugars from fruit!
Alexa Fleckenstein M.D., physician, author.
Posted by: robin | Nov 11, 2008 7:45:23 AM
oops, sorry, didn't realize my question would cut into an ongoing conversation...
Posted by: robin | Nov 11, 2008 7:43:48 AM
Does straining plain yoghurt to thicken into "yoghurt cheese" remove anything nutritionally worth having?
Posted by: The Reluctant Eater | Nov 10, 2008 1:23:00 PM
HFCS is bad, but I think it's pretty unlikely that it's not 3.5 times worse than plain ol' sugar.
Ben, not sure if you realized, but 35% is currently amount of calories the average american gets from sugars!
Posted by: Carly | Nov 10, 2008 12:46:17 PM
Sorry, I meant HFCS (suffering from dyslexia today).
Here's more info about the environmental costs of HFCS:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/06/AR2008030603294.html
Posted by: Carly | Nov 10, 2008 12:41:36 PM
Neither (or both, depending on how you look at at). Reduce all calories from sweeteners, and limit those calories you do consume to those from natural sugar. The answer becomes even clearer when you consider the environmental cost of corn monoculture and the process used to create HCFS. HCFS is typically a marker of cheap, processed, otherwise unhealthy food anyway.
Posted by: Family Nutritionist | Nov 10, 2008 10:08:45 AM
* Every 4.3g of sugar on the label is another teaspoon of sugar. That fat-free organic yogurt with 35g of sugar? 8 teaspoons.
* HFCS on the label generally means "processed food"
* But any ready-made food with a long shelf life is highly processed, too.
Posted by: Ben | Nov 9, 2008 9:55:57 PM
I honestly believe that the second option is a horrible choice. 35% of calories from sugar? I live on a 40% carb/35% protein/25% fat diet, and if I got 40% of my carbs from sugar my blood sugar would skyrocket and I'd gain a ton of weight.
There is nothing wrong with HFCS. So many people rip on it without even knowing the facts. HFCS-55 is almost the same as table sugar in glucose/fructose proportions. If you for some reason detest the presence of fructose so much maybe you should start using dextrose as a sweetener.
