[tptacek]

And, like I just said, table sugar breaks down into fructose during digestion, and "HFCS" isn't "HF" compared to "all other sweeteners"; it's "HF" compared to plain corn syrup, which is unpalatable.

HFCS alarmism is knee-jerk wishful thinking from people who want to blame some boogeyman industrial process for all the nation's health problems. The problem is our addiction to sweetness. HFCS obviously abets this by making it cheaper to sweeten things, but get rid of HFCS and it'll just get replaced with some other sugar. Sugar is bad for you.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/443/csaph3a08-sum... -

The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS.

[CWuestefeld]

As I understand it, the complaint isn't over the "H" part, but the 'F'. Obviously nothing is going to be "higher" sugar than a spoonful of, um, sugar (setting aside issues of density).

But I'd point out that you've taken a page from the corn industry and edited your previous words. You had said earlier "table sugar breaks down into glucose and fructose during digestion", but revised that to "table sugar breaks down into fructose during digestion".

The controversy here is that (AFAIK) HFCS is all, or much more, fructose than glucuse, relative to table sugar; how does the body react to the difference between fructose and glucose?

[tptacek]

That last sentence is false. HFCS is not "much more" fructose than glucose relative to table sugar. It's "much more" fructose than other sugars relative to unpalatable plain corn syrup. Table sugar is metabolized very similarly to HFCS, with very similar (some sources would say nearly identical) fructose loads. The difference is that HFCS contains free-floating fructose, and sucrose is a disaccharide (of glucose and fructose) that is very quickly broken into plain 'ol glucose and fructose as soon as it hits your digestive system.

'carbocation may jump in here to set me straight (I'd be surprised but happy to have learned something), but my understanding here is that there is nothing more healthful about plain table sugar than HFCS. They are both very bad for you in the same way.

[gte910h]

HFCS also hits you much faster than normal sugar. All the HFCS hits you at once, the sucrose does actually take a small amount of time.

While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove signifigant.

To me, people should have the labeling required to tell if this substance is in their food. I personally don't totally avoid it, nor do I look for it, but I feel people should have that ability.

[tptacek]

Can you cite a peer-reviewed source that says that HFCS "hits you much faster" than sucrose? The sources I found suggest that the two are handled almost identically once in the bloodstream.

[gte910h]

We're talking pre-bloodstream, and the mechanism is understood science (everything does this process, it's a widely taught part of biology) It's how everything (bacteria to humans) digests all non single molecule sugars and starch (i.e. sucrose on up).

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase

It is a non-instantaneous process which is limited by the reaction catalyzed by the enzyme. Some diabetic drugs work off this enzyme by inhibiting it's function (as do some antimicrobial drugs/substances).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose

So I'm going to point at the existence of drugs working off this mechanism instead of finding the research that established them.

As GH works off complex carbohydrates and HFCS is a mixtures of simple carbohydrates, it is not slowed by any inhibition of the GH reaction in the stomach.

As my comment said: While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove significant.

It appears to effect rats differently at least for instance: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...

[gruseom]

Don't disagree overall, but I have three reasons for thinking you might be oversimplifying a bit. Given how much sweeter HFCS is than sucrose, there's reason to believe that our addiction to sweetness is partly the work of that industrial process; there's a pretty big difference between HFCS and sucrose (the latter of course being "only" 50% fructose); and the correlation between the HFCS growth curve and the obesity growth curve is remarkable.

[tptacek]

The HFCS in processed food is also "only" 50% (45-55% depending) fructose.

I've managed to position myself as the HFCS defender in this thread, and I'm anything but. HFCS is evil. But it's misleading to blame the "High Fructose" part of the acronym for the evil. Demonizing HFCS gives cover to every other food processor that adds sugars to increase palatability to earn extra sales at the expense of our health.

[Xurinos]

The way I learned it from the nice professor in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM) was simply:

fructose = bad, poison

glucose = good

sucrose = fructose + glucose, unsafe because the composition preserves the fructose portion

HFCS = 25% fructose, not as bad as sucrose (IIRC)

Mitigate fructose intake with fiber. apple juice = bad, but apple = good because of the fiber countering the effect of the poison at a higher point in our internal food processing chain.

I noticed you were getting downvotes, and I suspect it is because of the general "Sugar is bad for you" statement, which is -- as far as the studies go -- half correct. The rest of your text makes the distinction, so I hope it is not wholly ignored. HFCS is a scapegoat, as you point out, and it would help if we focused on the one part that is important: fructose is poison. And it can be mitigated with fiber.

But that's just what I learned from some video. One thing that always bugged me: glucose is known commonly as "grape sugar". Do grapes have fructose? Without any fructose added, is grape juice a healthy fruit juice?

[gte910h]

HFCS comes in varying F/G ratios. HFCS-55 is the most common, which is 55% fructose. The other two common varieties are HFCS-90 and HFCS-42. All HFCS starts at 90 then pure glucose corn syrup is added to dilute it down. HFCS-55 is about as sweet as sugar (unless heated, in which case it it significantly less so).

[Xurinos]

For my learning, aside from my 25% figure being misleading, can anyone explain their disagreement with my comment? Is the video a bad source?

[gte910h]

Sucrose in generally shown to be less harmful than HFCS in many tests, which in the alternative show at best it's only as harmful.

Here is one study: We're talking pre-bloodstream, and the mechanism is understood science (everything does this process, it's a widely taught part of biology) It's how everything (bacteria to humans) digests all non single molecule sugars and starch (i.e. sucrose on up).

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase

It is a non-instantaneous process which is limited by the reaction catalyzed by the enzyme. Some diabetic drugs work off this enzyme by inhibiting it's function (as do some antimicrobial drugs/substances).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose

So I'm going to point at the existence of drugs working off this mechanism instead of finding the research that established them.

As GH works off complex carbohydrates and HFCS is a mixtures of simple carbohydrates, it is not slowed by any inhibition of the GH reaction in the stomach.

As my comment said: While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove significant.

It appears to effect rats differently at least for instance: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...

[tptacek]

Can you cite one human test that shows HFCS to be more harmful than sucrose? Because I'm not going to suggest that the AMA is at all the end-all of medical research (it's clearly not even close), but the AMA says "Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose.".

[gte910h]

Read the full statement. They're just saying "Don't pass laws yet, but keep studying it, preferably in an independent manner":

REPORT 3 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-08) The Health Effects of High Fructose Syrup EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objective: To review the chemical properties and health effects of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in comparison to other added caloric sweeteners and to evaluate the potential impact of restricting use of fructose-containing sweeteners, including the use of warning labels on foods containing high fructose syrups. Methods: Literature searches for articles published though December 2007 were conducted in the PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the search terms “high fructose corn syrup” and “high fructose syrup.” Web sites managed by federal and world health agencies, and applicable professional and advocacy organizations, were also reviewed for relevant information. Additional articles were identified by reviewing the reference lists of pertinent publications. Results: HFCS has been increasingly added to foods since its development in the late 1960s. The most commonly used types of HFCS (HFCS-42 and HFCS-55) are similar in composition to sucrose, consisting of roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose. The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS. The advantage to food manufacturers is that the free monosaccharides in HFCS provide better flavor enhancement, stability, freshness, texture, color, pourability, and consistency in foods in comparison to sucrose. Concern about HFCS developed after ecological studies, using per capita estimates of HFCS consumption, found direct correlations between HFCS and obesity. In addition, human and animal studies have found direct associations between fructose and adverse health outcomes. However, the adverse health effects of HFCS, beyond those of other caloric sweeteners, most of which contain fructose, are not well established. Consumption of added caloric sweeteners in general has increased over the last 30 years, as has total calories. Likewise, rates of obesity have risen even in countries where little HFCS is consumed. Only a few small, short-term experimental studies have compared the effects of HFCS to sucrose, and most involved some form of industry support. Epidemiological studies on HFCS and health outcomes are unavailable, beyond ecological studies, because nutrient databases do not contain information on the HFCS content of foods and have only limited data on added sugars in general. Conclusions: Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose. Nevertheless, few studies have evaluated the potentially differential effect of various sweeteners, particularly as they relate to health conditions such as obesity, which develop over relatively long periods of time. Improved nutrient databases are needed to analyze food consumption in epidemiological studies, as are more strongly designed experimental studies. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to restrict use of HFCS or other fructose- containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. RECOMMENDATIONS The following statements, recommended by the Council on Science and Public Health, were adopted by the AMA House of Delegates as AMA directives at the 2008 Annual Meeting: 1. That our American Medical Association (AMA) recognize that at the present time, insufficient evidence exists to specifically restrict use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or other fructose- containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. (Directive) 2. That our AMA encourage independent research (including epidemiological studies) on the health effects of HFCS and other sweeteners, and evaluation of the mechanism of action and relationship between fructose dose and response. (Directive) 3. That our AMA, in concert with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, recommend that consumers limit the amount of added caloric sweeteners in their diet. (Directive)