Is the organic food movement the most anti-science social movement out there?

[Drake Tungsten]

One study doesn't equal "science", especially when there's no plausible mechanism to explain why HFCS would be worse for the human body than other types of sugar.

edit:

Studies by The American Medical Association suggest "it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose" but calls for further independent research on the subject.

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

[Al B. Sure!]

One Study?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051594

Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity.

Bray GA, Nielsen SJ, Popkin BM.

Obesity is a major epidemic, but its causes are still unclear. In this article, we investigate the relation between the intake of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and the development of obesity. We analyzed food consumption patterns by using US Department of Agriculture food consumption tables from 1967 to 2000. The consumption of HFCS increased > 1000% between 1970 and 1990, far exceeding the changes in intake of any other food or food group. HFCS now represents > 40% of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages and is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the United States. Our most conservative estimate of the consumption of HFCS indicates a daily average of 132 kcal for all Americans aged > or = 2 y, and the top 20% of consumers of caloric sweeteners ingest 316 kcal from HFCS/d. The increased use of HFCS in the United States mirrors the rapid increase in obesity. The digestion, absorption, and metabolism of fructose differ from those of glucose. Hepatic metabolism of fructose favors de novo lipogenesis. In addition, unlike glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production. Because insulin and leptin act as key afferent signals in the regulation of food intake and body weight, this suggests that dietary fructose may contribute to increased energy intake and weight gain. Furthermore, calorically sweetened beverages may enhance caloric overconsumption. Thus, the increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703413

Fructose-induced leptin resistance exacerbates weight gain in response to subsequent high-fat feeding.

Shapiro A, Mu W, Roncal C, Cheng KY, Johnson RJ, Scarpace PJ.

It has been suggested that increased fructose intake is associated with obesity. We hypothesized that chronic fructose consumption causes leptin resistance, which subsequently may promote the development of obesity in response to a high-fat diet. Sprague-Dawley rats were fed a fructose-free control or 60% fructose diet for 6 mo and then tested for leptin resistance. Half of the rats in each group were then switched to high-fat diet for 2 wk, while the other half continued on their respective diets. Chronic fructose consumption caused leptin resistance, while serum leptin levels, weight, and adiposity were the same as in control rats that were leptin responsive. Intraperitoneal leptin injections reduced 24-h food intake in the fructose-free group (73.7 +/- 6.3 vs. 58.1 +/- 8 kcal, P = 0.02) but had no effect in fructose-fed rats (71.2 +/- 6.6 vs. 72.4 +/- 6.4 kcal, P = 0.9). Absence of anorexic response to intraperitoneal leptin injection was associated with 25.7% decrease in hypothalamic signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 phosphorylation in the high-fructose-fed rats compared with controls (P = 0.015). Subsequent exposure of the fructose-mediated, leptin-resistant rats to a high-fat diet led to exacerbated weight gain (50.2 +/- 2 g) compared with correspondingly fed leptin-responsive animals that were pretreated with the fructose-free diet (30.4 +/- 5.8 g, P = 0.012). Our data indicate that chronic fructose consumption induces leptin resistance prior to body weight, adiposity, serum leptin, insulin, or glucose increases, and this fructose-induced leptin resistance accelerates high-fat induced obesity.

http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v13/n7/abs/oby2005136a.html

Consuming Fructose-sweetened Beverages Increases Body Adiposity in Mice**

Hella Jürgens*,†, Wiltrud Haass*,†, Tamara R. Castañeda‡, Annette Schürmann†, Corinna Koebnick†, Frank Dombrowski§, Bärbel Otto¶, Andrea R. Nawrocki**, Philipp E. Scherer**, Jochen Spranger†††, Michael Ristow†,††, Hans-Georg Joost†,††, Peter J. Havel‡‡ and Matthias H. Tschöp†,‡

Objective: The marked increase in the prevalence of obesity in the United States has recently been attributed to the increased fructose consumption. To determine if and how fructose might promote obesity in an animal model, we measured body composition, energy intake, energy expenditure, substrate oxidation, and several endocrine parameters related to energy homeostasis in mice consuming fructose.

Research Methods and Procedures: We compared the effects of ad libitum access to fructose (15% solution in water), sucrose (10%, popular soft drink), and artificial sweetener (0% calories, popular diet soft drink) on adipogenesis and energy metabolism in mice.

Results: Exposure to fructose water increased adiposity, whereas increased fat mass after consumption of soft drinks or diet soft drinks did not reach statistical significance (n = 9 each group). Total intake of energy was unaltered, because mice proportionally reduced their caloric intake from chow. There was a trend toward reduced energy expenditure and increased respiratory quotient, albeit not significant, in the fructose group. Furthermore, fructose produced a hepatic lipid accumulation with a characteristic pericentral pattern.

http://www.slu.edu/x15990.xml

Brent Tetri, M.D., professor of internal medicine at Saint Louis University Liver Center, and colleagues studied the effects of a diet that was 40 percent fat and replete with high fructose corn syrup, a sweetener common in soda and some fruit juices.

"We had a feeling we'd see evidence of fatty liver disease by the end of the study," he says. "But we were surprised to find how severe the damage was and how quickly it occurred. It took only four weeks for liver enzymes to increase and for glucose intolerance - the beginning of type II diabetes - to begin."

And unlike other studies, the mice were not forced to eat; rather, they were able to eat whenever they wanted - and eat they did. Tetri says there's evidence that suggests fructose actually suppresses your fullness, unlike fiber-rich foods, which make you feel full quickly.

Shall I go on...?

[Drake Tungsten]

Read the AMA's literature review, genius.

[Drake Tungsten]

Studies that have compared high fructose corn syrup (an ingredient in nearly all soft drinks sold in the US) to sucrose (common table sugar) find that most measured physiological effects are equivalent. For instance, Melanson et al. (2006), studied the effects of HFCS and sucrose sweetened drinks on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels. They found no significant differences in any of these parameters.[49] This is not surprising since sucrose is a disaccharide which digests to 50% fructose and 50% glucose; while the high fructose corn syrup most commonly used on soft drinks is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. The difference between the two lies in the fact that HFCS contains little sucrose, the fructose and glucose being independent moities.

Fructose is often recommended for diabetics because it does not trigger the production of insulin by pancreatic ß cells, probably because ß cells have low levels of GLUT5 [50][51][52]. Fructose has a very low glycemic index of 19 ± 2, compared with 100 for glucose and 68 ± 5 for sucrose.[53] Fructose is also seventy-three percent sweeter than sucrose (see 2.1 Relative Sweetness) at room temperature, so diabetics can use less of it. Studies show that fructose consumed before a meal may even lessen the glycemic response of the meal.[54] Its sweetness changes at higher temperatures, so its effects in recipes are not equivalent to sucrose (ie, table sugar).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Compared_to_sucrose

[KrazyHorse]

Anybody who has the first clue about chemistry will understand why the HFCS idiocy is just that....

[Drake Tungsten]

HFCS hate is just a way for fat liberal ****s who eat too much sugar to blame their obesity on "the corporations".

[Al B. Sure!]

Hey Genius:

Your AMA crap referred to the limits of ecological studies... Did I reference any ecological studies?

They then say:

In addition, human and animal studies have found direct associations between fructose and adverse health outcomes.

Which is pretty damning, no? But they note that there may be lack of differentiation in the studies between HFCS and other sweeteners. Now, even if other sweeteners are just as bad (which they probably are), that doesn't suddenly make HFCS additives therefore great! Means we should stop eating so much damn sugar to begin with (and stop sweetening every food with additives) My point is unchanged.

Only a few small, short-term experimental studies have compared the effects of HFCS to sucrose, and most involved some form of industry support.

Haha. Good on the AMA for admitting possible biases.


Amid the recommendations of the AMA is for more studies to be done differentiating between HFCS and sucrose. Those studies I alluded to did so.

[Drake Tungsten]

that doesn't suddenly make HFCS additives therefore great!

Of course HFCS isn't great for you; it's ****ing sugar. The point is that HFCS is no worse for you than other types of sugar and singling it out for condemnation is ****ing retarded.

[Al B. Sure!]

Drake:

Not when studies show differing reactions from HFCS consumption compared to sucrose consumption.

[Drake Tungsten]

What's the mechanism that would cause HFCS to be worse for your body than sucrose, ****?

[Al B. Sure!]

So then you agree that it is good to have the option to buy products that don't contain HFCS?

Too bad virtually everything non-organic has the stuff in it, even things you wouldn't expect like freaking salad dressing.

[Drake Tungsten]

So then you agree that it is good to have the option to buy products that don't contain HFCS?

No. I'm saying that people should eat less ****ing sugar, no matter what form it's in.

[Al B. Sure!]

Possibly because HFCS is more 'loosely' bonded than sucrose. I'm not a chemist but I do know that just because a mechanism might not be known as yet does not mean that you completely throw away studies showing strong correlation that indicates the possibility of a mechanism for the difference.

You seem to think that we should all be feasting on vast quantities of HFCS until we know 100% for sure that it is bad for you and all bases are covered. I guess you would've had us smoking til well... still today I guess.

[Al B. Sure!]

So then you agree that it is good to have the option to buy products that don't contain HFCS?

No. I'm saying that people should eat less ****ing sugar, no matter what form it's in.

Yes but they're not adding sugar in everything. They're adding HFCS.

[Al B. Sure!]

The studies are there Drake... Your AMA 'rebuttal' is irrelevant to those studies. And before you whip out studies contradicting them, I refer back to the AMA mention of industry-sponsored studies having biases.