Support NeoGAF

[CharlieDigital]

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."​

The study debunks the myth that HFCS aren't any worse than regular sugar:

...as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.

The rats in the Princeton study became obese by drinking high-fructose corn syrup, but not by drinking sucrose. The critical differences in appetite, metabolism and gene expression that underlie this phenomenon are yet to be discovered, but may relate to the fact that excess fructose is being metabolized to produce fat, while glucose is largely being processed for energy or stored as a carbohydrate, called glycogen, in the liver and muscles.​

The whole press release is worth a read.

 

[SnakeXs]

I, for one, am absolutely stunned by this study.

It's crazy how few people really care about HFCS intake. No, it's not pure poison and won't kill you from a sip but be aware.

Also tax it more. And when people bitch about the taxes and care enough to look up what's being taxed and why and have the fact that it's as bad as it is for you thrown in their face maaaaybe a few will care.

 

[CharlieDigital]

I think the most important thing to take away from this is that there is a difference in how HFCS and refined cane sugar are metabolized by the body. Not all sugars are created equal.

 

[SnakeXs]

I think the most important thing to take away from this is that there is a difference in how HFCS and refined cane sugar are metabolized by the body. Not all sugars are created equal.

And it's good to have a clear study saying that, for sure, but plenty of people knew it already, and sadly studies like this never make it to the ears of, then change the minds of, those indoctrinated by the sweet corn's overwhelming power.

 

[teh_pwn]

I think the most important thing to take away from this is that there is a difference in how HFCS and refined cane sugar are metabolized by the body. Not all sugars are created equal.

It's fructose, and HFCS has a little more than sugar/sucrose.

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

It screws with the hunger hormone, leptin. Makes your body's sense of fullness a calorie surplus rather than breaking even.

 

[BorkBork]

So that 5 percent difference between 50-50 (sucrose) is significantly different than 55-45 (general HFCS) then? Wacky.

 

[teh_pwn]

So that 5 percent difference between 50-50 (sucrose) is significantly different than 55-45 (general HFCS) then? Wacky.

I would expect a difference in weight gain, but maybe not that much. Maybe there's something else to this, or the study was flawed.

 

[CharlieDigital]

It's fructose, and HFCS has a little more than sugar/sucrose.

You seem to have missed the point of the study, then.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

When I started losing weight one of the things I did was drop drinking soft drinks 2-3 times a week. With exercise and better eating habits I have lost almost 30 lbs over a year and a half.

So yeah, I believe this study.

 

[Lionel Mandrake]

But it's made from corn. Didn't you see the commercial?

 

[entremet]

You seem to have missed the point of the study, then.

Have you read Good Calories, Bad Calories? It has extensive information on sucrose/fructose and its effect on health. Fructose is particularly pesky because of how the liver processes it.

 

[Tideas]

One thing that doesn't make sense.

Everytthing in the end is about calories. If u consume the same amount of calories in terms of sugar, and same amount of HFCR, and everything else remains the same, I just don't see how you can gain more weight.

The article seems to argue that HFCR lowers the metabolism, but the human body, lying in bed, still requires about 1700 calories a day.

 

[Dresden]

Corn lobby says BOOOOOOO.

American values!

 

[teh_pwn]

You seem to have missed the point of the study, then.

No I didn't.

The study even alludes to the factor that I'm talking about:

The critical differences in appetite, metabolism and gene expression that underlie this phenomenon are yet to be discovered, but may relate to the fact that excess fructose is being metabolized to produce fat, while glucose is largely being processed for energy or stored as a carbohydrate, called glycogen, in the liver and muscles.

I just didn't expect the difference in fructose to be great enough to affect leptin enough to cause a huge difference in weight gain. I can understand pure fructose being a huge problem, but I only thought HFCS was marginally worse than sucrose (half fructose).

 

[Trojita]

God I hate the corn lobby and the subsidies their industry get.

Pure Cane soda tastes better anyways.

 

[teh_pwn]

One thing that doesn't make sense.

Everytthing in the end is about calories. If u consume the same amount of calories in terms of sugar, and same amount of HFCR, and everything else remains the same, I just don't see how you can gain more weight.

The article seems to argue that HFCR lowers the metabolism, but the human body, lying in bed, still requires about 1700 calories a day.

Glucose, which is half of sugar, can be used to supply energy to all cells in the body very quickly.

Fructose has to be processed by the liver, and liver only. Like a poison, it has negative byproducts. One is that it interferes with leptin, making appetite larger than what is needed to get a net of 0 calories at the end of the day.

So yes, calories are calories. But if one type of calorie changes your body to want to eat more calories than you need, then it indirectly has a negative impact on health.

 

[Price Dalton]

One thing that doesn't make sense.

Everytthing in the end is about calories. If u consume the same amount of calories in terms of sugar, and same amount of HFCR, and everything else remains the same, I just don't see how you can gain more weight.

The article seems to argue that HFCR lowers the metabolism, but the human body, lying in bed, still requires about 1700 calories a day.

Calories in, calories out is an incredibly simplistic way to look at weight gain and weight loss. It simply doesn't work that neatly, as studies like this show.

 

[Trojita]

Quick question that may be kind of off topic:

Why is it that when a person is fat, they lose weight faster when they start exercising dieting than a normal sized person? Is it because of the weight on the body that causes more calories to be burn or something else?

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

I await http://www.sweetsurprise.com 's rebuttal.

 

[elrechazado]

Quick question that may be kind of off topic:

Why is it that when a person is fat, they lose weight faster when they start exercising dieting than a normal sized person? Is it because of the weight on the body that causes more calories to be burn or something else?

because the ratio of fat stored to healthy body tissue is much higher, so they lose more with less effort in a decreasing curve of effectiveness.

 

[Phobophile]

Quick question that may be kind of off topic:

Why is it that when a person is fat, they lose weight faster when they start exercising dieting than a normal sized person? Is it because of the weight on the body that causes more calories to be burn or something else?

Yeah. Work = Force(weight) * distance

 

[J-Rod]

Mmmm, corn syrup. I drink it straight.

 

[Suikoguy]

Sad it too this long for a study.
I was already going to make a considerable effort to eliminate HFCS from my diet, this strengthens that resolve.

 

[water_wendi]

I await http://www.sweetsurprise.com 's rebuttal.

Corn is duty of all comrades in the USSA

Spoiler

poking fun at the crazy people from the health care bill

 

[StoOgE]

I avoid sugar as much as possible...

but when I do I always buy Mexican coke or whatever they have with real cane sugar at the store.

1) It tastes better.
2) It's better for you.

 

[elrechazado]

I avoid sugar as much as possible...

but when I do I always buy Mexican coke or whatever they have with real cane sugar at the store.

1) It tastes better.
2) It's better for you.

1. yes
2. only to the extent that a kick in the balls 9 times is better than a kick in the balls 10 times.

 

[TAJ]

Everytthing in the end is about calories. If u consume the same amount of calories in terms of sugar, and same amount of HFCR, and everything else remains the same, I just don't see how you can gain more weight.

There are people who still believe this? Seriously? There has to be time travel involved here...

 

[ch0mp]

One thing that doesn't make sense.

Everytthing in the end is about calories. If u consume the same amount of calories in terms of sugar, and same amount of HFCR, and everything else remains the same, I just don't see how you can gain more weight.

The article seems to argue that HFCR lowers the metabolism, but the human body, lying in bed, still requires about 1700 calories a day.

It really isn't that simple. The human body is much, much more complex than energy in/out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgYLQjfBlxk is a good example - start about 4 minutes for the short explanation.

 

[teh_pwn]

There are people who still believe this? Seriously? There has to be time travel involved here...

He's right, but under the specific condition that the same number of calories are consumed. That no human emotions, including hunger, have any impact on food intake.

However, you do have a point with protein versus sugar. Protein takes more calories to digest. Or if fiber is involved, or anything that reduces the rate of digestion to streamline energy supply. But in his example of equal number of calories of sugar, he's right (not realistic).

 

[beelzebozo]

When I started losing weight one of the things I did was drop drinking soft drinks 2-3 times a week. With exercise and better eating habits I have lost almost 30 lbs over a year and a half.

So yeah, I believe this study.

:lol

 

[TAJ]

He's right, but under the specific condition that the same number of calories are consumed. That no human emotions, including hunger, have any impact on food intake.

However, you do have a point with protein versus sugar. Protein takes more calories to digest. Or if fiber is involved, or anything that reduces the rate of digestion to streamline energy supply. But in his example of equal number of calories of sugar, he's right (not realistic).

Have you ever heard of insulin? Just curious.

 

[teh_pwn]

Have you ever heard of insulin? Just curious.

Yes, and both sugars negatively impact insulin responsiveness in the real world, and other types of food don't. I agree with you if you're inferring that.

I was focusing more on the impact on leptin between fructose and sucrose. One of the "calorie's in vs calories out"'s many flaws is that it assumes that all foods impact hunger the same, and that's simply not true with fructose.

 

[Escape Goat]

When I started losing weight one of the things I did was drop drinking soft drinks 2-3 times a week. With exercise and better eating habits I have lost almost 30 lbs over a year and a half.

So yeah, I believe this study.

So yeah, it was totally the soda!

 

[Pancakes]

Yall should watch "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" for more details. The thread is floating around here somewhere

Edit: Found it http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=380372

 

[beelzebozo]

So yeah, it was totally the soda!

not to mention the fact that he would have had the same effect if soda used regular sugar, and he stopped drinking a ton of calories, thereby lending no credence--even anecdotal in nature--to the study

i gave him the benefit of the doubt and figured it was a joke post

 

[Burger]

Also tax it more. And when people bitch about the taxes and care enough to look up what's being taxed and why and have the fact that it's as bad as it is for you thrown in their face maaaaybe a few will care.

Tax it more ? Hahahaha. American taxpayers subsidise the shit out of corn.

As a business you would be mad not to put HFCS in food you sell the public. You would also be mad to expect any business to phase out HFCS after reading that article.

 

[Joe]

I go out of my way to buy products with no HFCS (bread, ketchup, peanut butter, etc...). It's easy to find just harder on the wallet...

 

[teh_pwn]

Tax it more ? Hahahaha. American taxpayers subsidise the shit out of corn.

As a business you would be mad not to put HFCS in food you sell the public. You would also be mad to expect any business to phase out HFCS after reading that article.

I wouldn't be surprised if we taxed it. We taxed and subsidized tobacco for several decades.

 

[Bluecondor]

I await http://www.sweetsurprise.com 's rebuttal.

Wow - reading the articles and watching the videos on that site were eerie reminiscent of these ads:

http://www.chickenhead.com/truth/chesterfield1.html

This is my favorite - "scientific facts in support of smoking": :lol

"AND NOW - CHESTER- FIELD FIRST TO GIVE YOU SCIENTIFIC FACTS IN SUPPORT OF SMOKING."

Fun Small Print:
"A responsible consulting organization reports a study by a competent medical specialist and staff on the effects of smoking Chesterfields...

'It is my opinion that the ears, nose, throat and accessory organs of all participating subjects examined by me were not adversely affected in the six-months period by smoking the cigarettes provided."

 

[IrrelevantNotch]

Flawed study. Let's see somebody reproduce it before wetting our panties.

 

[Drkirby]

The study debunks the myth that HFCS aren't any worse than regular sugar

Not completely, because lab rats =/= human, but it is pretty darn damming.

I wonder why they didn't give anther group soda while they were at it. I know it adds more variables and is harder to test, but the results should of given some clue if the same thing happens when its in a food product vs pure, since as far as I can see, they gave them the HFCS straight up.

 

[Hitokage]

I'm fairly surprised by this finding, because, after all, the gaps between monosaccharide and disaccharide as well as 50% and 55% are not large. When I became aware of the 55-45 figure for HFCS I reevaluated my opinion on the subject and decided that HFCS was taking the blame when sucrose consumed in mass quantity would have been just as bad.

However, if they did their study well and others reproduce this, then perhaps those gaps are indeed big enough.

One thing that doesn't make sense.

Everytthing in the end is about calories. If u consume the same amount of calories in terms of sugar, and same amount of HFCR, and everything else remains the same, I just don't see how you can gain more weight.

Maybe your assumptions are wrong.

Yeah. Work = Force(weight) * distance

But what if net displacement is zero?

 

[SapientWolf]

Yall should watch "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" for more details. The thread is floating around here somewhere

Edit: Found it http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=380372

Fruit is awesome though. I'm not ever gonna stop eating/drinking it.

Flawed study. Let's see somebody reproduce it before wetting our panties.

HFCS has been getting a lot of flak for awhile. The results of this study shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

 

[Wads]

Fruit is awesome though. I'm not ever gonna stop eating/drinking it.


HFCS has been getting a lot of flak for awhile. The results of this study shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Just watched it recently and if I remember correctly, it doesn't suggest to stop eating fruit.

 

[IrrelevantNotch]

HFCS has been getting a lot of flak for awhile. The results of this study shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Flak from who? Idiot Greenpeacers? Friends of the Earth? The simple fact of the matter is that the chemical composition of HFCS versus sucrose or beat sugar is 99.9% identical. There's no reason to believe this study isn't flawed unless you have some odd personal bias against High Fructose Corn Syrup.

 

[thetrin]

HFCS is like the Sith of sweeteners. Blue Weber Agave is the Jedi Order.

Believe.

 

[Tideas]

heavy consumption of sugar, just as heavy consumption of HCFS, is just as bad for you. drink a 7 cans of soda, even with real sugar, along with a fatty diet, is still gonna make u gain weight.

 

[Pancakes]

Just watched it recently and if I remember correctly, it doesn't suggest to stop eating fruit.

Fruit is good for you however, some fruit drinks do contain alot of HFCS.

 

[Wads]

Flak from who? Idiot Greenpeacers? Friends of the Earth? The simple fact of the matter is that the chemical composition of HFCS versus sucrose or beat sugar is 99.9% identical. There's no reason to believe this study isn't flawed unless you have some odd personal bias against High Fructose Corn Syrup.

You should also watch Sugar: The Bitter Truth. HFCS maybe equally as bad as Sugar, but both are horrible. The difference between the two is that it's so cheap to make HFCS that they have put it in EVERYTHING and Americans eat way more of it.

 

[SnakeXs]

Tax it more ? Hahahaha. American taxpayers subsidise the shit out of corn.

As a business you would be mad not to put HFCS in food you sell the public. You would also be mad to expect any business to phase out HFCS after reading that article.

What I was telling a friend after posting in here:

8:48:16 PM SnakeXs: Does it make me a commie for hoping for a tax on HFCS?
8:48:26 PM SnakeXs: I mean it's ass backwards since it's from subsidized corn anyway... but still.