high fructose corn syrup vs "natural" sweet

[JJM]

There may be another thread in this subforum on this topic; but I cannot find it. There is an excellent article http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501 that compares high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) to a large number of "natural" sweeteners. Most such articles only point-out that HFCS is nutritionally indistinguishable from sucrose (commonly used cane, or beet, sugar).

[CurtC]

That is a good article. In my experience, people who demonize HFCS do so by equating HFCS with fructose. Fructose is bad (which is true), and the "HF" in "HFCS" stands for "high fructose" - end of story, right?

If the subject comes up in conversation, I guess the ten-second explanation is:

1. HFCS contains both glucose and fructose in about the same proportion as table sugar and honey (but it has way less fructose than agave sweetener). There is no reason to substitute any other sugar product for HFCS.

2. The real problem with HFCS is that it's cheap, so that manufacturers can add it to all kinds of foods you wouldn't normally expect to find added sweetener in.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by CurtC

2. The real problem with HFCS is that it's cheap, so that manufacturers can add it to all kinds of foods you wouldn't normally expect to find added sweetener in.

I was in the grocery store the other day and saw some "real sugar" versions of Pepsi products. My interpretation is that these are sucrose based, or at least moreso (no, they weren't the Mexican products - apparently it is a new product line). The amazing part, I thought, is that it was the same price as the regular stuff. I thought sugar was supposed to cost more?

Or maybe it is an introductory price, or something. I don't know.

[elgarak]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I was in the grocery store the other day and saw some "real sugar" versions of Pepsi products. My interpretation is that these are sucrose based, or at least moreso (no, they weren't the Mexican products - apparently it is a new product line). The amazing part, I thought, is that it was the same price as the regular stuff. I thought sugar was supposed to cost more?

Or maybe it is an introductory price, or something. I don't know.

In this case, normal sugar (sucrose, fructose and glucose covalently bound) is used instead of HFCS (essentially, fructose and glucose mixed, but not bound) as sweetener. The nutritional and health impact of that should not be changed much. Essentially, for us as consumer it doesn't matter -- they're both equally unhealthy.

The problem is that HFCS is used to 'cheapify' other food processes and ends up in processed products that are not sweet at all. I tried to find articles that explain 'traditional' food processes and how they are changed by introduction of HFCS, and couldn't. Anybody have some references?

One such process I think I read about a few years back was the 'simulation' of Maillard-processed goods (baked bread, fried potatoes, waffles etc.) by addition of HFCS and food coloring, which was a whole lot cheaper and simpler than the real process by reducing the amount of heating, number of heating/cooling cycles etc. The end result was a product that tastes and looks awfully similar than the real thing, but is chemically a great deal simpler, and presents a whole different metabolic problem to the human body.

[bokonon]

Originally Posted by CurtC

There is no reason to substitute any other sugar product for HFCS.

Sucralose is a sugar product, and one reason to use it instead of HFCS would be to consume fewer calories.

Glucose is a sugar product, and one reason to use it instead of HFCS would be to avoid the hyperlipidemia mentioned in the OP's article.

[Ysidro]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I was in the grocery store the other day and saw some "real sugar" versions of Pepsi products. My interpretation is that these are sucrose based, or at least moreso (no, they weren't the Mexican products - apparently it is a new product line). The amazing part, I thought, is that it was the same price as the regular stuff. I thought sugar was supposed to cost more?

Or maybe it is an introductory price, or something. I don't know.

Pepsi Throwback and Mountain Dew Throwback, right? It' a nostalgia thing they do once in awhile. It's only for five weeks, though I think this is the third time they've done it.

It's the same price because people would bitch if it were more expensive. It's done for a limited run and is pretty much just a marketing thing. The nostalgia brings good thoughts of their products and keeps the brand in people's minds.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by elgarak

In this case, normal sugar (sucrose, fructose and glucose covalently bound) is used instead of HFCS (essentially, fructose and glucose mixed, but not bound) as sweetener. The nutritional and health impact of that should not be changed much. Essentially, for us as consumer it doesn't matter -- they're both equally unhealthy.

The problem is that HFCS is used to 'cheapify' other food processes and ends up in processed products that are not sweet at all. I tried to find articles that explain 'traditional' food processes and how they are changed by introduction of HFCS, and couldn't. Anybody have some references?

One such process I think I read about a few years back was the 'simulation' of Maillard-processed goods (baked bread, fried potatoes, waffles etc.) by addition of HFCS and food coloring, which was a whole lot cheaper and simpler than the real process by reducing the amount of heating, number of heating/cooling cycles etc. The end result was a product that tastes and looks awfully similar than the real thing, but is chemically a great deal simpler, and presents a whole different metabolic problem to the human body.

Boy did you miss the point of my post.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Ysidro

Pepsi Throwback and Mountain Dew Throwback, right?

YES! That's what it was. They were big on advertising that it was regular sugar, though.

Quote:

It's the same price because people would bitch if it were more expensive. It's done for a limited run and is pretty much just a marketing thing. The nostalgia brings good thoughts of their products and keeps the brand in people's minds.

Does it taste any different? I was almost tempted to buy some and do a taste test (although my Mountain Dew days are behind me, for the most part)

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by CurtC

1. HFCS contains both glucose and fructose in about the same proportion as table sugar and honey (but it has way less fructose than agave sweetener). There is no reason to substitute any other sugar product for HFCS.

The problem with this argument is that it's misleading.

If I gave you pure sodium and chlorine in about the same proportion and amount that you find them in a can of Pringles, I'd kill you. A mixture of glucose and fructose is not the same thing as sucrose, which is a compound of those two molecules.

And you can tell that they're not the same because the sweetness level is different. The reason people want to use HFCS in the first place is because it's sweeter than table sugar. But that means that the body does not respond to the glucose/fructose mixture the same way it does to sucrose.

And in particular, my understanding is that the satiation response is also different; you don't get "full" or "satisfied" as fast on things sweetened with HFCS. Perhaps not by coincidence, we've been seeing the rise of the "super-size me" culture during the same period we've been seeing the rise of the use of HFCS. I don't know where you would go for 6.5 ounce bottles of cola today; the "standard" sized bottle is now 20 oz, more than three times as much, which means that it's got three times the calories and is three times as unhealthy. Similarly, look at the rise of "king-size" candy bars.

We know that HFCS is less "filling" than sucrose; we also know that people are now consuming HFCS-laden junk food in much larger quantities than sucrose-laden ones. I know that I personally find a single high-quality (sucrose) chocolate from one of the high-end European candy makers to be much more satiating than an entire Hershey bar. I find it difficult to imagine that there is no connection.

[elgarak]

Originally Posted by drkitten

The problem with this argument is that it's misleading.

If I gave you pure sodium and chlorine in about the same proportion and amount that you find them in a can of Pringles, I'd kill you. A mixture of glucose and fructose is not the same thing as sucrose, which is a compound of those two molecules.

As has been pointed out in the article posted in the OP, humans generally only absorb monosaccharides, that is, glucose and fructose. Sucrose gets broken down in the digestives tract before the sugars enter the bloodstream. As far as the blood levels are concerned, HFCS and sucrose behave the same.

Quote:

And you can tell that they're not the same because the sweetness level is different. The reason people want to use HFCS in the first place is because it's sweeter than table sugar. But that means that the body does not respond to the glucose/fructose mixture the same way it does to sucrose.

The thing here is that we're talking about processed food products, not the pure ingredient. Again, as the original article states, products with HFCS can have the same sweetness level as the same product made with sugar, by using less HFCS compared to sugar, reducing the calories, making the production cheaper even if HFCS and sugar would cost the same.

Quote:

And in particular, my understanding is that the satiation response is also different; you don't get "full" or "satisfied" as fast on things sweetened with HFCS. Perhaps not by coincidence, we've been seeing the rise of the "super-size me" culture during the same period we've been seeing the rise of the use of HFCS. I don't know where you would go for 6.5 ounce bottles of cola today; the "standard" sized bottle is now 20 oz, more than three times as much, which means that it's got three times the calories and is three times as unhealthy. Similarly, look at the rise of "king-size" candy bars.

Do you have references for that? I tried to find some, but lack the time.

Quote:

We know that HFCS is less "filling" than sucrose; we also know that people are now consuming HFCS-laden junk food in much larger quantities than sucrose-laden ones. I know that I personally find a single high-quality (sucrose) chocolate from one of the high-end European candy makers to be much more satiating than an entire Hershey bar. I find it difficult to imagine that there is no connection.

Comparing Hershey chocolate and good European chocolate is difficult, because they are much more different than just replacing sucrose with HFCS. Hershey's is made with a much simpler and cheaper process, which results in a product of much inferior quality, in my opinion and that of European chocolate makers.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by elgarak

Do you have references for that? I tried to find some, but lack the time.

Here's one I found in a quick google search.

Quote:

[F]ructose's unique metabolism, mainly through energy balance regulatory hormones, has been suggested as a possible mechanism to explain temporal trends in HFCS consumption and obesity (16). Fructose, unlike glucose, does not stimulate insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells (25). Insulin may be a key element in the chain of events that leads to increased satiety with the ingestion of most carbohydrates (37). As a result of high blood glucose, increased circulating insulin can amplify satiety through actions within the central nervous system (37-41) or by stimulating leptin secretion (42). Whereas insulin is secreted in acute response to meals, leptin stimulation is delayed for several hours (43, 44).

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by elgarak

Do you have references for that? I tried to find some, but lack the time.

Could that be due to the fact that, in order to get as much sweetness in the product, that you need to use more sugar, and hence you have MORE carbs and, consequently, more calories for the same product?

More carbs = more filling?

If you tried to match the sweetness by using maltose, for example, it would take a lot of sugar, and it'd be pretty filling.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Here's one I found in a quick google search.

The problem is that, as has been pointed out, in terms of what gets absorbed, there is little difference between HFCS and sucrose.

Yes, there are different taste receptors on the tongue that are accessed, but in terms of what is digested and absorbed, sucrose is hydrolyzed (whether it is enzymatic or via acid catalysis in the stomach it is not clear to me) to the monosaccharides. Once hydrolyzed, it is basically the equivalent of HFCS50

So finding papers about the problems of fructose miss the point of the SBM article - HFCS is not uniquely fructose. All sweeteners behave like a combination of glucose and fructose.

(your sodium chloride analogy doesn't quite work because NaCl is not matabolized by first converting it to Na and Cl2; even though sucrose is not a mixture of fructose and glucose, it behaves that way, and gets absorbed that way in the body)

[elgarak]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Here's one I found in a quick google search.

All true, but does not seem to address the point you're trying to make. Sucrose is 50% fructose, and enters the bloodstream as 50% fructose (as it gets broken down in the stomach and the small intestine, healthy digestive system provided). Most used sugar replacement HFCS, for instance in sodas, is HFCS 55, with 55% fructose. That's not that much different from sucrose, and shouldn't be too much different as far as metabolism is concerned.

As such, your claim that HFCS produces a 'less filling' experience compared to sucrose should involve a process BEFORE the sucrose is broken down. That is, for instance, a study that compares how the taste experience influences the metabolism response. I seem to recall claims that tasting sucrose would stimulate Insulin production, whereas tasting HFCS (or monosaccharides) would not, or less so, changing the metabolic response of the body.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

The problem is that, as has been pointed out, in terms of what gets absorbed, there is little difference between HFCS and sucrose.

Not relevant.

We're not concerned about absorption. We're concerned about satiation.

If you eat twice as much, twice as much will be absorbed. This means you will get fatter.

Quote:

Yes, there are different taste receptors on the tongue that are accessed, but in terms of what is digested and absorbed, sucrose is hydrolyzed (whether it is enzymatic or via acid catalysis in the stomach it is not clear to me) to the monosaccharides. Once hydrolyzed, it is basically the equivalent of HFCS50

Not relevant. We're not discussing absorption.

Quote:

So finding papers about the problems of fructose miss the point of the SBM article - HFCS is not uniquely fructose. All sweeteners behave like a combination of glucose and fructose.

Except they don't. If they did, all sweeteners would be identically sweet.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Except they don't. If they did, all sweeteners would be identically sweet.

Not in the bloody least.

Sweetness is determined by the interaction of the substance with taste receptors on the tongue. While there is some digestion that takes place in the mouth, sucrose is not broken down there.

Nutritional quality, meanwhile, is determined by what is absorbed, and has nothing to do with taste buds.

[caniswalensis]

I have heard it said recently that consuming HFCS can lead to drepression. Does anyone have any information on that?

[CurtC]

drkitten, the things you're saying are what I was talking about upthread - citing facts about fructose and equating those with HFCS. But the point is that both table sugar and HFCS contain both fructose and glucose, and in approximately the same amounts.

And like elgarak said, since the very first thing your body does with sucrose is to break it down into fructose and glucose, it doesn't really matter that sucrose gets eaten as a disaccharide. It's completely different from your sodium and chlorine example.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Not in the bloody least.

I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong if you labored for days in a Wrong mine.

To quote you:

Quote:

All sweeteners behave like a combination of glucose and fructose.

Quote:

Sweetness is determined by the interaction of the substance with taste receptors on the tongue. While there is some digestion that takes place in the mouth, sucrose is not broken down there.

That "interaction" is part of the "behavior" of the sweetener. Sweeteners that aren't sucrose and don't interact the way sucrose does don't behave as sucrose does, even if they're eventually broken down into the same components. For that matter, some sweeteners that interact the way sucrose does with the tongue aren't broken down the same way -- e.g. L-sucrose, which is essentially non-caloric.

Quote:

Nutritional quality, meanwhile, is determined by what is absorbed, and has nothing to do with taste buds.

But we're not talking about nutritional quality. We're talking about satiation response, which is not solely (or even necessarily mostly) controlled by nutritional quality. Taste is one aspect of satiation -- you can eat yourself sick on L-sucrose (if you can afford it) without gaining weight. Of course, there are other aspects than just taste that contribute to satiation, and it would take much more L-sucrose than D-sucrose to produce satiation because you wouldn't be getting (e.g.) the blood glucose response you normally associate with sugar.

But some of the aspects of satiation happen in the mouth before sucrose is hydrologized, and those aspects are missing with an HFCS-like mixture of sugars.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by CurtC

drkitten, the things you're saying are what I was talking about upthread - citing facts about fructose and equating those with HFCS. But the point is that both table sugar and HFCS contain both fructose and glucose, and in approximately the same amounts.

Exactly. And you were wrong. Because a mixture is different than a compound.

Quote:

And like elgarak said, since the very first thing your body does with sucrose is to break it down into fructose and glucose,

No. The very first thing your body does with sucrose is to taste it. Which is why sucrose tastes different than a fructose-glucose mix. And taste is a key component in satiation response.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by drkitten

That "interaction" is part of the "behavior" of the sweetener. Sweeteners that aren't sucrose and don't interact the way sucrose does don't behave as sucrose does, even if they're eventually broken down into the same components. For that matter, some sweeteners that interact the way sucrose does with the tongue aren't broken down the same way -- e.g. L-sucrose, which is essentially non-caloric.

Since tastebud receptors are chiral, that means that L-sucrose isn't going to interact with the tongue in the same way that D-sucrose does.

L-sucrose is indeed non-caloric and it is also not the same sweetness as D-sucrose

It doesn't interact with the tongue in the same way, and it doesn't break down to the same products (L is not D). So what's the point again?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by CurtC

And like elgarak said, since the very first thing your body does with sucrose is to break it down into fructose and glucose, it doesn't really matter that sucrose gets eaten as a disaccharide.

Further to this.

Sucrose hydrolysis typically happens in the stomach. While saliva contains amlyase (that is used to break down starches), the end result of this is to produce lots and lots of maltose. Monosaccharides are not typically produced until you get to the stomach (not surprising as you need a highly acid reaction environment to do this right).

So if you eat sucrose, you taste sucrose, and your stomach gets a lot of disaccharides delivered to it, which are then broken down into simple monosaccharides and passed to the intestines. If you eat a mixture of monosaccharides, you taste a mixture of monosaccharides which don't need to be broken down before being passed to the intestines.

There are therefore at least two significant differences in biological response between sucrose and its HFCS equivalent -- taste, and timing. Since HFCS doesn't need to be broken down, it is absorbed more quickly, which means that the body has less time to develop an appropriate satiation response. The taste issue has already been discussed -- I just point out that the role of taste in triggering biological responses such as insulin production is well-documented.

So the claim that HFCS is equivalent to sucrose is simply false. Yes, it's nutritively equivalent, but the bioresponse is substantially different. This is an area of active research and we don't yet know all the differences.... but to claim that there are no differences is ludicrous.

[elgarak]

Originally Posted by drkitten

So the claim that HFCS is equivalent to sucrose is simply false. Yes, it's nutritively equivalent, but the bioresponse is substantially different. This is an area of active research and we don't yet know all the differences.... but to claim that there are no differences is ludicrous.

This study seems to suggest otherwise, at least for short-term responses. Blood levels were tested over a day for a group of people who either got sucrose sweetened drinks, or HFCS sweetened drinks. The bioresponse were concluded to be identical (as opposed to earlier experiments with pure fructose and pure glucose, which do produce measurable different bioresponses). Which makes sense, really. HFCS sweetener is awfully similar in fructose content to sucrose, and the drinks are composed to taste similar and have similar sweetness. Hence supporting the claim by CurtC that replacing sucrose with HFCS 55 for sweetening purposes does not matter much.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by elgarak

This study seems to suggest otherwise, at least for short-term responses. Blood levels were tested over a day for a group of people who either got sucrose sweetened drinks, or HFCS sweetened drinks. The bioresponse were concluded to be identical (as opposed to earlier experiments with pure fructose and pure glucose, which do produce measurable different bioresponses).

I'm sorry. I think I missed the part of that study that measures satiation instead of biouptake.

In other words, irrelevant study, irrelevant measurements, irrelevant conclusion.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by drkitten

The problem with this argument is that it's misleading.

If I gave you pure sodium and chlorine in about the same proportion and amount that you find them in a can of Pringles, I'd kill you. A mixture of glucose and fructose is not the same thing as sucrose, which is a compound of those two molecules. ...

Your analogy could not be more wrong. I used to teach a course "Chemistry 101" and I am sure the textbooks still exist. An important part of graduate (PhD) education drkitten is not holding forth on topics of which one is ignorant.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by JJM

Your analogy could not be more wrong.

My analogy, which illustrates the fact that a compound is different than a mixture, "could not be more wrong?"

I'm sorry. If you feel that compounds are identical to mixtures, or that the difference between a mixture of two poisonous elements and the relatively harmless compound that results when you combine the two is a clear way to illustrate how radically they can differ,... well, all I can say is your chemistry class must not have been very well-taught.

Quote:

An important part of graduate (PhD) education drkitten is not holding forth on topics of which one is ignorant.

Absolutely. So which part of "a mixture of fructose and glucose has different properties from a compound made from fructose and glucose" are you suggesting I'm ignorant of?

I stand by my statements.

1. A mixture is different than a compound.
2. A mixture of elemental sodium and elemental chlorine is different from the compound sodium chloride.
3. A mixture of fructose and glucose is different from a compound of fructose and glucose.
4. The human body is [i]known[i/] to respond differently to a mixture of fructose and glucose than it does to sucrose (the compound). [Not only is taste itself a bioresponse, but taste also contributes to other responses such as insulin levels.]
5. GIven that they are known to be different both in composition and in bioresponse, it is ridiculous to claim they're the same.
6. A key area where a difference is suspected is in the satiation bioresponse. Nothing posted on this thread or anywhere else I've found controverts this.

Nothing in that list above indicates ignorance on my part.

[Ysidro]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

YES! That's what it was. They were big on advertising that it was regular sugar, though.

Well, yes. That's the whole point. It's sort of an "original recipe" thing.

Quote:

Does it taste any different? I was almost tempted to buy some and do a taste test (although my Mountain Dew days are behind me, for the most part)

Indeed it does. I found it much sweeter than current Pepsi, which I already find rather sweet. Although a good bit of that may be because I've transitioned to the "non-diet" zero calorie versions of Coke and Pepsi and have adjusted my taste buds.

It was interesting, that's for sure. And rather nostalgic. Too bad they weren't glass bottles. I'm just old enough to remember them and taking them to the grocery store with mom where we'd place them on a little conveyer belt in the back of the store.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by drkitten

My analogy, which illustrates the fact that a compound is different than a mixture, "could not be more wrong?" ...

Okay, I concede you could have been more wrong. It remains true that sucrose and HFCS are nutritionally equivalent; whereas sodium chloride and its component elements are not.

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by Ysidro

Well, yes. That's the whole point. It's sort of an "original recipe" thing.

Indeed it does. I found it much sweeter than current Pepsi, which I already find rather sweet. Although a good bit of that may be because I've transitioned to the "non-diet" zero calorie versions of Coke and Pepsi and have adjusted my taste buds.

My understanding from friends is that the Mt Dew Throwback has a very different taste from the current one , due to other changes in the formula besides just the HFCS. They describe it as having a much more distinctive citrus flavoring. Due to diabetes, I have not sampled these myself, unfortunately.

[caniswalensis]

I have tried the Mountain Dew Throwback and enjoyed it.

I found the flavor to be about the same, perhaps slightly sweeter. To me, the big difference seemed to be in the texture. The throwback has a "smoother" feel on your tongue, almost like a very thin syrup, if that makes any sense. This as compared to the current formula, which I would describe as "crisp." or feeling more like carbonated water, with a little bite on your tongue.

I do not think this difference comes from an actual difference in viscosity, but that is just a guess.

Regrads, Canis

[Resume]

Originally Posted by caniswalensis

I have tried the Mountain Dew Throwback and enjoyed it.

I found the flavor to be about the same, perhaps slightly sweeter. To me, the big difference seemed to be in the texture. The throwback has a "smoother" feel on your tongue, almost like a very thin syrup, if that makes any sense. This as compared to the current formula, which I would describe as "crisp." or feeling more like carbonated water, with a little bite on your tongue.

I do not think this difference comes from an actual difference in viscosity, but that is just a guess.

Regrads, Canis

I did the Pepsi and found my reaction similar to yours. Of course it could just be in my head.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by JJM

Okay, I concede you could have been more wrong. It remains true that sucrose and HFCS are nutritionally equivalent;

True but irrelevant, because we're not talking about nutritional equivalence.

It remains true that elemental sodium and elemental chlorine have the same weight as NaCL (a property that sucrose shares with an appropriate fructose/glucose mixture) -- but that's not relevant either, because we're not talking about weight.

I'm talking about bioresponse generally, and a specific bioresponse in particular -- satiation.

Listing all of the other properties that HFCS shares with sucrose -- did you know they both have a "c" but no "j" in their name, too?(*) -- is not relevant.

(*) Also a property shared by sodium chloride as well as a mixture of elemental sodium and elemental chlorine.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by drkitten

We know that HFCS is less "filling" than sucrose; we also know that people are now consuming HFCS-laden junk food in much larger quantities than sucrose-laden ones. I know that I personally find a single high-quality (sucrose) chocolate from one of the high-end European candy makers to be much more satiating than an entire Hershey bar. I find it difficult to imagine that there is no connection.

Hershey's chocolate is made with sucrose. Higher quality chocolate tends to have more cocoa and less fat, I would expect it to be less filling than Hershey's rather than more.

[Augustine]

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/86/6/1586

No differences in satiety or energy intake after high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, or milk preloads (AJCN, Vol 86, No. 6, 1586-1594, Dec 2007)

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Augustine

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/86/6/1586

No differences in satiety or energy intake after high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, or milk preloads (AJCN, Vol 86, No. 6, 1586-1594, Dec 2007)

Unfortunately, your own paper proves there to be a difference in satiation response (although interestingly it appears to be sex-mediated):

Quote:

Men had a significantly greater reduction in hunger after the preload containing HFCS than after the preload containing sucrose at the 50-min time point (–8 ± 14 compared with –17 ± 15 mm VAS, respectively; P < 0.05), whereas women showed the opposite. Women had a significantly greater reduction in hunger ratings at the 50-, 80-, and 110-min time points, with the maximal difference occurring 50 min (–24 ± 18 compared with –7 ± 19 mm VAS; P < 0.05) after consumption of the preload containing sucrose compared with the preload containing HFCS.

So an hour after drinking an HFCS-sweetened soda (or eating an HFCS-sweetened granola bar, although the study didn't test this directly), you feel (more) hungry, so you're more likely to go get a (nutritionally unnecessary) snack. Increased snacking behavior leads to weight gain.

Game, set, match.

I'm rather surprised the editors didn't catch this one.

[Augustine]

Originally Posted by drkitten

So an hour after drinking an HFCS-sweetened soda (or eating an HFCS-sweetened granola bar, although the study didn't test this directly), you feel (more) hungry, so you're more likely to go get a (nutritionally unnecessary) snack. Increased snacking behavior leads to weight gain.

Not if you're a man, apparently.

Also, the change in energy consumption for women between HFCS and sucrose preloads was a whopping 32 calories. So perhaps over 100 or so meals, we might see a one pound difference in fat gain.

Originally Posted by drkitten

Game, set, match.

If more people played tennis rather than posted on the internet, they might not have to worry about whether their obesity was caused by HFCS or sucrose.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Augustine

Also, the change in energy consumption for women between HFCS and sucrose preloads was a whopping 32 calories. So perhaps over 100 or so meals, we might see a one pound difference in fat gain.

Look again at the structure of the study.

It shows that there's a significant (albeit sex-mediated) difference in how hungry people are after eating HFCS-sweetened vs. sucrose-sweetened snack/pre-loads. It also shows that when forced to consume "real" food (granola), people will consume about the same amount of food irrespective of sweetener in the pre-load, but doesn't say anything about whether they would consume additional food when left to their own devices, or about whether they would consume the same amount of HFCS-sweetened granola as sucrose-sweetened granola.

What this study provides is clear-cut evidence that HFCS-sweetened food doesn't stave off feelings of hunger as well as sucrose-sweetened food (for women, at least). Since snacking behavior -- feeling hungry between meals -- is well-established as a major cause of obesity, and this is clear evidence suggesting a link between HFCS food and snacking, I don't see how you can claim this as anything other than a testimonial to the idea that HFCS can have a very significant impact on making people fat.

Quote:

If more people played tennis rather than posted on the internet, they might not have to worry about whether their obesity was caused by HFCS or sucrose.

Absolutely. But it's rather difficult to fit a tennis court into my office, and students tend not to like it when I can only answer their questions between serves.

[Augustine]

Originally Posted by drkitten

and this is clear evidence suggesting a link between HFCS food and snacking, I don't see how you can claim this as anything other than a testimonial to the idea that HFCS can have a very significant impact on making people fat.

I would advise you to read deeper into the study you already linked. You seem to have stopped reading at the section entitled "Fructose, Energy Intake, and Energy Balance Regulation". Continue and read the sections "High Fructose Corn Syrup, Energy Intake, and Body Weight: Short Term Studies" and "Conclusions".

Very significant impact? Really? 32 calories? "Making" people fat?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Augustine

I would advise you to read deeper into the study you already linked.

I would advise you to read deeper into the criticisms of the various studies I've already made on this thread. It makes you look less credible when you misrepresent my arguments. And since you're the only HFCS-shill on this thread with any credibility (at least you seem to understand the differences between satiation and nutrition), that's not a step I would advise you to take.


Specifically, from the study I cited that you apparently didn't read: "However, these studies do not determine whether HFCS may be more of a factor in weight gain than other caloric sweeteners, nor do they specifically address the implications of total dietary HFCS from all sources on energy intake and body weight."

And, "insufficient scientific evidence currently exists to indicate that HFCS disrupts short-term energy balance signals or increases short-term appetite and energy intake more than do other tested sweeteners. [This is not entirely true; the article you found is a counterexample. -drk.]The metabolic and endocrine responses that have been measured to date are similar between HFCS and sucrose, the sweetener HFCS has largely replaced in the US diet. Additional work should be performed to see whether these results extend to other metabolic and endocrine responses. In addition, longer-term investigations of the effect of HFCS on energy balance regulatory systems are needed to further understand the role of this sweetener in body weight regulation."

[Augustine]

Originally Posted by drkitten

I would advise you to read deeper into the criticisms of the various studies I've already made on this thread. It makes you look less credible when you misrepresent my arguments. And since you're the only HFCS-shill on this thread with any credibility (at least you seem to understand the differences between satiation and nutrition), that's not a step I would advise you to take.


Specifically, from the study I cited that you apparently didn't read: "However, these studies do not determine whether HFCS may be more of a factor in weight gain than other caloric sweeteners, nor do they specifically address the implications of total dietary HFCS from all sources on energy intake and body weight."

And, "insufficient scientific evidence currently exists to indicate that HFCS disrupts short-term energy balance signals or increases short-term appetite and energy intake more than do other tested sweeteners. [This is not entirely true; the article you found is a counterexample. -drk.]The metabolic and endocrine responses that have been measured to date are similar between HFCS and sucrose, the sweetener HFCS has largely replaced in the US diet. Additional work should be performed to see whether these results extend to other metabolic and endocrine responses. In addition, longer-term investigations of the effect of HFCS on energy balance regulatory systems are needed to further understand the role of this sweetener in body weight regulation."

HFCS-shill???

Talk about misrepresenting arguments.

I do not think those quotes support your arguments like you think they do.

Regardless, satiety is irrelevant, at least in the context of sweetened beverages. If you look at the study, the noncaloric-sweetened beverage had the least satiety and the largest ad libitum feeding, but the total caloric consumption (feeding + beverage) was the lowest. In effect, the participants could not overeat enough to compensate for the liquid calories consumed by the other groups. In that regard, it is irrelevant if the sweetened beverage is sweetened with sucrose or HFCS; the larger issue is the volume of consumption of sweetened beverages, whether sucrose or HFCS.

As far as HFCS and sucrose differences with respect to additives to solid food, I would point to several countries with very low consumption of HFCS relative to sucrose (Mexico, for example) that manage to nevertheless achieve remarkable levels of obesity. As well, I would highlight countries with consumption of HFCS relative to sucrose closer to the levels of the US (Japan) that still have lower incidence of obesity.

In the absence of a stronger case, it seems that much of your reasoning is based on your "imagining" or belief of differences between HFCS and sucrose and not actual research.

PS HFCS-55 is identical to sucrose in sweetness.