
High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010) - mhb
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
======
ck2
Stop giving out corn welfare to corporations and problem solved.

It's the ONLY reason why it's so heavily used.

Corn syrup and ethanol - two massively damaging products of a completely
corrupt system that everyone refuses to change because of massive profits off
taxpayers.

~~~
rmrfrmrf
Thanks for the laugh. You know you've reached the pinnacle of "first world
problems" when a phrase like _corrupt system_ , which has historically been
used to describe things like institutional discrimination and genocide, is now
used to describe the "horrors" of agricultural subsidies and tariffs. I'm
surprised that Amnesty International hasn't updated their corruption index
accordingly, which would surely put every sovereign nation's score in the
single digits.

~~~
deelowe
When high tariffs on the importation of sugar prevents countries from
developing their own agriculture industries, it's not just a first world
problem. It's BS like this that causes international tension, wars, and
famine. This situation isn't as superficial as it may seem on the surface.

------
panic
You can find the original paper at [http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-
content/uploads/HFCS_Rats_10....](http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-
content/uploads/HFCS_Rats_10.pdf).

The statistics are a bit confusing to me, but it looks like they only find a
significant difference for males over 8 weeks, not females over 7 months. The
"significant" difference for males seems pretty small given that the rats
started out weighing between 300 and 375 grams. And the conclusion doesn't
mention sucrose at all:

 _In summary, rats maintained on a diet rich in HFCS for 6 or 7 months show
abnormal weight gain, increased circulating TG and augmented fat deposition.
All of these factors indicate obesity. Thus, over-consumption of HFCS could
very well be a major factor in the “obesity epidemic,” which correlates with
the upsurge in the use of HFCS._

Does anyone know if these results have been replicated anywhere?

~~~
jwmerrill
The short study and the long study apparently disagree about whether 12hr or
24hr access to HFCS results in more weight gain. The 8 wk study shows 12hr
HFCS leading to much larger weight gain than any of the other groups, and 24hr
access not being significantly different from sucrose or chow alone. But then
reading the 8 wk number off the weight chart from the 6 month study shows 24hr
access being ahead of 12hr access.

You asked if these results have been replicated anywhere--it seems like the
beginning of their long study didn't even replicate their short study. This
makes me seriously skeptical about the differences they report between HFCS
and sucrose.

The only conclusion I would feel very comfortable drawing from this data is
that giving rats access to sugar water for 6 months makes them fatter (Fig.
1). Finer distinctions than that seem unwarranted.

~~~
cpncrunch
Agreed. The study is actually deceptive because they're drawing conclusions
that aren't supported by their own results. My conclusion: bad science.

------
buddylw
I don't understand the mechanism here. I thought sucrase, the enzyme that
breaks down sucrose (table sugar) into 1 fructose and 1 glucose (same as
HFCS), acted almost immediately -- at least on the timescale of nutrient
absorption. Is it just short circuiting our sense of satiety? Maybe the raw
fructose makes things sweeter and stimulates reward centers better?

I wonder where honey falls in all this since it has higher fructose than the
most common 55% fructose HFCS blends.

We seem to know so little about all of this, but I think it's safe to say that
both sugar and HFCS are bad in quantities that the common american is
accustomed.

I find it's best to just avoid sweet foods all together, but if forced to
choose I would take HFCS over artificial sweeteners any day of the week. Our
bodies have been dealing with glucose and fructose for a very long time --
even on evolutionary time scales. The same can't be said for Sucralos,
aspartame, or Acesulfame potassium.

Everything in the world is either overtly or subtly poisonous; the only
question is, at what dose?

~~~
MostAwesomeDude
You sound like you are a paid shill. I know that you aren't, which disappoints
me further, because I'd like to think that people are capable of educating
themselves instead of spreading misinformation.

On your first paragraph, pondering whether sucrose breaks down into fructose
and glucose immediately: No, it doesn't. HFCS makes sugars available to the
bloodstream sooner, causing larger swings in overall blood sugar levels.
Additionally, this study covers rats which were given strict diets; the idea
that HFCS made them fatter because they ate more food is not borne out based
on the experiment's premises.

Second paragraph: Irrelevant. Honey is not being discussed here. Additionally,
you contradict yourself by noting (correctly) that HFCS is not half-and-half
fructose and glucose, like sucrose.

Third paragraph: Inverted appeal to authority. You dismiss the information
that science makes available, and then put your own opinion up for offering as
if it is informed and accurate. You further confuse the issue by putting a
well-accepted opinion (the diets of the USA are overly rich in sugars) next to
a dismissal of this study.

Fourth paragraph: A delightful strawman, substituting artificial sweeteners
for table sugar.

Fifth: More ignorance of the general study of nutrition, with a sweeping
statement that is obviously true and yet completely uninformative.

Please go _read the article_ before commenting further.

~~~
buddylw
Wow. I think you severely miss-read my comment as some formal argument and you
are holding it to a much higher standard than your own comment.

Your first paragraph is an ad hominem attack that is subsequently withdrawn
adding nothing to the conversation.

I think you might have misread my questions for arguments. Questions have a
symbol at the end: '?'. Also, sentences starting "I thought" are not formal
arguments, but a highlight of the contrast between my past understanding and
the article.

Also, in order for me to make such a contrast, wouldn't I have to read the
article?

And just in case the attack at the beginning was serious, I would like to
point out that the questions at the beginning of my post proposed two
mechanisms whereby HFCS would be worse for you than sugar, which is what this
study's results imply. That's hardly something a 'paid shill' would do.

The only argument I made, if I made one at all, is that just because HFCS is
worse than sugar (as proposed by the article) doesn't mean that other
sweeteners are good for you. This is likely an important thing to remember for
all of those that will use this data when making decisions in their own lives.

~~~
reeses
I appreciate your asking the questions that a lot of people have when they
hear that HFCS is "evil".

Generally, if people have been taught that there is more than one kind of
sugar (yeah, I know), they learn about sucrose, glucose, and fructose, at
most.

The name 'fructose' doesn't help clarify this situation. We are told that we
(rightly) should eat more fruits and vegetables. But those juicy peaches and
other fruits and fruitish foods (berries, etc.) are sweet.

As a result, we make a very direct connection between fructose and fruit,
which is enough to create confusion about the HFCS messaging.[1] Points as
well for knowing that honey contains a boatload of fructose. Honey's also good
for us, or else they wouldn't point out that things are sweetened with honey
instead of 'refined' sugar, right?

As with many issues, there's a bathtub curve of understanding. The completely
ignorant and the very-slightly informed people are not confused. Nor are
people with a high level of understanding about the combination of chemistry
and human physiology.

It's that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" zone that has trouble. You
have a better than average understanding of the chemistry and the biological
processes, but are having trouble putting together the whole picture. How the
heck are you going to advise your kids on what to eat without laying down fiat
rules?

I think you were treated unfairly in the reply to your post but it does
contain some useful information. For the last laugh[2], I would suggest that
after you get the understanding you need on the issue, you write a
post/page/paper on the topic, targeting your current self as an audience.

Post it here knowing that HN is a culmination of people who are in the bottom
of that bathtub on just about every issue, with some awesome representation of
the "heavily informed". You'll help a lot of people and get some actionable
feedback.

Just filter out the emotion[3] and revise as needed and you'll have a citation
handy the next time this sort of thing comes up. Then you'll be that guy on
the right hand side of the curve and can have the last laugh by encouraging
education instead of discouraging the exposure of innocent ignorance.

[1] The Corn Growers' Association has created some biased but unintentionally
hilarious examples of pro-HFCS messaging.

[http://sweetsurprise.com](http://sweetsurprise.com)
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ-
ByUx552s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ-ByUx552s)

[2] and because I am lazy and want people to do things for me

[3] OMFG, he didn't talk about sucralose, galactose, maltose, and zymurlose!

------
ryeguy
Is there actually a published, peer-reviewed study available from this? This
just seems like an in-progress summary. Additionally, as another poster
commented, this is still correlative, not causative.

HFCS might be indirectly responsible for weight problems, but that's only
because of its prominence, low price, and calorie dense-ness. Not some voodoo
reason as this article states and as many believe.

Try this: [http://examine.com/faq/is-hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syrup-
wors...](http://examine.com/faq/is-hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syrup-worse-than-
sugar.html)

The experiment's conclusions don't make sense either. There are dozens and
dozens of studies showing ONLY net calorie intake is what is responsible for
weight gain or weight loss, not the contents of what they eat:
[http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-
loss.htm...](http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.html)

So for the study to refute the conclusions we have arrived at today would be
quite the breakthrough. Not to mention the whole part where it violates the
laws of thermodynamics.

Can anyone link to a study (not an article) showing HFCS causing more weight
gain in a calorie-controlled study that accounts for water weight and
(preferably) doesn't have the people count their own calories?

~~~
schoper
Your rapport with the great Goog is weak. The study:

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305710...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305710000614)

Reply by the Corn Refiners Association:

[http://www.corn.org/princeton-hfcs-study-
errors.html](http://www.corn.org/princeton-hfcs-study-errors.html)

Thermodynamics question: They were holding energy inputs constant in the
system. Stored energy was not constant. What third variable could have been
responsible for the difference? Rhymes with input.

~~~
ryeguy
Your second link is broken.

The study's conclusions are misleading. The total intake from food and the
sweetened water were not matched for calories. The only thing matched for
calories was the amount of sweetened water; rats were allowed to eat as much
food as they want. They then drew all of these conclusions that aren't
directly related to HFCS, but related to the fact that the rats were
overeating.

It's still an interesting conclusion, but really the only thing they concluded
was that rats consuming HFCS ate more food than rats consuming sugar. All of
the other negative effects cannot be pinned on HFCS.

------
Khelavaster
Where's the rampant fact-checking and criticism of major dietary studies I
usually see on HN? Could this have anything to do with bias against high-
fructose corn syrup, which is chemically almost identical to honey?

The LA Times reported on the study in depth, and there are some serious
deficiencies.

> "After eight weeks, three groups of rats weighed essentially the same – the
> chow-only rats (462 grams on average), the 24-hour HFCS rats (470 grams) and
> the sugar-water rats (477 grams). But the rats that were able to drink the
> HFCS solution for 12 hours each day weighed in at an average of 502 grams, a
> difference that was deemed statistically significant."

> "Complicating things further, the researchers cite a related study of female
> rats that found no difference in weight gain between animals that consumed
> HFCS or sugar over an eight-week period."

>"the researchers found that rats allowed to drink the HFCS solution gained
more weight over six months than rats with no access to a sweetened beverage.
The difference was dramatic: rats with 24-hour access to HFCS gained 27% more
weight than the rats stuck with chow only. But the researchers didn’t include
a third group of rats with access to sugar, so it’s impossible to say whether
HFCS was worse than regular sugar."*

>"The researchers remedied this problem in a third experiment involving female
rats. Over a seven-month period, rats that were able to drink sugar water for
12 hours a day gained 183% of their body weight – the exact same amountas rats
who could drink HFCS solution for 12 hours a day. However, female rats with
24-hour access to HFCS boosted their body weight by 200%. It’s not clear why
high-fructose corn syrup was more fattening over an eight-week period when it
was available for 12 hours of the day (but not 24), yet the opposite was true
when the experiment lasted for seven months."

This is what happens when reporters don't understand what they're writing
about.

*"(Why didn’t they test the long-term effects of sugar? The researchers said it wasn’t necessary because sugar consumption didn’t affect body weight in their first experiment. True, but neither did HFCS when made available for 24 hours a day, and they did test that.)"

[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/03/high-f...](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/03/high-
fructose-corn-syrup-hfcs-sugar-princeton-study.html)

~~~
cpncrunch
People just like to have a scapegoat for their health problems: MSG, gluten,
GMO, etc. Better to blame the big bad corporation for making you fat than the
fact that you like to eat lots of sugary shit and don't do any exercise.

~~~
cpncrunch
Downvote LOL.

------
mattzito
I would just like to point out that the photo in the article is the most
staged "watch science happen!" photo I've seen in a long time.

------
grannyg00se
"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"

The whole thing is one big correlation confirmation. I was hoping to find
something substantial that would explain the underlying cause.

~~~
tomphoolery
I'm no expert on this, but it seems like they were studying the problem in the
wrong way.

Instead of considering HFCS as a food, and measuring how it works on your
body, why not consider HFCS as a drug, and measure how it works on your brain?
I think the HFCS->obesity issue has a lot more to do with the way sugar
affects our brains.

I think HFCS is detrimental to human survival because it has encouraged us to
get all of our happiness from food, leading to overeating and eating to "feel
better" (it never happens) in some portions of the population. Thus, we are at
this obesity issue, which is really a happiness issue. From my own personal
experience: When you believe in yourself and you _want_ to change, obesity
becomes less and less of a problem because you are motivated to work out, eat
better and generally take care of yourself. But the fact remains that you once
ingested a drug to feel happy which also made you fat. Now you are eating food
the way you're supposed to and not really getting that happiness that was once
supplied by the sugary foods you were eating. You must use other drugs, like
meditation or even alcohol/marijuana, to supplant this "completeness" feeling
that you are missing from the lack of sugary foods.

Eventually, your body will give up the tolerance to sugary foods and you'll
find yourself drinking sodas and eating dessert much less than you used to.
Now, the general level of HFCS in all of our foods is no longer affecting your
body weight and the way you feel about yourself.

I don't want to sound like a commercial here, but in the last 2-3 years I've
been very much aware of my sugar-rich diet and began to slowly wean myself off
of the addiction, and I can happily say that I've gone from a size 40 to a
size 36 waist and lost over 20 pounds in the last year alone by simply being
aware of how sugar affects your mind AND body, getting more exercise, and
eating smaller portions of healthier food.

~~~
greenyoda
" _Instead of considering HFCS as a food, and measuring how it works on your
body, why not consider HFCS as a drug, and measure how it works on your
brain?_ "

That does seem to be the major focus of this lab: Bart Hoebel is a psychology
professor "who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar
addiction".

~~~
tomphoolery
You're right, this was just research and wasn't attempting to explain the
"why", just the "what happens".

------
cpncrunch
Actually, all this proves is that some people on HN are idiots who can't be
bothered to read the actual study. Remove the last two words of your title and
your post would be technically correct (i.e the same title as the news
article).

Male rats fed HFCS did have more weight gain than rats fed only chow. However
there was no difference between rats fed HFCS and rats fed sucrose over the
long-term. Please actually read the study and look at Table 1.

------
wdewind
> 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.

I have my suspicions about HFCS, but what's not clear from the way this was
written, and I suspect is the kicker here, is the _access to_ line. Is it the
same calorically balanced diet PLUS sucrose water or HFCS water, or is it the
same calorically balanced diet INCLUDING sucrose water or HFCS water. The
difference between the two of those is massive, and I would bet it's the
former not the latter.

------
pkulak
Wow, this blows my mind just a little bit. Especially since I've been wrong
about this for so long even though this study has been out for years. I always
thought that table sugar and HFCS were the same. 50/50 glucose to fructose
(about). But then there's this:

"...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."

So with HFCS you're just free-basing fructose? Amazing. Maybe I have to stop
making fun of this trend toward "NO HFCS! PURE CAN SUGAR!" that I've been
writing off as nonsense until now...

~~~
Terretta
Encourage your supermarket to carry Pepsi Throwback alongside their real
Pepsi.

~~~
cmpxchg8
Or you could just drink water which is way healthier.

~~~
Terretta
You could, except that water doesn't provide caffeine and real sugar, so
presumably one is having a cola for its energy boost rather than its health.

------
swamp40
I can't believe the smartest people on the planet here are arguing about this.

HFCS is cheaper than sugar because of the tariffs, but it is an equivalent
substitute. No better, no worse.

Americans are getting fatter these days because the food industry (McDonald's
as well as prepackaged foods) can make desirable, filling foods for a dollar
or two.

If they needed to use sugar instead of HFCS, it would be about 10 cents more
per dollar - big deal.

People _like_ corn dogs and cake - it tastes good. So businesses have mass
produced it enough to make it affordable to everyone.

The potatoes and beans of yesterday are cheap as well, but nobody wants them.
_That 's_ why people are gaining weight.

Absolutely nothing to do with HFCS vs sugar - the food designers can use
either one with the same effect.

~~~
paul_f
It is carbohydrates and "low fat" diets making people obese. The only think
unhealthy in a bacon cheeseburger is the bun.

Until we can kill this "low fat" nonsense, people will continue to get fatter.

~~~
corresation
The low-fat/high-fat argument is entirely dominated by pseudo-science.

Eat less. Be more active. Period.

------
mchusma
I try to beat on this drum whenever I see people jump to conclusions, in
studies, on the media, or on Hacker News, based off one study. The possibility
for one study to be screwed up is so enormously high nobody should ever take
one at face value.

To date, most studies that review the concept of "some foods make you fatter
than others" vs "calories in vs calories out" consistently weigh in favor of
"calories in vs calories out".

I always find www.sciencebasedmedicine.org to be a great resource for this.
Also, the podcast Skeptics Guide to the Universe is really fun, and they talk
about things like this all the time.

------
nnutter
I haven't looked yet but I would like to see experiments that look at how
varying amounts of HFCS cause extra weight. It could be that even a small
amount (over time or not) damages something and then causes weight gain or it
could just be that they have more accessible calories.

I'd also like to see an experiment about the reversibility of the weight loss.
If you get them fat on HFCS and then switch to regular sucrose do they end up
looking like the rats that had sucrose the whole time.

------
phy6
We did a little human testing on our fraternal twin infants. The slightly
smaller of the two was fed formula which had HFCS as an ingredient, the other
was fed formula not containing HFCS as the sweetener. Our smaller son quickly
gained more weight and started to outweigh his brother by a pound. The
(initially) smaller twin still outweighs his brother. They are now ~21 lbs and
19 lbs respectively @11mo

~~~
driverdan
Anecdote. There could have been other differences between the formulas, the
children could have varied in weight naturally, or there could be other
factors you didn't control for.

------
lbcadden3
High-fructose corn syrup and ethanol, with increasing push back against farm
subsidies due to tax payers and trade agreements, these are the loopholes
used.

I was recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the single biggest change I
have made is avoiding products with hfcs, going very well and lost 30 pounds.

------
geekam
I have always hated the campaign by CRA for HFCS like this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ-
ByUx552s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ-ByUx552s)

------
ianqueue
Not to mention it's GMO corn being used! You might as well poke holes in the
lining of your stomach.

~~~
reeses
If we take selective breeding, inbreeding, and hybridization into account,
corn (maize) is one of the most genetically manipulated foods on the planet.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/25creature.html?_r...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/25creature.html?_r=0)

