

Researchers find high-fructose corn syrup prompts more weight gain vs sugar - chaostheory
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

======
krav
High-fructose corn syrup is poison, period. Weight gain is minor, bring on the
diabeties, heart disease, inflammatory issues. The list goes on and on.

Simple solution is to let market prices dictate cost of sugar, rather than
corn subsidies. We're subsidizing one of the greatest health risks of the last
and current generation.

~~~
patrickgzill
You are right, the US sugar producers are protected - they buy off both Dems
and Republicans.

One family is the Fanjul family - who got some unwelcome attention when it was
disclosed that Clinton was talking to Fanjul while spending uh, "time with"
Monica Lewinsky.

Part of the reason that HFCS is so heavily used is that it is cheaper than
sugar - since sugar is so heavily protected from the world market price.

~~~
hristov
There is a difference in that sugar is mostly protected with quotas, while
corn is protected by subsidies. (although there are some subsidies for sugar
as well).

So the effect is that government intervention causes sugar prices to go up and
corn prices to go down. Thus, there is government interference on both sides
of the equation.

I consider corn subsidies more problematic, because they come directly from
taxpayer money, while the costs of sugar tariffs are more roundabout (i.e.,
they result in higher market cost of sugar, but are not taken from my tax
dollars, thus one can avoid the cost by eating less sugar). Also from my
limited research it seems that corn subsidies are much more costly than all
the cost of sugar price support.

~~~
CWuestefeld
One might assume that since our government now says that healthcare is a
right, they might also say that it's time to end tariffs that are demonstrably
damaging our health.

~~~
jerf
Unfortunately, that's going to require our government to step up and admit
that they have been grotesquely and aggressively wrong about dietary issues
for fifty years now.

I'm watching the murmuring about taxing soda; I'll know they're just
bullshitting us about the health angle if it taxes sodas with no sugar in
them, too. (I've read the health evidence about mere carbonated water; it's a
non-zero risk (mostly potential lower esophagus damage caused by excessive
belching spreading stomach acid around) but minimal next to the risks of
obesity.)

------
tzs
The actual results in the paper are a lot less clear. Copy of paper (pdf)
here: <http://www.mediafire.com/?jj5henyrhxx>

~~~
nkurz
Thanks for posting this. Sometimes I wonder if HN should automatically replace
the 'popular glosses' with the actual papers being discussed. The paper is
indeed a lot less clear, although it does make substantially the same claims
made in the linked article. It just doesn't do a great job of defending those
claims.

The biggest problem would seem to be that Experiment 1 showed that rats given
a 8% HFCS solution for 12 hours a day gain more significantly more weight than
rats given the same solution for 24 hours a day, even though both groups
consume the same total number of calories. While this might be a possible
effect, the most likely conclusion is that 'statistically significant' does
not in this case mean reproducible.

The second big problem with the 'HFCS is worse than sugar' interpretation is
that in Experiment 2 (6 months instead of 8 weeks), they dropped the sucrose
comparison from all the males in the long-term study! The females did show
weight gain for a diet that allowed 24 hour access to HFCS, but no weight gain
was observed for female rats allowed to free-feed on either sucrose of HFCS
for 12 hours a day. Not just no difference between them, NO WEIGHT GAIN over
just chow.

From this, they conclude "HFCS caused an increase in body weight greater than
that of sucrose in both male and female rats." Sure, just not in the same
experiment. And not in many cases. "Less clear" is an understatement.
"Disgrace" get closer, but doesn't manage to convey my anger that the authors
can do this while still remaining employed.

------
oneplusone
I find it funny that Corn Refiner's Association are running adds to try and
fix their image:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEbRxTOyGf0&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEbRxTOyGf0&feature=related)

------
jongraehl
My understanding of the research to date was that corn syrup was not worse
than the equivalent sweetness or caloric value of sugar. (the reason for the
fructose ratio is precisely to give the same perceived sweetness per calorie).
This study either changes that, or is flawed. For now I'll just continue to
stay away from soda pop.

Also, if the hypothesis in the article is correct (that anything other than a
<1 ratio of sucrose/fructose may be the cause of the observed obesity affect),
this affects all fruit juices and probably whole fruits as well. However, it
looks like bananas are about 1:1 ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose> )
and berries and citrus have less fructose than sucrose (
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose_malabsorption> )

~~~
CapitalistCartr
As stuartjmoore linked, Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in
the Division of Endocrinology lays the chemistry out in excruciating detail.
His 90 minute video is well worth watching. I even got my mom to watch it.

------
jsz0
I think we need a simplified "health temperature" label on all packaged foods
to be placed on the front of the packaging. A simple green = good / red = bad
label with enough points in-between to convey the differences. Include not
only nutritional value, health risks, but also the environmental record of the
companies producing the products in the rating. I'd suggest exempting
companies that sell less than $X/year worth of product and really focus on the
big guys. So if you were an ignorant peson doing their grocery shopping it
would be fairly easy to reach for the green labels and it would become
apparent that cheaper foods were almost always on the red side. That might
spur the grass roots changes in consumption we need to make healthier food
cheaper.

~~~
po
This is a tempting solution, but the food industries would simply game the
system and/or lobby and pressure the decision makers.

------
chris11
Now the thing that really bothers me about HFCS is that it is so hard to
avoid. It is in nearly every type of food. For example, most ketchups and
breads contain HFCS.

~~~
watmough
We had a party on Saturday and someone brought a couple of tubs of potato
salad / pasta salad. You'd think these might be a bit starchy, or contain fat,
but be basically pretty healthy right? (It does have _salad_ right there in
the name)

Pasta salad at least listed HFCS as an ingredient. WTF?

------
unignorant
This is potentially surprising given that fructose (used in HFCS) has a lower
glycemic index than sucrose (used in table sugar).

~~~
rdl
Taubes explains this (sort of) by explaining that fructose goes straight to
the liver, thus not contributing to glycemic index, but doing something to the
liver related to insulin to make fat cells more likely to uptake the glucose
in the blood. The science isn't fully understood, but it is definitely
testable.

~~~
watmough
From my possibly simplistic understanding:

Insulin resistance is a factor in Type 2 diabetes, which wrecks the body's
ability to handle glucose.

Once you get to this point, damage to body systems starts to snowball,
obesity, kidney failure etc.

Sugar prices are supported by tariff in the US, and corn prices are
subsidized. This abomination is wrecking the health of the population.

It was striking on a recent visit to Canada, that nothing in the shops, even
cereal appeared to include HFCS as an ingredient.

~~~
lena
_It was striking on a recent visit to Canada, that nothing in the shops, even
cereal appeared to include HFCS as an ingredient._

But still, Canada also faces an obesity epidemic.

------
aaronbrethorst
I feel like the article would benefit from a less staged photo lede. There's
something unseemly about an article about hard scientific research with a
posed, strobed photograph accompanying it.

------
Aron
They don't appear to actually quantify the difference between sucrose and
hfcs-fed rats in this summary, which is the only part of interest to me.

~~~
jerf
The actual paper is at
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0N-4YGHGM1-1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F26%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8aaf4b3489ff395ee128700d9fd4710c)
(assuming that URL comes through), but unfortunately the abstract did not
contain the numbers you were interested in, and the full article is $31.50.

------
mdg
_looks at Heinz ketchup packet ingredient list_

Hey, why is there corn in my ketchup?!

~~~
jerf
If you're seriously surprised, you need to read more labels.

If you aren't seriously surprised, heck, read more labels anyhow.

I found out I had Celiac disease (wheat/gluten allergy) a couple years back
and I've read a lot more labels since then (companies are actually getting
better about not sticking flour in random things but you still have to watch
out), and of all the surprises that resulted, the sheer prevalence of HFCS was
by far the biggest. It's not just sweets... it's everything.

 _Everything_.

~~~
jrockway
It's very uncommon in anything labeled organic. In the US, organic foods can't
be genetically modified, and nearly all the corn used to make HFCS is
genetically modified. So HFCS tends to be avoided in favor of evaporated cane
juice. Tasty!

