Here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/diet.fitness/03/25/fructose.obesity.ap/index.html)

For those that don't like to click links....



Study partly blames fructose for obesity jump
But others say people are just eating more, exercising less



RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- Researchers say they've found more evidence of a link between a rapid rise in obesity and a corn product used to sweeten soft drinks and food since the 1970s.

The researchers examined consumption records from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for 1967-2000 and combined it with previous research and their own analyses.

The data showed an increase in the use of high-fructose corn sweeteners in the late 1970s and 1980s "coincidental with the epidemic of obesity," said one of the researchers, Dr. George A. Bray, a longtime obesity scientist with Louisiana State University System's Pennington Biomedical Research Center. He noted the research didn't prove a definitive link.

"Body weights rose slowly for most of the 20th century until the late 1980s," Bray said. "At that time, many countries showed a sudden increase in the rate at which obesity has been galloping forward."

The study is being published in the April issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

But spokesmen with the food and beverage industry and a leading critic of fast food both said weight gain would be a problem even if the sweetener didn't exist.

"It's not about the high-fructose corn syrup being a part of foods, it's about how many calories we're eating against how many calories we're burning," said Alison Kretser, a registered dietitian and director of scientific and nutrition policy for the Grocery Manufacturers of America. Its members include The Coca-Cola Co., Kellogg Co. and Sara Lee Corp.

Obesity among American adults climbed from 23 percent in the early 1990s to 30 percent today, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. And two-thirds of Americans are overweight. That means increased risks for heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers.

Sweetener debate
The debate over high-fructose sweeteners centers on how the body processes sugar. Unlike glucose, a major component in table sugar, fructose doesn't trigger responses in hormones that regulate energy use and appetite. That means fructose is more likely to be converted into fat, the researchers said.

The sweeteners are also cheaper to produce and use in food manufacturing than cane and beet sugars, the study noted.

The report, which says more study is needed, also lays blame on people for eating more and exercising less.

Kretser said studies on how the body digests the fructose corn sweetener are inconclusive because they were done on animals.

Companies are responding to the rise in obesity by adding more nutritious sweeteners to products, such as diet sodas, and returning to smaller containers, she said.

Barry M. Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who worked on the study, said he believes a third to half of the increase in calorie intake since the 1970s comes from soft drinks and fruit drinks.

Their report says more than 132 calories a day consumed by Americans age 2 and older come from corn sweeteners.

"We cannot increase our physical activity enough to offset the extra 200 calories a day Americans are consuming," he said.

Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group, said there's no nutritional difference in the soft drinks sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, decades ago and those sold today with high-fructose corn sweeteners.

He said either blend would contribute to a fat problem because of the increase in container sizes and the mass distribution of soft drinks.

Jacobson, a microbiologist and leading critic of the food industry, also called the study erroneous.

"The authors of this paper misunderstand chemistry, draw erroneous conclusions and have done a disservice to the public in generating this controversy," he said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



John probably doesn't want this kinda thing... :confused:

FYI..it does not have anything to do with fruit, just high fructose corn syrup which can be found in almost all processed foods. :( Read those labels...

*continues eating apple*

the reason people post links dimbulb is because it's not precisely legal to reproduce a whole article--not to mention it's not polite either.

That said, I've been expecting this report for a while, I had a professor of biology last semester who knew about these studies as they were being conducted. He thinks High Fructose Corn Syrup may be on the short list of products to eventually be regulated by the FDA given America's obesity problem. The corporation scientists try to dismiss the study as bad science. But the article doesn't bother to mention one of the primary reasons High Fructose Corn Syrup is especially bad. HFCS is so highly refined that your body converts it to glucose faster than just about any other sugar. It's nearly all converted in your mouth by your saliva. By the time it hits your stomach it needs virtually no digestion and it's bioavailable very very quickly. Is it as effective as dextrose, I dunno. I'm just repeating what my professor told me. I may be misremembering some stuff, but HFCS is nasty stuff if you're trying to lose weight. Let's not even get into the effects of carbonic and phosphoric acid found in virtually all softdrinks that leach minerals out of your body. Basically there are two big society wide changes in the last thirty years that in my opinion have contributed more than anything else to the obesity epidemic. Soft Drinks replacing much higher percentages of liquid than before, ala the 6 pack, 12 pack, cube, 2 liter, 3 liter take it home softdrink explosion so there is always soda available all the time in virutally every home. Growing up we were more likely to stay in stock on soda than on orange juice. I know that's not true for my parents generation! And of course the fast food explosion. Coupled with cable TV, computers, labor saving devices, video games, and all the other modern distractions that keep us indoors and minds engaged but bodies disengaged, it's no wonder there's an epidemic.

Soda Explosion/HFCS
Fast Food
Modern Distractions

my vote for the three primary reasons America is the fattest country in the world.

Adam

I'm a huge fan of sticking to more natural foods. Having said that, this is a pretty big jump. They talk about the introduction of HFCS in the 70s. This is also the start of the low-fat trend with foods having tons of sugars and other things added but slapped on as "low fat." I think it's a little early to link one to the other. Here is a slightly alternative view. This is a response to a question I asked a scientist about a certain product that had high-fructose corn syrup in it. The only edits are to make the company and food names generic for the sake of the response:

The High-Fructose Corn Syrup solids in the [foods] are not for sweetening purposes (they are part of the creamer and are important for the texture). The total amount of sugar as fructose (12 g) contained in a serving of the [product] is less than one 3 ounce apple (23 g) - and that is a pretty small apple. The amount of sugar in the [...] foods is less than many nutritious foods commonly consumed. In addition, it is not always accurate to simply look at the amount of sugar a food product contains and ignore other important aspects, such as the amount of fiber, protein, fat, and other nutrients.

Another important thing to note is that all of the [...] food products are manufactured to be low-glycemic, making them great for diabetics. Low-glycemic foods do not cause a quick spike in blood sugar levels leading to a spike in insulin levels.

The amount of sugar contained in a serving of the [...] Bar is only 10 gms and the Nutrition Bars contain only 15 gms. One slice of bread contains about 15 g of sugar. An average 2000 calorie diet should provide between 250 gms and 300 gms of carbohydrate (sugar) per day. Therefore, the [...] foods contain only a small fraction of the total carbohydrate intake in a day.

One very important fact that seems to escape many individuals, is that fructose has a lower glycemic index than other forms of sugar. High fructose corn syrup is simply corn syrup that contains a higher concentration of fructose than regular corn syrup. This allows the manufacturer to use a small amount to achieve the desired sweetness since fructose is sweeter than glucose.

Fructose, like other ingredients or nutrient, can be misused and inappropriate for some people. But the overwhelming scientific evidence shows a clear benefit for most people when used properly. It is certainly not the nutritional "evil" that some are claiming.

The problem is not with the high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) itself, it is how it is being used by so many people. Regular corn syrup is simply glucose and fructose with the majority being glucose. HFCS is simply corn syrup that has increased the amount of fructose in relation to glucose so that they are about 50:50. Since fructose is sweeter than glucose, less HFCS is needed to obtain the desired sweetness. HFCS is not different than any other sugar, in fact, it is almost exactly the same as sucrose in its composition (sucrose is about 50% glucose and 50% fructose). The reason so much is being said about HFCS is because it is the main sweetener now in soda pop, "fruit" drinks, etc. Sucrose used to be the main sweetener but HFCS is cheaper and has better stability. If people, especially kids, were not drinking 2 Big Gulps a day and drinking so many fruit drinks, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If sucrose were still the main sweetener in these products, we would be discussing the evils of sucrose, not HFCS. One 32 ounce Big Gulp or Super size drink can have as much as 100-120 grams of HFCS and 400-500 calories. Drink one or two of those a day and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where excess weight is coming from. The bottom line is that HFCS by itself, like any other sugar, contains calories and no nutritional value. But amounts found in fruits and vegetables and small amounts added to healthy products can definitely fit within a healthy overall diet. It is the abuse of the product, not the product itself, that is the problem. I think it is time we all take more responsibility for our own diet choices and stop over-consuming these drinks and products just because they are a good deal. If we continue to consume excessive amounts of soda and fruit drinks it makes no difference what sugar source is used, we will continue to get fatter.

Cane juice, honey and turbinado are all nearly the same as HFCS with respect to their composition of sugar (glucose and fructose). Fruit juices vary depending on the specific fruit used. However, most fruits are a combination of fructose, glucose and sucrose. I have attached a table of sugars found in fruits and vegetables for your information.

There is nothing inherently bad about HFCS and there is nothing benevolent about cane juice or the other caloric sweeteners. It is all about the way they are used and dosage consumed.

...
Thought that was interesting!

There is nothing inherently bad about HFCS and there is nothing benevolent about cane juice or the other caloric sweeteners. It is all about the way they are used and dosage consumed.

...
Thought that was interesting!

Hmm...this is interesting. Jeremy, I am curious to know who the scientist that wrote this was affiliated with. Specifically, what type of scientist were they and did they work for a company or perhaps government organization? Basically do they work for a specific brand name food that uses HFCS. This information would be useful. As I'm sure sceintists that worked for cigarette companies in the 80's could go on and on about the health benefits of smoking.

that article definatly made a big jump. It was akin to saying well i put a new engine in my car and changed the oil last week and now it runs badly, so this new oil must be crap :D

Well, I'm sorry if I "offended" anyone. Most msg boards that I post to consider it a courtesy to post the article, and not post links. I attributed the article correctly, and did not pass it off as my own or anything. ( I intentionally included the copyright info).Sorry if YOU considered it rude. I'll just post links here next time then.

Back to the article. Without looking at the actual paper itself, its hard to comment on the actual validity of the science behind it. The problem with statistics is that its really easy to look at the data in a way that reinforces your current beliefs.

Just from reading the article, they base their conclusions on the correlation between obesity in Americans and the introduction of HFCS. I'm not sure if they had accounted for other factors in their model. The human body is such a complicated machine.

It would have been great if they had carried out clinical tests, comparing people of the same body type, eating the same number of calories, same number of nutrients, and exercise, but eating different "grades" of sugars/calories. Will probably never be done, and it still doesn't cover all the other factors, but that would be much more convincing.

Great points Jeremy, much better than my ill informed rant based on hearsay.

Adam

... on your "hearsay" rant, but I would prioritize this list:

Soda Explosion/HFCS
Fast Food
Modern Distractions

Like this instead:

1. Drinking calories (soda, juice, etc) = excess calories coming in
2. Fast food = excess calories coming in
3. Modern distractions (TV, video games) = fewer calories being expended

We could point at the low fat trend, we could blame the food pyramid, we could point our fingers at High Fructose Corn Syrup, blame saturated fats, you name it, but bottom line it's fewer calories out, more calories in with less nutrition = nutritionally starved despite the calories being consumed.

As for HFCS - here's an interesting statistc. The majority of people I see who flip out about HFCS being in a bar drink shakes everyday with maltodextrin. HFCS is a sugar, maltodextrin is a complex carb, right?

And the argument is that HFCS is bad because of how quickly it is converted to glucose, right?

Well, let's use the glycemic index, which is the scientific database that tells us exactly how fast a food is converted to blood-borne glucose.

According to this PDF document:

http://www.snac.ucla.edu/pages/Resources/Handouts/HOGlycemic.pdf

The glycemic index of high fructose corn syrup is 62.
The glycemic index of maltodextrin is 105, even higher than table sugar.

So tell me again, what is the argument against HFCS in bars and FOR maltodextrin in shakes?

:)

Honestly, the article above was related to a specific manufacturer - that is why I omitted the product. So of course they are biased. But I also happen to know that the particular product was tested at the University of Syndney, which is NOT biased. It was also published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition - which does not have an interest in the company.

And the results?

The glycemic index of the bar which contained HFCS was 30, and the glycemic load was 6.

Now, if we are just worried about blood sugar, let's look at a list of products that are HIGHER on the glycemic index - that would actually have a more major impact on your blood sugar:

Long Grain Rice has a GI of 50 - 60 on average
Oatmeal has a GI of around 54
Baked potato is over 100


So ... I see the argument of HFCS but I think it's going to have be a little more than GI (which it is actually lower than many other foods) and calories (which other ingredients have). Short of the impact on blood sugar and the calories, what other arguments are against this ingredient?

(Keep in mind I am Devil's advocate here, because I actually pour all natural maple syrup on my french toast and put sugar in my coffee along with heavy whipping cream - I know it goes against the grain of the current trend to run from saturated fats and sugars but I think the nutrition industry has a long history of realizing people find it too difficult to adopt lasting, healthy, balanced habits of moderation, so it is easy to create a scapegoat and point a finger and say, ELIMINATE THIS FROM YOUR DIET and then when people do it and suddenly find they haven't solved the problem, then we have to point the finger at something else, etc).

Jeremy

(Keep in mind I am Devil's advocate here, because I actually pour all natural maple syrup on my french toast and put sugar in my coffee along with heavy whipping cream - I know it goes against the grain of the current trend to run from saturated fats and sugars but I think the nutrition industry has a long history of realizing people find it too difficult to adopt lasting, healthy, balanced habits of moderation, so it is easy to create a scapegoat and point a finger and say, ELIMINATE THIS FROM YOUR DIET and then when people do it and suddenly find they haven't solved the problem, then we have to point the finger at something else, etc).


:claplow:

I couldn't agree more. A moderate diet seems so much more attractive and healthy to me. I've been thinking of starting a thread in nutrtion called X Food is Evil, Eliminate it!, because there seems to be a lot of foods shunned around here. I was gonna post links to articles about the benefits of luteins in egg yolks, the benefits of potatos (particularly skins) etc. Dammit I like my 'unhealthy' foods I just try not to overeat them (which is hard, but not nearly so when you're cooking for yourself!). It just seems such a waste to have a 6-8 egg-white omelet when a 2-3 whole egg one would just be fine in my opinion. But oh well. :p

Adam