High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)

[KingNothing]

I just got done watching a video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbnE-KRFMo0" that seems to say that HFCS is bad because Fructose can't be metabolized by any organ except the liver, and that it doesn't stimulate a "fullness" feeling when eating foods as other sugars do.

However, this confuses me because fructose is so common in fruits. An apple is practically made of fructose. Are there other reasons that HFCS is bad?

I have a friend who recently decided to eat a HFCS-free diet, pointing to some evidence showing an HFCS-free diet is healthier. But this doesn't seem to pin down HFCS as a culprit; these foods have a lot more in common that just HFCS. Namely that they are processed.

 

[KingNothing]

Oh great, another thread of mine with 100+ views and not a single reply. I sometimes wonder if these forums are dying :(.

 

[Evo]

It's a good question, and I have answers, but I've been too busy to dig them up.

 

[Doc Al]

However, this confuses me because fructose is so common in fruits.

It's also common in table sugar, which is 50% fructose. HFCS is "high fructose" when compared to ordinary corn syrup.

That said, one could probably do worse things than try to avoid such empty calories. (But I'm no biologist.)

 

[DanP]

Listen to this one, it explains everything.

 

[Pythagorean]

I just got done watching a video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbnE-KRFMo0" that seems to say that HFCS is bad because Fructose can't be metabolized by any organ except the liver, and that it doesn't stimulate a "fullness" feeling when eating foods as other sugars do.

However, this confuses me because fructose is so common in fruits. An apple is practically made of fructose. Are there other reasons that HFCS is bad?

I have a friend who recently decided to eat a HFCS-free diet, pointing to some evidence showing an HFCS-free diet is healthier. But this doesn't seem to pin down HFCS as a culprit; these foods have a lot more in common that just HFCS. Namely that they are processed.

Even drinking fruit juice is "bad" if you don't compensate for all the fiber and other solids you miss out on when you only extract the tasty components from foods.

Corn syrup sugars do have a distinct isotope ratio from cane sugars. I don't know if that's biologically pertinent, but studies have been developed this way for idetifying corn sweetener markers in patients for obesity and diabetic studies.

 

[gravenewworld]

Just because scientists can make something chemically equivalent to a molecule that comes from something natural doesn't mean it will work the same way. For example, you might think that getting something like vitamin A from a pill would have the same health benefits as getting vitamin A from something like a carrot.

 

[DanP]

Just because scientists can make something chemically equivalent to a molecule that comes from something natural doesn't mean it will work the same way. For example, you might think that getting something like vitamin A from a pill would have the same health benefits as getting vitamin A from something like a carrot.

A molecule is a molecule. It won't act chemically different, no matter from where you take it. Sure, you can take Vitamin A mixed with KCN and youll end up dead, pr from a carrot with other substances and you might get a different effect , but that doesn't mean the molecule of Vitamin A "it doesn't work the same way".

 

[gravenewworld]

Just because scientists can make something chemically equivalent to a molecule that comes from something natural doesn't mean it will work the same way. For example, you might think that getting something like vitamin A from a pill would have the same health benefits as getting vitamin A from something like a carrot. This is not the case, in fact too much vitamin A from a synthetic vitamin A from sources like a pill has been linked to cancer in some studies. Have you ever heard of a carrot causing cancer? One of the biggest things overlooked when it comes to nutrients etc. from a naturally derived source vs something man made is the way nutrients from the natural vs the synthetic source are absorbed and delivered to the body. Clearly getting vitamin A from a carrot vs getting vitamin A from a pill is different from the way vitamin A is contained in each. The same might be said for hfcs vs natural sugar. Hfcs, while chemically very similar to sucrose, could be absorbed and distributed quite differently than sucrose. Chemical similarity does not automatically imply that two entities will be nutritionally the same. There is a ton science doesn't know when it comes to nutrition, food, and food chemistry.

 

[gravenewworld]

A molecule is a molecule. It won't act chemically different, no matter from where you take it. Sure, you can take Vitamin A mixed with KCN and youll end up dead, pr from a carrot with other substances and you might get a different effect , but that doesn't mean the molecule of Vitamin A "it doesn't work the same way".

That was an incomplete post because I made an error will working on a smartphone. And you are wrong. Molecules are molecules yes but the way a molecue is delivered has just as much effect as the molecule itself. THC in marijuana vs THC in marinol are the same exact molecule but the drugs have different side effects which could very well be possibly due to the way they are delivered.

 

[DanP]

THC in marijuana vs THC in marinol are the same exact molecule but the drugs have different side effects which could very well be possibly due to the way they are delivered.

Or maybe because other substance which accompany them , or different isoforms or god knows that. 2 identical molecules will behave the same way chemically. Like I said, THC mixed with KCN will have the "side effect" that will kiill you :P

 

[DanP]

Hfcs, while chemically very similar to sucrose, could be absorbed and distributed quite differently than sucrose. Chemical similarity does not automatically imply that two entities will be nutritionally the same. There is a ton science doesn't know when it comes to nutrition, food, and food chemistry.

The metabolic pathways for fructose are reasonably well studied. It makes no difference from where the fructose comes, HFCS or honey, the metabolic pathways through which it;s assimilated are the same.

 

[Proton Soup]

vitamin A is not "a molecule". it's a bunch of different molecules. when you take a supplement, chances are you are only getting "a molecule", and maybe not a natural one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A

 

[DanP]

vitamin A is not "a molecule". it's a bunch of different molecules. when you take a supplement, chances are you are only getting "a molecule", and maybe not a natural one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A

(2E,4E,6E,8E)-3,7-Dimethyl-9-(2,6,6-trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2,4,6,8-nonatetraen-1-ol

So what is it if not a molecule ? An elephant ? And what's an unnatural' molecule Some vodoo ?

 

[Proton Soup]

(2E,4E,6E,8E)-3,7-Dimethyl-9-(2,6,6-trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2,4,6,8-nonatetraen-1-ol

So what is it if not a molecule ? An elephant ? And what's an unnatural' molecule Some vodoo ?

unnatural would be one not found in food.

you can take whatever approach you like. I'm not anti-vitamin, just pro-food. there are 8 varieties of vitamin E in food, and usually only one in supplements. why should i trust you that the alpha tocopherol is all i need?

 

[DanP]

unnatural would be one not found in food.

You mean synthetic maybe. The reason we can treat insulin dependent diabetics on large scale today is because we managed to create biosynthetic human insulin. You know, molecular biologists and MD's and nutritionists are not idiots. Synthetic compounds are not the bane everybody think they are.

The problems with fructose are not due to the fact is not a 'natural' compound in HCFS. The problems are generated by availability. Every body and their mother can have access today to sugars in unlimited quantities. So they stuff themselves with food and then have one boottle of a Soda like Pepsi, and in this process they ingest an enormous quantity of sugars (mainly fructose in many of those sodas). Should they choose to eat after lunch large quantities of honey, to get same amount of sugars as much as the soda has, they would end up having the same problems because of excess sugars.

So yeah, for the average man who does not train till he drop dead, no simple sugars is the best way. Excess Pepsi or excess honey, youll still get fat and have problems :P

Many fruits have low glycemic loads , so its safe to eat those.

 

[Fra]

However, this confuses me because fructose is so common in fruits. An apple is practically made of fructose.

It's true that fruit contains a lot of sugar, mainly glucose, fructose and sucrose, but this is of course NOT why fruit is healthy.

Most average fruitjuices in the supermarket contains just as much sugar as soft drinks (~10%) and sugarwise are just as bad as soft drinks.

If I remember correctly(I looked into this some years ago), sackaros is slightly worse for your teeth than the inverted sugars glucose and fructose because some of the plaque forming bacteria in the mouth happens to prefer sucrose to form the plaque. Other than that it's just as bad.

Fruit, and mainly FRESH fruit, is good becuse it contains vitamins, antoxidants, minerals etc.

So as a snack, an apple is great. It gives some some energy (but not too much) and it gives you a good injection of antioxidants.

OTOH, drinking a gallons of sweet apple juice a day doesn't make sense.

The fructose vs glucose metabolism is a story on it's own. But certainly high glucose corn syrup is not healthy either ;-)

/Fredrik

 

[gravenewworld]

The metabolic pathways for fructose are reasonably well studied. It makes no difference from where the fructose comes, HFCS or honey, the metabolic pathways through which it;s assimilated are the same.

Wrong. The point you are forgetting is that glucose from HFCS and sucrose act the same metabolically only once they reach the serum in the blood. You are completely ignoring exactly how it reaches the blood in the first place. Before glucose and fructose are released from sugar it has to first be enzymatically hydrolyzed to fructose and glucose. Every enzyme has a kinetic profile and this in turn affects the distribution and rate at which glucose/fuctose can enter the blood. HFCS is composed of two monosaccharides that are not connected and do not have to be enzymatically cleaved, therefore it is fallacious to say HFCS is the same as sucrose even though they are both delivering the same chemical entities (glucose and fructose). HFCS could have a completely different pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profile as a result of the fact that it skips a step in metabolism when compared to table sugar. Differing PK/PD profiles could affect the way the brain perceives hunger, which may be why some studies have linked HFCS with higher rates of obesity in lab rats. The problem isn't chemical structure, it's the way it is delivered. That's why the University of Florida is currently running a clinical trial on it. Chemically, HFCS and surcose may be the same after sucrose is cleaved, but this completely ignores enzyme kinetics and potential pharmacological profile differences between HFCS vs. table sugar.

 

[gravenewworld]

Or maybe because other substance which accompany them , or different isoforms or god knows that. 2 identical molecules will behave the same way chemically. Like I said, THC mixed with KCN will have the "side effect" that will kiill you :P

Or it could be because of the fact that it is the *way* in which the two exact molecules are delivered. I could give you probably a dozen examples of "the same molecule" being re-patented based solely off of a new formulation. Different formulations and delivery systems affect side effect profiles just as much as the chemical entity itself--even though the chemical entity may be the same in both cases. Why should glucose and fructose be any different?

 

[gravenewworld]

vitamin A is not "a molecule". it's a bunch of different molecules. when you take a supplement, chances are you are only getting "a molecule", and maybe not a natural one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A

This is what I am trying to sort allude to. Just because you make something chemically the same does not automatically imply that it will act the same in-vivo. How a molecule is bundled and delivered has just as much of an effect. Think of vitamin A in a pill vs. vitamin A from a carrot. Vitamin A is just one molecule from a pill formulated with all sorts of additives in the pill while vitamin A from a carrot is bound in a god-awfully complex plant structure at the molecular level. It is erroneous to say that vitamin A will act the same as vitamin A from a plant source because the way they are bound and delivered to an organism.

 

[Proton Soup]

Wrong. The point you are forgetting is that glucose from HFCS and sucrose act the same metabolically only once they reach the serum in the blood. You are completely ignoring exactly how it reaches the blood in the first place. Before glucose and fructose are released from sugar it has to first be enzymatically hydrolyzed to fructose and glucose. Every enzyme has a kinetic profile and this in turn affects the distribution and rate at which glucose/fuctose can enter the blood. HFCS is composed of two monosaccharides that are not connected and do not have to be enzymatically cleaved, therefore it is fallacious to say HFCS is the same as sucrose even though they are both delivering the same chemical entities (glucose and fructose). HFCS could have a completely different pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profile as a result of the fact that it skips a step in metabolism when compared to table sugar. Differing PK/PD profiles could effect the way the brain perceives hunger, which may be why some studies have linked HFCS with higher rates of obesity in lab rats.


The problem isn't chemical structure, it's the way it is delivered. That's why the University of Florida is currently running a clinical trial on it. Chemically HFCS and surcose may be the same after sucrose is cleaved, but this completely ignores enzyme kinetics and potential pharmacological profile differences between HFCS vs. table sugar.

rat studies are worth jack and squat. most things that work in rats regarding obesity just don't pan out in humans. there are a ton of worthless weight-loss supplements on the market because of this.

either produce some human studies that back up your claim or let it go.

 

[Fra]

therefore it is fallacious to say HFCS is the same as sucrose

I think he compared HFCS and honey.

Honey contains only minimal amounts of sucrose. Most of the sugar in honey is already hydrolysed into glucose and fructose (just as HFCS).

/Fredrik

 

[Proton Soup]

This is what I am trying to sort allude to. Just because you make something chemically the same does not automatically imply that it will act the same in-vivo. How a molecule is bundled and delivered has just as much of an effect. Think of vitamin A in a pill vs. vitamin A from a carrot. Vitamin A is just one molecule from a pill formulated with all sorts of additives in the pill while vitamin A from a carrot is bound in a god-awfully complex plant structure at the molecular level. It is erroneous to say that vitamin A will act the same as vitamin A from a plant source because the way they are bound and delivered to an organism.

that is not what i am alluding to.

now, if you mean something like this:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2507689, then that is fine. but note that it works both ways. you may get better B12 absorption from a pill.

 

[DanP]

Wrong. The point you are forgetting is that glucose from HFCS and sucrose act the same metabolically only once they reach the serum in the blood. You are completely ignoring exactly how it reaches the blood in the first place. Before glucose and fructose are released from sugar it has to first be enzymatically hydrolyzed to fructose and glucose.

Boo, Wrong baby, honey contains 5% sucrose only, almost almost 40% fructose , and about 30% glucose. Except sucrose none of those is a disacharide. So don't "wrong" me, for it appears you have no idea what you are talking about.

And for your information, a disacharide like sucrose is not either fructose, either glucose. A molecule is a molecule, no matter how hard you try to convolute the truth.

Differing PK/PD profiles could affect the way the brain perceives hunger, which may be why some studies have linked HFCS with higher rates of obesity in lab rats.

Higher rates of obesity than what ? And "may be affecting regulation of apettite" is not good enough, present proof of it. I think the biggest problem with fructose linked to appetite regulation is the fact it does not release insulin. Not dynamics of cleaving enzymes.

The problem isn't chemical structure, it's the way it is delivered. That's why the University of Florida is currently running a clinical trial on it. Chemically, HFCS and surcose may be the same after sucrose is cleaved, but this completely ignores enzyme kinetics and potential pharmacological profile differences between HFCS vs. table sugar.

You still don't get it ? Sucrose is not fructose, neither glucose. A molecule is a molecule. And once it;s cleaved by sucrose, the same problems of fructose metabolism still remain. Overeat sugar like an idiot or drink HCFS, you'll still get fatter than an elephant.

 

[KingNothing]

The problems with fructose are not due to the fact is not a 'natural' compound in HCFS. The problems are generated by availability. Every body and their mother can have access today to sugars in unlimited quantities.

Thank you so much for outright answering my question, although I do appreciate everyone else's responses.

The thing that has confused me is people that go on "HFCS-free" diets. Wouldn't it make more sense to go on a "low-sugar" diet?

 

[Yanick]

The thing that has confused me is people that go on "HFCS-free" diets. Wouldn't it make more sense to go on a "low-sugar" diet?

Yes absolutely.

Or better than that, how about a lower calorie (if trying to shed the pounds), balanced, unprocessed (or minimally processed) food diet?

Throw in some exercise, stress relieving leisure activities and you've got yourself a winner!