All sugars are equal, but some are more equal than others
31 Oct 2008 11:03 am
I've long been skeptical of the claim that high fructose corn syrup was especially evil; too many of these diet claims are the nutritional equivalent of "electromagnetic fields are giving me cancer!" But Derek Lowe makes a convincing case that it's at least possible.
It's always fascinated me that people don't realize how different food is in portions and content than it was 50 to 100 years ago.
Portions are much much larger, but the content has shifted drastically towards simple carbohydrates that digest quickly.
Our bodies used to use a lot more energy digesting food than they they do now. The prevalence of white rice, white bread, simple sugars is fairly recent in human history. The resulting insulin spike of simple sugars is probably related to taller and fatter people, rate of diabetes, etc.
One theory I've read before proposes that white rice is the cause of nearsightedness in Asian populations points to the lack of nearsightedness of people who were in US Japanese internment camps to the fact that they didn't eat white rice in these camps.
Potentially wacky theories or not, we've got a massive food and health problem on our hands, and it would be short-sighted to dismiss things out of hand, especially given large amounts of anecdotal evidence that things such as artificial sweeteners and high fructose corn syrup may be badf or you.
Probably worth pointing out that government regulation in the form of trade barriers is the reason the US uses so much high fructose corn syrup rather than cane sugar.
A friend's father is a food scientist and said, basically, that HFCS and "regular" sugar are so similar that to think of HFCS as "artificial" and the other as "natural" is absurd. I think the rational response is neither, "HFCS is EVIL!" nor is it "HFCS RULEZ!" but, "HFCS & 'regular' sugar are both modern, artificial foods."
The *process* behind HFCS may be a result of regulation and tariffs and whatever, but that's not what makes something natural. Until someone starts mining sugar out of the ground like pure white salt, it's all just chemicals to me.
ps: my *personal* favorite sugars are honey and maple syrup. but that's just because they *taste* like something.
I think that the non-insane peoples' objection to the replacement of sucrose with HFCS is that HFCS is very cheap and therefore gets used more, not that it's categorically different.
Sugar is pretty much the same as HFCS once it gets past the stomach, as Michael Byrnes noted, but a lot more gets into the stomach because the food manufacturers can afford so much more.
I started seeing pro-HFCS commercials on the television.
I love those commercials. Why, I remember having conversations just like with my boyz when I was a teenager. We'd hang out and argue about the merits of various disaccarides.
Just like the time I had to get a job as a pirate because my credit rating was bad. I had been independently wealthy until my FICO score dropped to 630, at which point I had to get a job for some reason.
There are differences between sucrose and high fructose corn syrup in the way the body processes these two.
Sucrose, being a disaccharide, is broken down in the body by sucrase into its component parts glucose and fructose and the body reacts to this by signaling a satiation of hunger.
HFCS is composed of two monosaccharides and may bypass such signals, and thus people eat more because they don't feel full.
Probably worth pointing out that government regulation in the form of trade barriers is the reason the US uses so much high fructose corn syrup rather than cane sugar.
If so, probably worth pointing out that plenty of sugar and corn growers are supporting Sen. Obama because he's pro-sugar quotas and corn farm supports, unlike Sen. McCain.
Unfortunately, thanks to Congress, McCain's views wouldn't actually make a difference. But Obama is certainly the pro-HFCS candidate here.
I wonder how it is that US sugar producers actually prefer that their product is less attractive to buyers due to government intervention. Is the de facto subsidy really so very high to make all the HFCS use inconsequential to them? My God, what a ridiculous scenario to actually prefer to have shrinking market share.
Just like the time I had to get a job as a pirate because my credit rating was bad. I had been independently wealthy until my FICO score dropped to 630, at which point I had to get a job for some reason.
Ha-ha! I've always had the same reaction to that commercial too. Maybe he was working for the CIA, but when his credit score plummeted they decided the risk that he would be 'turned' was too high, and had to let him go. And of course his CIA skills only translated to being a Pirate waiter in the civilian world.
Check out Gary Taubes book "Good Calories, Bad Calories". I think there is an entire chapter on how fructose slips straight to the liver and causes all sorts of mischief with triglyceride and cholesterol levels.
As a chem student I was amused to learn what a "bomb calorimeter" was, and how it was used to determine food calories (by burning/exploding them).
We were told that burning extracted the same energy as our bodies. That is still apparently a good first rough approximation, but it isn't surprising to me now that there was more to the story.
The specific molecules in our food might trigger all sorts of responses in our food (and our gut ecosystems) that are not quite as simple as the burn-heat.
A linkage may be possible, but in the wider discussion OECD countries have a range of policies on sugar/corn and a range of rates of obesity, but no apparent correlation between the two. (At least according to two Iowa State economists: http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/08wp462.pdf.)
We were told that burning extracted the same energy as our bodies. That is still apparently a good first rough approximation, but it isn't surprising to me now that there was more to the story.
You probably could have deduced that even then by drinking gasoline or eating wood.
Medicine has benefited greatly from black box empiricism. The human body is extremely complex with an insane amount of feedback loops. Nutritional science up to this point with it's obsessive focus on a linear calorie = calorie dogma is doing no one any favors. Most people understand basic laws of thermodynamics; they what they want to know why people get fat in the real world.
Apologies for the previous comment's last sentence. What I meant to say was "Most people understand basic laws of thermodynamics; they want to know why people get fat in the real world."
HFCS agitators, soy freakouts, and other variations of the "somebody is trying to poison me...I just know it" crowd are an endless source of amusement. This is what happens when people don't have enough lions, tigers, and bears in their natural environment -- they start magnifying trivial risks in order for their survival mechanisms to feel vindicated.
Want to be healthy? Stay properly hydrated throughout the day, and then reduce your intake of processed foods and simple carbohydrates. Eat a balanced diet high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains while limiting your portions. We've known this for a long time, and more important, anybody can do this without having to identify and understand, say, the exact mechanism by which fructose might work to convince your liver that it should be eating more fructose.
The one sugar that i am truly concerned about is lactose. For obvious reasons, deriving it, it is bad for the health and well-being of millions if not billions. Consuming lactose is not so great either but probably half as bad as "producing" it. I will stick to my fruit sugars - as all apes and mammals do after babyhood.
Want to be healthy? Stay properly hydrated throughout the day, and then reduce your intake of processed foods and simple carbohydrates. Eat a balanced diet high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains while limiting your portions. We've known this for a long time, and more important, anybody can do this without having to identify and understand, say, the exact mechanism by which fructose might work to convince your liver that it should be eating more fructose.
Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | October 31, 2008 5:02 PM
yes, until we know better, that's what we should know.
Thanks for this.
A most informative blog in so many ways!
One thing to keep in mind on sugar...
The most commonly used form of High Fructose Corn syrup is 55% fructose, 45% glucose.
Table sugar is sucrose, which breaks down into 50% fructose and 50% glucose.
So the difference between the two is not that great.
It's always fascinated me that people don't realize how different food is in portions and content than it was 50 to 100 years ago.
Portions are much much larger, but the content has shifted drastically towards simple carbohydrates that digest quickly.
Our bodies used to use a lot more energy digesting food than they they do now. The prevalence of white rice, white bread, simple sugars is fairly recent in human history. The resulting insulin spike of simple sugars is probably related to taller and fatter people, rate of diabetes, etc.
One theory I've read before proposes that white rice is the cause of nearsightedness in Asian populations points to the lack of nearsightedness of people who were in US Japanese internment camps to the fact that they didn't eat white rice in these camps.
Potentially wacky theories or not, we've got a massive food and health problem on our hands, and it would be short-sighted to dismiss things out of hand, especially given large amounts of anecdotal evidence that things such as artificial sweeteners and high fructose corn syrup may be badf or you.
Quick second post for Michael Byrnes
http://www.scq.ubc.ca/our-sweet-ending-health-consequences-with-high-fructose-corn-syrup-consumption/
Probably worth pointing out that government regulation in the form of trade barriers is the reason the US uses so much high fructose corn syrup rather than cane sugar.
Nice to see he's keeping busy in the off-season.
A friend's father is a food scientist and said, basically, that HFCS and "regular" sugar are so similar that to think of HFCS as "artificial" and the other as "natural" is absurd. I think the rational response is neither, "HFCS is EVIL!" nor is it "HFCS RULEZ!" but, "HFCS & 'regular' sugar are both modern, artificial foods."
The *process* behind HFCS may be a result of regulation and tariffs and whatever, but that's not what makes something natural. Until someone starts mining sugar out of the ground like pure white salt, it's all just chemicals to me.
ps: my *personal* favorite sugars are honey and maple syrup. but that's just because they *taste* like something.
I used to think that it was just HFCS and no biggie... but then I started seeing pro-HFCS commercials on the television.
At that point I began reconsidering.
I think that the non-insane peoples' objection to the replacement of sucrose with HFCS is that HFCS is very cheap and therefore gets used more, not that it's categorically different.
Sugar is pretty much the same as HFCS once it gets past the stomach, as Michael Byrnes noted, but a lot more gets into the stomach because the food manufacturers can afford so much more.
-dk
Honey, btw, is approximately the same composition of fructose and glucose (not sucrose) as HFCS.
Until someone starts mining sugar out of the ground like pure white salt, it's all just chemicals to me.
What will it be if someone does start mining sugar out of the ground?
I started seeing pro-HFCS commercials on the television.
I love those commercials. Why, I remember having conversations just like with my boyz when I was a teenager. We'd hang out and argue about the merits of various disaccarides.
Just like the time I had to get a job as a pirate because my credit rating was bad. I had been independently wealthy until my FICO score dropped to 630, at which point I had to get a job for some reason.
Derek Lowe? The Dodgers pitcher?
There are differences between sucrose and high fructose corn syrup in the way the body processes these two.
Sucrose, being a disaccharide, is broken down in the body by sucrase into its component parts glucose and fructose and the body reacts to this by signaling a satiation of hunger.
HFCS is composed of two monosaccharides and may bypass such signals, and thus people eat more because they don't feel full.
Thought to check wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
This is probably worth a read, particularly the health effects section.
If so, probably worth pointing out that plenty of sugar and corn growers are supporting Sen. Obama because he's pro-sugar quotas and corn farm supports, unlike Sen. McCain.
Unfortunately, thanks to Congress, McCain's views wouldn't actually make a difference. But Obama is certainly the pro-HFCS candidate here.
I wonder how it is that US sugar producers actually prefer that their product is less attractive to buyers due to government intervention. Is the de facto subsidy really so very high to make all the HFCS use inconsequential to them? My God, what a ridiculous scenario to actually prefer to have shrinking market share.
Just like the time I had to get a job as a pirate because my credit rating was bad. I had been independently wealthy until my FICO score dropped to 630, at which point I had to get a job for some reason.
Ha-ha! I've always had the same reaction to that commercial too. Maybe he was working for the CIA, but when his credit score plummeted they decided the risk that he would be 'turned' was too high, and had to let him go. And of course his CIA skills only translated to being a Pirate waiter in the civilian world.
Check out Gary Taubes book "Good Calories, Bad Calories". I think there is an entire chapter on how fructose slips straight to the liver and causes all sorts of mischief with triglyceride and cholesterol levels.
As a chem student I was amused to learn what a "bomb calorimeter" was, and how it was used to determine food calories (by burning/exploding them).
We were told that burning extracted the same energy as our bodies. That is still apparently a good first rough approximation, but it isn't surprising to me now that there was more to the story.
The specific molecules in our food might trigger all sorts of responses in our food (and our gut ecosystems) that are not quite as simple as the burn-heat.
A linkage may be possible, but in the wider discussion OECD countries have a range of policies on sugar/corn and a range of rates of obesity, but no apparent correlation between the two. (At least according to two Iowa State economists: http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/08wp462.pdf.)
We were told that burning extracted the same energy as our bodies. That is still apparently a good first rough approximation, but it isn't surprising to me now that there was more to the story.
You probably could have deduced that even then by drinking gasoline or eating wood.
While there is logic in that argument, he updated it with links to three separate actual studies that have shown no differences.
Medicine has benefited greatly from black box empiricism. The human body is extremely complex with an insane amount of feedback loops. Nutritional science up to this point with it's obsessive focus on a linear calorie = calorie dogma is doing no one any favors. Most people understand basic laws of thermodynamics; they what they want to know why people get fat in the real world.
Apologies for the previous comment's last sentence. What I meant to say was "Most people understand basic laws of thermodynamics; they want to know why people get fat in the real world."
HFCS agitators, soy freakouts, and other variations of the "somebody is trying to poison me...I just know it" crowd are an endless source of amusement. This is what happens when people don't have enough lions, tigers, and bears in their natural environment -- they start magnifying trivial risks in order for their survival mechanisms to feel vindicated.
Want to be healthy? Stay properly hydrated throughout the day, and then reduce your intake of processed foods and simple carbohydrates. Eat a balanced diet high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains while limiting your portions. We've known this for a long time, and more important, anybody can do this without having to identify and understand, say, the exact mechanism by which fructose might work to convince your liver that it should be eating more fructose.
Rob: "You probably could have deduced that even then by drinking gasoline or eating wood."
Yes, nonetheless, I think you'll find the calorie counts upon which we all rely are still determined by bomb calorimeter.
Why is that pretzel pack 100 calories? Because of the way it burns.
The one sugar that i am truly concerned about is lactose. For obvious reasons, deriving it, it is bad for the health and well-being of millions if not billions. Consuming lactose is not so great either but probably half as bad as "producing" it. I will stick to my fruit sugars - as all apes and mammals do after babyhood.
Until someone starts mining sugar out of the ground like pure white salt, it's all just chemicals to me.
What will it be if someone does start mining sugar out of the ground?
Then it will be natural and hence safe. Like asbestos or uranium.
Want to be healthy? Stay properly hydrated throughout the day, and then reduce your intake of processed foods and simple carbohydrates. Eat a balanced diet high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains while limiting your portions. We've known this for a long time, and more important, anybody can do this without having to identify and understand, say, the exact mechanism by which fructose might work to convince your liver that it should be eating more fructose.
Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | October 31, 2008 5:02 PM
yes, until we know better, that's what we should know.