High fructose corn syrup makes you fat!! ..study finds [WARNING: broscience inside]

[tabasco.sauce]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0322121115.htm

ScienceDaily (Mar. 22, 2010) — 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.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."

In results published online March 18 by the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, the researchers from the Department of Psychology and the Princeton Neuroscience Institute reported on two experiments investigating the link between the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and obesity.

The first study showed that male rats given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, in conjunction with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas.
The second experiment -- the first long-term study of the effects of high-fructose corn syrup consumption on obesity in lab animals -- monitored weight gain, body fat and triglyceride levels in rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup over a period of six months. Compared to animals eating only rat chow, rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly. Male rats in particular ballooned in size: Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet. In humans, this would be equivalent to a 200-pound man gaining 96 pounds.

"These rats aren't just getting fat; they're demonstrating characteristics of obesity, including substantial increases in abdominal fat and circulating triglycerides," said Princeton graduate student Miriam Bocarsly. "In humans, these same characteristics are known risk factors for high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, cancer and diabetes." In addition to Hoebel and Bocarsly, the research team included Princeton undergraduate Elyse Powell and visiting research associate Nicole Avena, who was affiliated with Rockefeller University during the study and is now on the faculty at the University of Florida. The Princeton researchers note that they do not know yet why high-fructose corn syrup fed to rats in their study generated more triglycerides, and more body fat that resulted in obesity.
High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are both compounds that contain the simple sugars fructose and glucose, but there at least two clear differences between them. First, sucrose is composed of equal amounts of the two simple sugars -- it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3 percent of the sweetener. Second, 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.

This creates a fascinating puzzle. 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, but may relate to the fact that excess fructose is being metabolized to produce fat, while glucose is largely being processed for energy or stored as a carbohydrate, called glycogen, in the liver and muscles.

In the 40 years since the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup as a cost-effective sweetener in the American diet, rates of obesity in the U.S. have skyrocketed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1970, around 15 percent of the U.S. population met the definition for obesity; today, roughly one-third of the American adults are considered obese, the CDC reported. High-fructose corn syrup is found in a wide range of foods and beverages, including fruit juice, soda, cereal, bread, yogurt, ketchup and mayonnaise. On average, Americans consume 60 pounds of the sweetener per person every year.

"Our findings lend support to the theory that the excessive consumption of high-fructose corn syrup found in many beverages may be an important factor in the obesity epidemic," Avena said.
The new research complements previous work led by Hoebel and Avena demonstrating that sucrose can be addictive, having effects on the brain similar to some drugs of abuse.

In the future, the team intends to explore how the animals respond to the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in conjunction with a high-fat diet -- the equivalent of a typical fast-food meal containing a hamburger, fries and soda -- and whether excessive high-fructose corn syrup consumption contributes to the diseases associated with obesity. Another step will be to study how fructose affects brain function in the control of appetite.
The research was supported by the U.S. Public Health Service.

Editor's Note: In response to the above-mentioned study, The Corn Refiners Association issued a statement titled "Gross Errors in Princeton Animal Study on Obesity and High Fructose Corn Syrup: Research in Humans Discredits Princeton Study" (http://www.corn.org/princeton-hfcs-study-errors.html).
Email or share this story:
| More
Story Source:
Adapted from materials provided by Princeton University. Original article written by Hilary Parker.
Journal Reference:
Miriam E. Bocarsly, Elyse S. Powell, Nicole M. Avena, Bartley G. Hoebel. High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristic of obesity in rats: Increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride levels. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 2010; DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2010.02.012

[McJimmie]

No sh** Sherlock !

This news brought to you from the University of the Bleedin' Obvious

[RealMenDeadLift]

This is what happens when the rats have the equivalent of 20 cans a day for humans, and that being the ONLY food source for them. They also had no real control.

Poor study

[lod254]

A calorie is a calorie.

The only way that study would make sense to me was if corn syrup was more easily converted to fat than other sugars. It would therefore take less calories to convert it, having a higher caloric yield when all is said and done.

[tabasco.sauce]

I've highlighted the more important parts...

the article actually doesn't mention being fed the equivalent of "20 cans a day for humans" but does indicate that the rats are fed a consistent diet of rat feed..

although i don't agree or disagree, I think the study is more interesting than not..

here is another study that finds "High Fructose Corn Syrup Linked to Liver Scarring"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0322121115.htm

[snorkelman]

In an article on Princton's website

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/a.../S26/91/22K07/

there is a quote that we often see in this debate:

"In the 40 years since the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup as a cost-effective sweetener in the American diet, rates of obesity in the U.S. have skyrocketed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1970, around 15 percent of the U.S. population met the definition for obesity; today, roughly one-third of the American adults are considered obese, the CDC reported."

In fact, the typical argument involves charts like this attempting to connect HFCS to obesity:



However, I could just as easily overlay the HFCS consumption chart over the raise in HIV/AIDs and make a nonsensical claim that HFCS consumption must result in HIV/AIDs.




The editor's note in the original article provided by OP is quite telling.

[Vietgoboi]

Were you on another forum?

http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?t=6963

By the way,

You
Are
Not
A
Rat

[rhizome]

It would be nice if the "person" who posted this actually read the full text of the study.

[RealMenDeadLift]

I've highlighted the more important parts...

the article actually doesn't mention being fed the equivalent of "20 cans a day for humans" but does indicate that the rats are fed a consistent diet of rat feed..

although i don't agree or disagree, I think the study is more interesting than not..

here is another study that finds "High Fructose Corn Syrup Linked to Liver Scarring"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0322121115.htm

The actual article is behind a paywall but the consumption isn't listed in the abstract. You must read the full study before taking it as gospel. The overwhelming trend in criticisms of HFCS is that they completely ignore dose-dependency. The doses fed to the subjects is always astronomical compared to reality and in this case that trend applies.

[tk217]

The actual article is behind a paywall but the consumption isn't listed in the abstract. You must read the full study before taking it as gospel. The overwhelming trend in criticisms of HFCS is that they completely ignore dose-dependency. The doses fed to the subjects is always astronomical compared to reality and in this case that trend applies.

Well -- calories are calories.

The problem with high fructose corn syrup isn't that it is a calorie machine -- it is that it does not have fiber to go along with the fructose (much like sucrose and other sugars with fructose as a second 6 carbon string).

The issue is that fructose apparently causes bad carbonyl compounds like methglyicol in the liver when they metabolize. It isn't good for you.

The other issue with fructose is that without the correct fibers nad nutrients (found in apples and bananas and other fruits) is that it eventually turns into lipids in the GI tract. You get fat cells.

You can burn that fat off if you exercise or diet properly eventually. The methaglycol which happens to cause diabetes can also be treated by adding antixoides to your body (from teas) and other things.

But yes, High fructose corn syrup isn't good for you by itself. Fructose in general isn't.

The oxidization process is another problem when you look at "high fructose" soda pops. When you mix with Vitamin C - you cause carcenogens to appear - this isn't due to the fructose but the benzoyl persevatives that are found in the sodas to keep them fresh so you end up getting cancer from soda when you have vitamin C in your body.

You can always use less sugar in your diet. Even with a poor study like this - exposing how lack of exercise + exceptional intake of calories = fat -- okay? Duh?

The study should be focusing more on diabetes less on getting fat.

Fructose corn syrup is defiantly not something you need in your diet though just as much as pure sugar isn't something you need in your diet Nom nom nom mmm bleached table sugar.. sweet. =/

[tagun]

So, is fructose really the poison it’s painted to be? The answer is not an absolute yes or no; the evilness of fructose depends completely on dosage and context.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...f-context.html

Yes?

EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING IS BAD FOR YOU when you look at it from an extremist point of view. ONE soda a day is nothing, while 20 obviously are. But that context is not a fair representation of reality thus the results of those studies are not at all relevant for a human being that is capable of practicing moderation and ingests much, much, much, much ... MUCH smaller amounts of HFCS than that.

Goddamnit, why is it so freaking hard to face the fact that there's NO ONE SINGLE macronutrient/exercise/diet tip/pill/X that is somehow magic, that somehow makes you less or more fat just because of the essence of it.

[rhizome]

snip

You are a BROscience machine.

[tk217]

You are a BROscience machine.

u mad bro?

[LgFriess]

Thanks for posting the article.

Am I reading this right in thinking they are saying that in this case, a calorie is not a calorie. The HFCS rats got much fatter on the SAME number of calories as the non-HFCS rats? That's interesting to me.

Oh well, I stay away from it anyway.

[kusok]

This is what happens when the rats have the equivalent of 20 cans a day for humans, and that being the ONLY food source for them. They also had no real control.

Poor study

Do we REALLY need a "study" to know that 20 cans of coke is not a great idea?

[RealMenDeadLift]

Well -- calories are calories.

The problem with high fructose corn syrup isn't that it is a calorie machine -- it is that it does not have fiber to go along with the fructose (much like sucrose and other sugars with fructose as a second 6 carbon string).

The issue is that fructose apparently causes bad carbonyl compounds like methglyicol in the liver when they metabolize. It isn't good for you.

The other issue with fructose is that without the correct fibers nad nutrients (found in apples and bananas and other fruits) is that it eventually turns into lipids in the GI tract. You get fat cells.

You can burn that fat off if you exercise or diet properly eventually. The methaglycol which happens to cause diabetes can also be treated by adding antixoides to your body (from teas) and other things.

But yes, High fructose corn syrup isn't good for you by itself. Fructose in general isn't.

The oxidization process is another problem when you look at "high fructose" soda pops. When you mix with Vitamin C - you cause carcenogens to appear - this isn't due to the fructose but the benzoyl persevatives that are found in the sodas to keep them fresh so you end up getting cancer from soda when you have vitamin C in your body.

You can always use less sugar in your diet. Even with a poor study like this - exposing how lack of exercise + exceptional intake of calories = fat -- okay? Duh?

The study should be focusing more on diabetes less on getting fat.

Fructose corn syrup is defiantly not something you need in your diet though just as much as pure sugar isn't something you need in your diet Nom nom nom mmm bleached table sugar.. sweet. =/

d...o...s...e d...e...p...e...n...d...e...n...c...y

[tk217]

d...o...s...e d...e...p...e...n...d...e...n...c...y

My focus has nothing to do with fat and I already agreed with you that this a poor study.

o.O

Maybe my post should be on illiteracy in the internet.

[RealMenDeadLift]

My focus has nothing to do with fat and I already agreed with you that this a poor study.

o.O

Maybe my post should be on illiteracy in the internet.

I am not talking about weight gain either, the same principle applies to your concerns over the liver. Dose dependency

[dolphinsfan270]

Thank you dick cheese!

[in10city]

Thanks for posting the article.

Am I reading this right in thinking they are saying that in this case, a calorie is not a calorie. The HFCS rats got much fatter on the SAME number of calories as the non-HFCS rats? That's interesting to me.

Oh well, I stay away from it anyway.

They actually didn't report the number of total calories the different groups actually consumed. They only said "There was no overall difference in total caloric intake (sugar plus chow) among the sucrose group and two HFCS groups" likely meaning lack of "statistical significance" and that was only mentioned for the 60 day experiment.They didn't even mention any caloric intakes numbers for the 6-7 month leg. Regardless, a smaller non-statistical difference in caloric intake over 60-210 days can add up.

If you want to make fat rats, you can craft a study to make fat rats. Sucrose really isn't better. There were even differences in fat and triglyceride levels that didn't show HFCS to be worse than sucrose in some group measures.

Experiment 1
Males: 8 weeks
1. 24-h HFCS + ad libitum chow : 470 +/- 7 grams BW
2. 12-h HFCS + ad libitum chow : 502 +/ 11 grams BW
3. 12-h sucrose + ad libitum chow : 477 +/- 9 grams BW
4. Ad libitum chow : 462 +/- 12 grams BW

"We selected these schedules to allow comparison of intermittent and continuous access, as our previous publications show limited (12 h) access to sucrose precipitates binge-eating behavior"

Experiment 2
Males: 6 months
1. 24-h HFCS + ad libitum chow : 767 +/- 24 grams BW
2. 12-h HFCS + ad libitum chow : 718 +/- 28 grams BW
3. Ad libitum chow : 616 +/- 36 grams BW

Experiment 2
Females: 7 months
1. 24-h HFCS + ad libitum chow : 355 +/- 12 grams BW
2. 12-h HFCS + 12-h chow : 323 +/- 9 grams BW
3. 12-h sucrose + 12-h chow : 333 +/- 10 grams BW
4. Ad libitum chow : 328 +/- 10 grams BW

"After 7 months of access, the 24-h access HFCS group had significantly elevated TG levels compared to both ad libitum chowfed controls and rats maintained on 12-h sucrose (24-h HFCS=225 +/- 36 mg/dL, 12-h sucrose=128 +/-16 mg/dL, ad libitum chow-fed controls= 153 +/- 15 mg/dL). No difference was found in TG levels for the 12-h HFCS group (128 +/- 7 mg/dL) when compared to chow-fed controls."

"we included a group with access to sucrose for comparison with HFCS, as well as 12-h access to chow, to determine if limited access to chow, in the presence of HFCS or sucrose, could affect body weight."




So if you can get your head screwed on straight and evaluate the data, the sound bytes become misleading.

[rhizome]

^ **** yeah! Alan fixed dat der title to make some sense.

[tabasco.sauce]

LoL.. I'm honored to have my title changed...

Personally I don't agree or disagree with the various anti HFCS studies however in a socierty that is progressively moving towards excess (eating pre-packaged, manufactured, processed goods for 2+ meals) I think studies that show what excess consumption of particular artificial / widely used ingredients *could* do remind us to choose a more natural diet full of variety and to recommend this type of lifestyle to friends or family we see living an excess lifestyle... IMO!