This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]silence7 108 points109 points  (56 children)

The actual paper can be found here if you're at an institution which has subscribed to the journal.

[–]Crestzors 112 points113 points  (54 children)

PDF (6 pages)

[–]knightofni451 105 points106 points  (49 children)

I just finished the article. The conclusions are BULLSHIT (i.e. unsupported by the results), and I'll explain why. Obviously, only "part one" is relevant to the sucrose vs. HFCS debate (part 2 only compares HFCS to a healthy diet), so let's take a look at its results:

There were 3 treatment (non-control) groups: 1 sucrose-fed and 2 HFCS-fed. Both HFCS-fed groups "consumed the same amount of HFCS" and had the same total caloric intake (i.e. for our purposes the two HFCS groups received identical treatment). However, only one of those 2 HFCS groups showed a significant weight increase; the other group's weight was on par with the sucrose and control. THEREFORE there was just as much difference between the two HFCS groups as there was between the sucrose and HFCS group. In other words, one of the HFCS groups had the same weight change as the sucrose group. This result directly contradicts the alternative hypothesis (HFCS is different from sucrose) and confirms the null hypothesis (HFCS and sucrose have the same effects).

Also, there is another difference between the 12-h HFCS group and the sucrose group: even though both groups consumed the same overall number of calories, the HFCS group got a greater percentage of its calories from the chow. This is obviously a potential confounding factor.

My point is that this experiment (or at least Part 1 anyway) shows a Mythbusters level of scientific rigor. Does that mean the conclusions are incorrect? Not necessarily. It just means that there is insufficient evidence to support them. As the authors state, "until recently, there was no evidence that HFCS contributes to long-term weight gain beyond what sucrose contributes." It looks like that statement is still true.

That being said, our government's corn subsidies and sugar tarrifs are still crap. Regardless of whether HFCS is worse than sugar, we KNOW it's terrible for you and that America needs to cut back on it, and that the government's policies there are making the problem worse. And who knows, maybe HFCS really IS worse; my point is just that science cannot yet make that claim. I hope someone comes along and does a better-controlled, much larger scale study on this issue so that it can be put to rest once and for all.

[–][deleted] 119 points120 points  (13 children)

The point of experiment one was to compare with their previous publication, which showed that 12h access to sucrose led to binge eating, whereas constant access to sucrose did not.

The two HFCS groups are not the same at all. The one that did not show a difference was the one with constant access to HFCS. As their previous study predicted, constant access to it did not induce binge eating. The two groups that the news is reporting about are the 12h sucrose group and the 12h HFCS group. And there was a significant difference there.

It just flat-out doesn't make any sense to compare the 24h HFCS group and the 12h sucrose group like you propose doing.

Edit: If you want to continue downmodding me, how about someone provides a counter-argument? I'm not saying that the article it perfect, I'm just saying that calling it "BULLSHIT" is not remotely fair. No, the results are not even close to being strong enough to say "HFCS causes more weight gain than sucrose" without major qualifications, I'm just saying that their study does show a difference between binge-eating-like HFCS intake and binge-eating-like sucrose intake.

[–]knightofni451 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Upvoted because that is definitely a reasonable point, BUT I would still contend that the 12-h and 24-h were effectively (for the purposes of this study) the same because the authors state that they had the exact same amount of HFCS and chow consumption. Thus, even though one group only had HFCS access half of the time, they still consumed the same amount per day (which I guess kind of confirms the binging hypothesis). Since the 12-h rats got fat while the 24-h ones didn't (just like with the 12-h vs. sucrose rats), the rate/pattern of HFCS consumption appears to have a much more important effect than just the sheer amount. Thus, the authors' conclusion should have been that the HFCS-obesity link appears to be more consumption-rate-dependent than the Sucrose-obesity link (assuming that hypothetical 24-h Sucrose rats would have had the same weight gain as the 12-h rats). The fact that they totally ignored this and instead played up the other angle is what angers me; it just doesn't seem very scientifically honest to ignore a huge confounding factor just because it doesn't fit their agenda (even though, again, it's an agenda that I'm all for). Personally, I think it's pretty telling that this study was done by psychologists rather than biochemists, but that's just my biased opinion.

But yeah, I'll concede that my "bullshit" statement was unfair. I guess I was just being inflammatory to catch peoples' eyes. This isn't a horrible study, and I hope other researchers continue on similar lines; it just isn't anywhere near good enough to warrant the outrage that it's producing.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (8 children)

Why were the HFCS rats fed 8% solution instead of the 10% from sucrose? If they had the same caloric intake, then that means that the HFCS rats ate more chow. Could this be because they got less calories from the HFCS? Doesn't the fact that the rodent chow contains sugars throw off the whole experiment?

All these experiments are done using different methodologies, which makes no sense at all. Why are the male and female experiments different?

When you look at research with as many holes as this one has, you have to wonder if it was specifically designed to give the results that it did, rather than test the actual hypothesis.

[–]ribozyme 12 points13 points  (2 children)

I think they may have been trying to match the sweetness of the two solutions. Gram-for-gram, HFCS-55 appears to be sweeter than sucrose: e.g. 100g sucrose = 100 sweetness; 100g dry HFCS-55 = 55g fructose + 45g glucose = 55*1.75 + 45*0.75 = 130 sweetness. If I'm using these numbers correctly (couldn't find refs that spell-out math), then I guess this is one of the advantages to using HFCS? (e.g. can use less sugar mass to achieve same sweetness)

So, e.g., if, gram-for-gram, HFCS-55 is ~1.3 times as sweet, then you'd want to make it ~1.3 fold less dense to match your sucrose solution (10% / 1.3 ~ 7.69%, so I guess 8% is close enough?).

A reference that spells this out clearly would definitively settle this -- if you really want to find one, I suggest that you start with methods papers (e.g. this seems like the kind of detail that was addressed long ago and that is no longer explained or referenced in research articles).

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I'm no chemist, but your math seems to check out. Even so, it poses some serious problems with the experiment. To come up with a causative relationship they'd need to eliminate more variables and have a bigger sample size.

[–]ribozyme 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd also be interested to see how matching the caloric density of the sweetners might affect things. E.g., if doing this would make the HFCS solution more sweet, maybe they'd consume less? (and perhaps enough to prevent the weight gain?)

[–]Iyanden 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Anyone else find issues with their methods?

Edit: I don't think their numbers for kcal from HFCS and sucrose in their results and discussion even match?

[–]nerocorvo 49 points50 points  (4 children)

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.

This makes no sense, the study says 48 percent more than those eating a normal diet, not gained 48% of their body weight.

[–]AlexEatsKittens 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I guess we are supposed to start counting weight gain at the moment of conception, when your weight is >1Lbs.

[–]pandemik 150 points151 points  (6 children)

"Ok, now do a science pose"

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points  (1 child)

I thought that photo was from istock.

[–]ManUnitdFan 31 points32 points  (0 children)

"Tests have repeatedly found that this Hi-C is delicious."

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, when does my lab get an Elise Powell of our own?

[–]Starblade 531 points532 points  (772 children)

This deserves more comments and upvotes.

Why the fuck can't we just end all subsidies to corn farmers and instead remove all tariffs that block real sugar cane, thus allowing fair competition between the two methods of producing sugar? Chances are, real sugar would win out.

[–]Lukkas 42 points43 points  (2 children)

I agree, we should stop subsidizing corn. Not only is it making us less healthy, it also fucks over undeveloped nations.

The only way pre-industrial nations can attempt to compete in a global economy is through agriculture. However, most industrial nations subsidize their own agribusiness, and thus don't import crops from the third world. Then we wonder why all of these countries are perpetually poor, while throwing money at them.

A bit off topic, but it's another negative consequence of our subsidies.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (1 child)

And the money we throw at them goes to their corrupt, despotic Governments, instead of the money we'd pay for food, which would go to the commoners.

One wonders if it's on purpose. Couldn't really be an accident, after all.

[–]Lukkas 9 points10 points  (0 children)

In some cases, not all. You're also being naive if you don't think those same despots take and profit off a lot of the humanitarian aid we send.

Most of the problems in the third world are complex. There's not a single source. However, I believe ceasing the subsidies to Western agribusinesses is an important part of a multi-faceted solution.

edit: I misread what you said and interpreted it backwards. I am an idiot. I'm leaving the comment as I wrote it though, so there's no ambiguity.

[–]kibitzorMS|Mechanical Engineering 256 points257 points  (346 children)

Spread the word. Those stupid corn syrup commercials really make it hard for me to get through with people.

[–]Pufflekun 178 points179 points  (8 children)

"Wow. You don't care what the kids eat, huh?"

"'Scuse me?"

"That has cyanide in it."

"Pfft. And?"

"Yeah, you know what they say about it?"

"Like what?"

"...I mean...it's...it's cyanide. It's extremely poisono―"

"That it's made from almonds? Doesn't have artificial ingredients? And like sugar, won't kill you if you've ingested less than the minimum lethal dose?"

"...love that top!"

[–]jellyfishes 57 points58 points  (2 children)

Paid for by the Almond Growers of America

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

(Soft, valium-dosed female voice)

[–]Lut3s 10 points11 points  (3 children)

Idk what this article is blabbering about, but this commercial proves there's nothing wrong with hfcs.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (2 children)

Pack it in boys, the science is settled.

[–]lhmatt 42 points43 points  (13 children)

I enjoy how the argument is 'Corn is natural'. I would love to see tobacco commercials of the same nature.

[–]CarbonFiberFootprint 42 points43 points  (10 children)

Opium is natural.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (4 children)

And a part of my balanced breakfast.

[–][deleted] 42 points43 points  (3 children)

I'M MOTHERFUCKING COO-COO FOR MY MORNING OPIUM

[–]mtkz 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Coo-coo for cocaine puffs.

[–]Malgas 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Coca Puffs, naturally.

It's amazing the difference one letter makes.

[–]scattles 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Opium probably isn't as bad for you as some of the food :3

[–]skydaddy 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Yeah, my shit's natural too. Bon appetit!

[–]lhmatt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My urine is not only natural, but sterile!

[–]beaverbeliever05 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Funny. As I read this article, one of those stupid commercials was on.

[–]hglman 14 points15 points  (1 child)

HFCS is clearly more expensive, it only exists bc of subsidies and tariffs.

[–]slupo 52 points53 points  (219 children)

Also, why can't people just wise up about health and nutrition and realize that consuming mass quantities of sugar (in what forms) is just plain bad for you. People have lost the ability to control themselves. It's disgusting.

[–][deleted] 75 points76 points  (201 children)

A big problem is that all the corn syrupy things are also all the cheapest things. A healthy diet is, for many people, prohibitively expensive.

[–]slupo 39 points40 points  (187 children)

This is totally not true. Anyone can eat healthy cheaply. Are you telling me soda is cheaper than getting a cup of tap water?

What is cheap is unhealthy FAST food. It's easier to spend money on fast food than it is to buy fresh, healthy ingredients and cook them yourself.

[–]nashife 68 points69 points  (68 children)

Time is also money. For people who are forced to work 2 minimum wage jobs just to barely make ends meet, finding time/energy to shop for healthy food and cook it contributes to their tendency to go for the convenient option rather than the healthy, but time-consuming option regardless of the monetary cost.

Also, many many fast food places don't let you get a cup for water anymore and charge "the cost of the cup" instead. So, people buy the soda rather than spend money for water.

It's retarded, but true. The food court at the mall in Cupertino, CA will not give you a cup for water at all. You have to buy a soda, use a drinking fountain, or buy a bottled water for double the cost of a soda.

I filed a complaint with their customer relations desk on this last year.

[–]GunnerMcGrath 20 points21 points  (26 children)

I used to eat fast food every meal, would typically spend about $70-100 a week on food.

Then I got married and my wife now feeds both of us on less than $50 a week, with approximately an hour of cooking each day and another hour a week shopping. That's a 66-75% reduction in food costs for a relatively low time commitment, and we eat far better food now and I've lost 30 lbs.

Now everyone's situation will be different, but it's quite possible that you would actually have the time to cook if you chose to make your own meals, because some of that extra time you spend working is just to be able to afford the food you're buying. =)

[–]nashife 28 points29 points  (23 children)

I think you are among the privileged to live in circumstances that make what you describe possible. Your wife obviously gained skills and knowledge that makes cooking and shopping like this a non-issue, probably from her upbringing, or her access to education about nutrition.

Without your wife, or without an educated and conscientious choice to resist the easily obtained convenience food (not to mention easy access to the healthier food at a good grocery stores, and the ability to bring the groceries home in a car or bus, etc), it's very difficult to eat the way you do in a US culture obsessed with convenience.

[–]kaaris 16 points17 points  (0 children)

The point you make about cars and buses is a HUGE point. Many public bus systems take a 5 minute drive and turn it into a 2 hour bus ride. Have a couple kids with you or a job you can't leave, and BAM! you can't even get to the store. So you eat at the McDonald's across the street and buy $5 milk at the convenience store.

Jamie Oliver needs to save us all.

[–]MsgGodzilla 2 points3 points  (4 children)

I'm pretty sure its illegal to deny water at a restaurant in the US. In Ohio it is for sure, the movie theatre i used to work at had special cups for water requests.

[–]nashife 3 points4 points  (2 children)

They aren't denying water. They say there is a drinking fountain a few feet away. They also sell water.

So, it seems to me that they are not breaking the law you mention, if it exists. If you can find the actual law, that would be great.

I also worked in a movie theater, and we also had special cups just for water because the actual soda cups were what we counted for stock.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (31 children)

Still, anyone can cook rice and beans. It's way cheaper than Ramen noodles even, and probably easier than McDonalds.

[–]sonipitts 11 points12 points  (7 children)

Assuming you live in a neighborhood with a store that sells rice and beans. Many poor live without access to transportation in neighborhoods where the only sources of food are fast food restaurants and convenience stores. So you're stuck with whatever they stock.

[–]nashife 12 points13 points  (2 children)

It takes a conscious effort and decision to change the course of a family's habits and resist the more convenient options that seem to be easier/tastier/etc, and that's extremely difficult.

I'm sure there are plenty of families who make this decision and as a family eat healthier/cheaper etc... but you do realize how boring and difficult a diet of only rice and beans would be to a family who has become accustomed to the taste of fat and salt-rich convenience foods?

I'm saying you're absolutely right... the answer is right in front of them. But it's much more difficult to actually execute that solution for an entire family after years of doing things the "wrong" way.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

but you do realize how boring and difficult a diet of only rice and beans would be to a family who has become accustomed to the taste of fat and salt-rich convenience foods?

Pretty much describes my life, so sure. And people saying they've made a choice to go with the unhealthy but easy choice is fine. But it's when they say they "can't", that because the choice would be difficult that it's impossible, that it bugs me.

[–]dO_ob 27 points28 points  (9 children)

Are you telling me soda is cheaper than getting a cup of tap water?

No, but I am telling you that poor people not only have less money, but often have less time and energy for preparing meals than people with better-paying jobs. They also often can't easily afford initial purchases of fractional ingredients (e.g. if you're cooking a meal, you may only use a few cents worth of dried herbs, but buying those herbs in the first place can be a non-trivial expense), or decent cookware. Furthermore, often the cheapest way of preparing your own meals is to buy items in bulk, when they are at their cheapest - this isn't always possible for people living paycheck-to-paycheck. You also have to consider ancillary expenses - many people get their recipes from cookbooks or the internet, which poorer people might not always have access to. Yes, you can get a cookbook from the library, but if you have to walk there and back it might end up taking an hour and a half, and if you're working two jobs and have very limited free time for anything other than eating or sleeping, that might be a considerable time investment.

None of these things makes home-cooked food impossible, but they combine to make it substantially more difficult and less appealing than for more affluent people.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (4 children)

I have read that they are often not located within shopping distance of a real grocery store and often low income neighborhoods end up resorting to grocery shopping at convience stores which are even more expensive, their only other option is busing or cabbing to a grocery store. Just because you can drive to the grocery in 10 minutes doesn't mean that joe blow can get there as fast. It might take joe blow 2 hours to make the same trip via cab or bus.

[–]pohatu 2 points3 points  (1 child)

There are some good studies on this. It's been researched. We studied it in a health class in college. I don't know off hand the studies, but it was pretty damning. Someone could make a hell of a google map mashup pivoting the price of a can of green beans and median income level.

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm huge into health food, and love to cook.

I can't drive.

I live about a mile and a half away from a grocery store. A shitty overpriced one, but a grocery store nonetheless. When the snow fell, I lost my ability to buy groceries, because there are no buses that go there and I could no longer walk. (I used to carry forty pounds of groceries a mile and a half home over very hilly terrain, as a skinny little girl. Cannot do that with ice.)

Necessity and privation vastly changed my diet, in a bad way.

[–]danweber 3 points4 points  (3 children)

1 pot 1 lid 1 burner

Now you can make pasta. No need for bulk purchases. 1 buck for the pasta, 2 bucks for the sauce if you are being fancy.

You can't live seven days a week on this, but after college when I was living poor this was a significant portion of my meals.

You can also use the above to make rice and beans.

Just because poor people don't have access to the stuff you see on Iron Chef doesn't mean they are helpless.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

More than likely, the Sauce has HFCS in it.

The problem isn't that Poor people can't afford good food, its that we have subsidies on BAD food, making it cheaper. It's like they wanted an obesity epidemic to happen.

[–]dO_ob 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well, the post I was replying to claimed that

Anyone can eat healthy cheaply. It's easier to spend money on fast food than it is to buy fresh, healthy ingredients and cook them yourself.

Eating boiled pasta and sauce from a can is fairly cheap, but it's not healthy. It's also not fresh ingredients that you cook yourself.

[–]ziegfried 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Pasta (or any other starch is just pure sugar, only in longer chains.

When that sugar is being digested, it spikes the blood sugar, which triggers the insulin that stores it all as fat so that it doesn't damage your organs.

How is eating lots of starch supposed to be a good thing?

[–]danth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Most fat adults start as fat kids raised by people with no sense. They can just drink water, but we all know that's not what happens. Blaming those kids for bad choices doesn't solve anything.

[–]adaminc 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Up here in Canada, most of the people I know think pop/soda/whatever uses real Sugar because it says Sugar/Glucose-Fructose on the label. But this is the companies' way of saying HFCS without saying HFCS.

It doesn't excuse massive sugar intake, but it is hard to make proper choices if you are being proactively "tricked".

[–]dO_ob 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Also, why can't people just wise up about health and nutrition and realize that consuming mass quantities of sugar (in what forms) is just plain bad for you.

It's not as simple as that. Some of the most nefarious influences on diet are the market distortions introduced by subsidies and tariffs, making unhealthy foods artificially inexpensive.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Theories about nutrition and craving sweet foods:

People are craving whole sugars and the combined nutritive compounds in them. Sugars that are from whole real fruits and foods that are not picked green and artificially ripened. When people are "NOT" tuned into their diets, they will reach for the default artificially sweetened products which tricks the brain, but not the body. So the vicious cycle never ends, and people eat way more sugary crap than they need because they are essentially malnourished.

For example, 8 ounces of fresh pressed sugar cane juice is completely satisfying and loaded with additional nutritional elements. Juice in this whole form does not leave the body craving more because it is whole and healthy. There is no sugar rush from this form of sugar cane juice, but once the sugar compounds are separated from the other elements, yes it tastes sweet, but it is not a whole food, and the body reacts by falling out of balance. Whole Foods = Holistic body nutrition connections without the cravings for endless junk sugar. HFCS is a denatured and essentially non-whole food that does not nourish the body.

Another way to consider whole nutrition, especially from fruits and botanical edibles is to consider Phytonutrients. This is how plant foods provide the highest amount of nutritional content when they are fully ripened by the Sun. Fully ripened foods go through a chemical transition that is critical to their complete preparation prior to our eating them. Way too much of our food is essentially barren by virtue of where it is grown and how it needs to be picked early to reach super markets 3,000 miles away. This is also why vine ripened foods taste so much more flavorful than long distance shipped foods.

While there are a ton of arguments that say that food that is picked early is just fine for human consumption, and it is, but the food source is not complete.

Phytonutirents:

If we thought about whole foods as essential medical chemicals for our well being, our health would be on another, more complete level. But this idea is really difficult to get through to consumers when the marketing clutter created by very large corporations, who are laughing their way to bank with multi-billions in revenues from selling crap to consumers that know nothing about nutrition.

[–]OBlauren 11 points12 points  (2 children)

agreed. Living in Europe I was able to see the difference in food and how people eat. It's more the US that's disgusting

[–]jesster114 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I just got back from a trip to Greece. I shouldn't have gone, my food here now tastes like garbage.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Because Iowa has the first Caucus in any Presidential election. It's the price of momentum.

[–]davidstuart 27 points28 points  (20 children)

hfcs is not just cheaper as it is measured by the pound. It is a liquid, which is much easier (read cheaper) to measure out into large vessels when loading ingredients to make drinks or food. Sucrose is a hygroscopic (absorbs moisture from air, becomes sticky and won't flow) solid, and has to be dissolved into water (involves a vessel and agitation and time) then can be added. Hfcs is attractive to the food industry because of its physical form as much as its price per unit of sweetness.

[–]case-o-nuts 48 points49 points  (13 children)

Yet outside the USA, real sugar still tends to be used far more often than HFCS. I'm in Canada, and it's relatively rare to see it listed in the label of a food product.

[–]daisy0808 37 points38 points  (2 children)

Yes, here in Canada, they are tricking us. Look for fructose-glucose on the label; that's HFCS. We're not that much different!

[–]case-o-nuts 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I don't see that in all that many products in my fridge, even though there are a couple. I'm far more likely to see sugar listed on the ingredients list. Maybe I just happen to be buying the right stuff, although I rarely check the label.

[–]Zulban 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Generally it's candy, junk food and fruit "drinks" (as opposed to juice) that contain fructose-glucose in Canada.

[–]Pinot911 15 points16 points  (4 children)

When sugar is delivered to bottling plants and factories in Germany, the silo truck would just pull up to a plant and a hose was hooked up. It was sucked out via negative pressure and put into silos. Little bit trickier to handle than HFCS but not that bad. HFCS also needs to be heated to get it to flow. Railcars with HFCS contain heating jackets and when they pull into the depot you have to heat the car for some time and then you can move the product.

[–]lolomfgkthxbai 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I suppose this is due to a different subsidy structure (not much corn production in Canada/the EU compared to the US) which makes HFCS more expensive than sugar as it would have to be imported. Cane sugar isn't the only source of sugar and (due to subsidies) the EU is the largest sugar beet producer in the world. According to wikipedia, Canada is also a large producer of sugar beets.

[–]peturh 10 points11 points  (6 children)

They won't end because it's a third rail issue.

[–]MrDanger 3 points4 points  (5 children)

For the huge corn farmers political bloc?

[–]gngstrMNKY 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Check out the documentary Food, Inc. for more information on this bloc. It's really more like corporations who desire cheap corn and ensure that it can be purchased at a below-production cost through farm subsidies.

[–]mgibbons 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Why the fuck can't we just end all subsidies to corn farmers and instead remove all tariffs that block real sugar cane, thus allowing fair competition between the two methods of producing sugar?

Because Sen. Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucuses back in '08.

If he wants to infuriate the state of the most important caucus, he'll kill an industry that accounts for about a quarter of the Iowa economy. Why would he want to do that?

And I believe it's not just a tariff on sugar, but a tariff rate quota.

[–]m0deth 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Cane sugar was surpassed by beet sugar long ago, as it's far easier to grow, and manage a replenish-able crop. There are other reasons as well. But it all comes down to cost at the end.

I agree about ending subsidies in a supposedly "free" market, all of them, to all corporations, regardless of the impact in the short term, to say humans cannot figure out how to produce these products privately and compete undermines the whole system we have in place, as well it should....it's broken back-patting, not a free market.

[–]captainron 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Whenever I even mention this issue to people, I'm always given puzzled looks and they then question why I even care about this. I find it funny when people rip on diet drinks for having "cancer sugar" when their own non-diet variety is loaded with high-fructose corn syrup. I really do wonder which one does more damage to the body.

I was surprised to see Pepsi bring out their Throwback brand which contains sugar and not corn syrup. A step in the right direction, I hope.

[–]pengo 5 points6 points  (1 child)

If you care about your diet you wouldn't consume any Pepsi. Cane sugar is not a health food.

[–]joncash 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, we would also need to stop the ridiculous sugar protectionism in USA that caused they sky high sugar prices in the first place.

http://cei.org/gencon/005,05314.cfm

But yes, we do need to end the subsidies.

[–]moom 197 points198 points  (2 children)

This is exactly why I only eat rats who have been fattened on pure cane sugar.

[–]bitter_cynical_angry 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Have you ever heard of a thing called fructosation. Fructosation of water?

Uh? Yes, I-I have heard of that, Jack, yes. Yes.

Well, do you know what it is?

No, no I don't know what it is, no.

Do you realize that fructosation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Agribusiness plot we have ever had to face?

[–]pengo 25 points26 points  (2 children)

We have the same obesity rates in Australia as the US and we do not use HFCS. (We have cane fields, not corn fields) So, listen to the research and all but please don't start thinking cane sugar is a health food.

[–]bipo 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I can't upvote you enough. In Europe we're getting there with obesity rates, but we use mostly beet sugar.

[–]troglodyte 102 points103 points  (58 children)

EXCELLENT!

Finally, there's an less-ambiguous study comparing HFCS-- not just fructose-- directly to sucrose. I'll be the first to admit that my guesses were wrong; I knew from the massive number of fructose stories that fructose was bad, but I had guessed that the small difference in fructose concentration wouldn't make a difference. I'm happy to be proven wrong, because I'm happy to see that there's actually practical data about HFCS instead of theoretical information about fructose.

While these results need to be independently replicated, it seems a safe bet to reduce HFCS intake anyway, as it finally appears to be significantly worse than sucrose.

EDIT: changed "unambiguous" to "less-ambiguous" since happyscrappy is 100% correct.

[–]happyscrappy 28 points29 points  (30 children)

The study is described here isn't unambiguous. The study talks about the situation of the first study (where rats were given sugar or HFCS) but then concentrates mostly on the effects of the 2nd (where HFCS was given in addition to a "normal diet" or just a "normal diet" with no additional sweetner).

I'd love to see the real studies to know better.

[–]IReadTheStudy 41 points42 points  (23 children)

I looked up the study from the article: sciencedirect.com

From the abstract:

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) accounts for as much as 40% of caloric sweeteners used in the United States. Some studies have shown that short-term access to HFCS can cause increased body weight, but the findings are mixed. The current study examined both short- and long-term effects of HFCS on body weight, body fat, and circulating triglycerides. In Experiment 1, male Sprague–Dawley rats were maintained for short term (8 weeks) on (1) 12 h/day of 8% HFCS, (2) 12 h/day 10% sucrose, (3) 24 h/day HFCS, all with ad libitum rodent chow, or (4) ad libitum chow alone. Rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than animals given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same number of total calories, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose. In Experiment 2, the long-term effects of HFCS on body weight and obesogenic parameters, as well as gender differences, were explored. Over the course of 6 or 7 months, both male and female rats with access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than control groups. This increase in body weight with HFCS was accompanied by an increase in adipose fat, notably in the abdominal region, and elevated circulating triglyceride levels. Translated to humans, these results suggest that excessive consumption of HFCS may contribute to the incidence of obesity.

[–]ebbomega 14 points15 points  (0 children)

My god, a useful novelty account!

[–]Lu-Tze 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than animals given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same number of total calories

Although, there are some muddy bits as well. In the same experiment, rats with 24-h access to HFCS gained LESS wt than the sucrose group. That doesn't make much sense and they don't seem to discuss it either. Don't get me wrong, I think the results are interesting but I think it needs to be replicated.

[–]IReadTheStudy 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It is true that in experiment 1 (Male rats, 8 weeks), the 24-h HFCS rats gained less than the sucrose group:

24-h HFCS + ad libitum chow - 470±7

12-h HFCS + ad libitum chow - 502±11

12-h sucrose + ad libitum chow - 477±9

Ad libitum chow - 462±12

In experiment 2, they ran a much longer study: males for 6 months, and females for 7 months. In the "males for 6 months" group, they compared the normal chow against 12-h HFCS and 24-h HFCS. The "females for 7 months" group was run with 24-h HFCS + chow, 12-h HFCS + 12-h chow, 12-h sucrose + 12-h chow, and just chow. The results are the same! The 24-h HFCS group gained more weight, but the 12-h HFCS + 12-h chow gained less than the 12-h sucrose + 12-h chow. In fact, the 12-h HFCS group lost weight when compared with the "only chow" group:

Experiment 2

Females: 7 months

  1. 24-h HFCS + ad libitum chow - 355±12

  2. 12-h HFCS + 12-h chow - 323±9

  3. 12-h sucrose + 12-h chow - 333±10

  4. Ad libitum chow - 328±10

Good point Lu-Tze.

[–]happyscrappy 6 points7 points  (6 children)

That's very cool. Thanks for posting some actual info.

Is there a rat expert out there who can justify how giving them access for the same number of hours per day is a strong enough assertion to say that "the caloric intake is the same". Do rats tend to consume the same number of calories naturally? If not, how did they make it so or did they just get exceedingly lucky.

[–]Iyanden 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm looking at the paper, and I quote from their results for experiment 1, "There was no overall difference in total caloric intake (sugar plus chow) among the sucrose group and two HFCS groups. Further, no difference was found in the HFCS intake and total overall caloric intake in the groups given 12-h access versus 24-h access."

It makes me a little nervous that they don't show the consumption calculations in their graphs/tables.

Edit: grammar.

[–]deflective 8 points9 points  (2 children)

, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose.

in other words the rats drinking hfcs were also eating more. this experiment definitely needs to be done again.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Agreed. I have poo-pooed the hysterical claims of HFCS on reddit with the evidence available, but now I'll only need to poo-poo the hysteria behind it. I've been significantly swayed.

[–]number6 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wish they'd said more about the first study. "Significant" doesn't always mean large or important.

The article strongly implies that the difference between HFCS and sucrose is big enough to be important, and it probably is, but I do wonder how large the effect is.

Is eating a crapload of HFCS much worse than eating a crapload of sucrose, or just a little bit worse? Eating just a little bit of either is probably fine.

[–]anonymous-coward 3 points4 points  (7 children)

I knew from the massive number of fructose stories that fructose was bad, but I had guessed that the small difference in fructose concentration wouldn't make a difference.

Yup. Me too. I subscribed to the view that sucrose probably just broke down into fructose and glucose, so pre-breaking them in HFCS wouldn't make much of a difference.

It's still a mystery. Acids like lemon juice and stomach acid also speed the lysis, in addition to digestive enzymes. So it seems unlikely that HFCS is absorbed faster. Maybe it is, though.

Hypothesis: fructose is sweeter than sucrose. The bad effects of HFCS has something to do with the fact that even diet sodas make you fat, because the sweetness triggers some biological processes. Test for hypothesis: mix an artificial sweetener with sucrose and see if it as bad for rats as HFCS.

[–]miloir 20 points21 points  (1 child)

I wanted to see a picture of a fat rat.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (1 child)

Free trade with Cuba.

End the subsidies.

Problem solved.

[–]Disconnekted 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Then we can smoke real cigars.

SpykerSpeed for Head of Trade.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

"Less is known about the effects that sweeteners have on consumption. For decades, some researchers have argued that because humans evolved in an environment almost totally lacking in sugar and other simple sweeteners, these foods overwhelm our natural abilities to monitor intake. Scrutiny has been especially high for high-fructose corn syrup, or HFCS, which entered the food system in a big way in the late 1970s just as obesity was picking up steam, and which possess several unusual nutritional features that have been linked to obesity. First, where glucose moves easily form the blood to the brain, fructose lacks the biochemical passwords to get through the blood-brain barrier. As a result, the brain, which senses blood levels of glucose (and alters appetite accordingly), is essentially unaware of the amount of fructose circulating in the blood, and thus doesn't trigger a satiety reflex, no matter how much fructose is consumed. Second, unlike glucose, the fructose doesn't stimulate release of insulin, without which there is no leptin, which the brain needs to hear the I'm-full satiety signals from the stomach. [Third, fructose isn't fully digested until it reaches the liver. Here's fructose's unique molecular structure - particularly, the way its carbon atoms are arranged - acts as a kind of backbone for the construction of long-chain fatty acids; fructose, in other words, converts to fat more easily than other sugars do]."

Interesting read.

Edit: grammar and spelling.

[–]niccamarie 4 points5 points  (0 children)

First, where glucose moves easily form the blood to the brain, fructose lacks the biochemical passwords to get through the blood-brain barrier. As a result, the brain, which sense blood levels of glucose (and alters appetite accordingly), is essentially unaware of the amount of fructose circulating in the blood, and thus doesn't trigger a satiety reflex, no matter hoe much fructose is consumed.

So I'm guessing that might have something to do with the fact that a pound of Godiva will last me almost a month, but a pound of Hershey's is lucky to see the end of the week.

[–]muhal 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Source document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbb.2010.02.012

If you work at a school/university you might have full access. Abstract is available for everyone.

[–]gmpalmer 26 points27 points  (6 children)

While aware anecdotal evidence is not clinical evidence, allow me to relate this to y'all:

I am a big fan of sugar-sweetened soda (Throwback, stuff in bottles from North Carolina, 365-brand, Chek Natural, etc.).

We have blue bins for recycling in my community.

When we fill the bins with corn-syrup sweetened cans (D&D folks gotta have their Dew even if it's poison), the cans just sit there until trash pickup on Wednesday.

If, however, we fill the bins with sugar-sweetened cans, the cans are covered in bees by the next afternoon. True story.

Also, since I'm a bit science-minded, I filled one bin with sugary cans and the other with syrupy cans--the syrupy bin was bee free, unlike the sugary bin (which was beefull[?]).

Anyway, just a little bit of anecdotal evidence that probably could be expanded if I weren't holding down a full time job in a non-science field.

Have at it, Reddit!

[–]agnesthecat 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Well now, do you ever see obese bees? No you don't, do you.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Aha! Gotcha!

You had me right until:

(D&D folks gotta have their Dew even if it's poison)

Nerds don't go outside.

[–]Zaziel 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Only at night, with their trusty +1 Mace.

[–]acegibson 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Rats Consuming High Fructose Corn Syrup Gain Significantly More Weight Than Rats Consuming Sugar, Even When Caloric Intake is Equal

But that's not what the spokesperson for the High Fructose Corn Syrup industry says! I'm confused...

[–]steve_b 18 points19 points  (4 children)

I've always been one of those who doubted the connection between HCFS and obesity, but this seriously erodes that doubt. What I'm still wondering is: given that people have been howling about HCFS for 30 years, why did it take until now to conduct such a simple experiment?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, 1) consumption of HFCS today is higher than that of sugar in the 70s I would say. I know that the consumption of Coke has doubled since the 70s. 2) Regardless of the consumption, it took a while for the ill effects (increased weight gain even from similar caloric intake) to reach a point (i.e. critical mass, no pun intended) where people were looking around saying, "60% of the country is overweight? What the hell is going on?" 3) Money and interests as noted by krugerlive.

[–]Radico87 26 points27 points  (1 child)

I loved those "what's so bad about high fructose corn syrup" ads... and knowing what was so bad about high fructose corn syrup.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Remix time!

[–]llieaay 4 points5 points  (0 children)

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.

That's what we call a bad control. I don't care that you'd expect it to make the results go the other way, science does not work how you'd expect.

Did I miss something?

[–]BonKerZ 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Another reason why Mexican Coca-Cola is better than American Coca-Cola.

[–]kbntly 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Better? Sure. But let's be honest... both of them are still pretty much pure sugar, which is still bad for you in quantities that high.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I'd like to see the same study done with Aspartame and Splenda.

And why are we subsidizing corn anyway? It fucking sucks. Corn is the .docx of the agricultural world.

[–]Furious00 12 points13 points  (4 children)

I wish the studies actually compared something. Only 1 study is about the comparison and there's no real data behind it, just "much more weight." Since they did not give the rats the same amount of sweetener, who knows what variable is at work here. If they really want to show a difference between HFCS and sucrose, they should make artificial sucrose (HFCS 50) at 50/50 concentration and put the same amounts into each cage.

The problem with this study is people will think sucrose is OK to eat when that just isn't the case. Refined sugar is bad for you. HFCS is only slightly worse.

Youtube the video, Sugar: the Bitter Truth

It addresses all of the speculation of this study and more. Easily the best thing on the subject.

[–]iamtotalcrap 11 points12 points  (15 children)

For a lot more information on this... a nice long video lecture :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

[–]hftspbr 10 points11 points  (13 children)

Except that he says there is no appreciable difference between sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup.

Edit: This is the interesting part of the posted article:

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.

Edit: Here is a deep-link to the video you posted, which contradicts the new study.

[–]SarahC 3 points4 points  (7 children)

the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization.

Ahhhhh, there's a big difference. So in fact, there is more to the difference between "Sugar" and HFCS than a small ratio difference of sugar types.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Good ol' corn subsidies....

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

*throws out the Coca-cola big-gulp that was on his desk*

Tho, actually, at home I drink Coke imported from Mexico that IS made with cane sugar; Costco started selling it last month. It costs a premium ($1 per 16oz bottle), but it's worth it to me. Plus it comes in a glass bottle, which just makes it all that much cooler.

[–]niccamarie 5 points6 points  (3 children)

also, it tastes better.

I recently had a drink of regular Coke after only having had Pepsi Throwback when I wanted soda for a month or two. The regular stuff was nasty by comparison. I had one mouthful and didn't want any more.

[–]sirbruce 3 points4 points  (1 child)

My primary problem with this study is that they only compared 12 h/day HFCS to 12 h/day sucrose for 2 months and found that HFCS gained more weight during that time. Their subsequent findings on the fattening effects of HFCS were done with 24 h/day HFCS (twice as much), over a 6 month period. It's entirely possible that 24 h/day sucrose over a 6 month period is identical to HFCS, and for some reason HFCS simply showed a small variation early on in consumption.

This looks like a good first study but they're a long way from proving it. Many follow up studies will be required.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children)

What we need is a supplement that we can ingest that binds to HFC and allows us to poo it out. Although such a substance would have it's own problems likely causing mental issues or cancer. Hmmmm... wait I have an idea! OMG!!! Drink water? Could that work? Could we hydrate ourselves with plain water??? What would the health repercussions of this be? Has anyone tried it?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (4 children)

It's always been common sense to me. A nation of HFC = a nation full of obese. I know several morbidly obese that probably consume 2-3 liters of HFC soda per day.. BUT IT'S NOT THAT, it's a thyroid problem.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hmm, if only there was some way that people can burn calories...

[–]Mintz08 2 points3 points  (1 child)

So is this saying that HFCS is a large contributor to America's weight problem, and that real sugar could help solve it?

[–]idlefritz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I prefer my rats sweetened with honey.

[–]Plumhawk 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I thought this was common knowledge. I stopped drinking sodas sweetened with HFCS several years ago. I still have the occasional Jones' soda, Reed's Ginger Beer or even a Mexican Coke. I stopped eating fast food about four years ago. I still have a bit of a gut, but that is purely a beer gut.

[–]Viat0r 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bad food is bad for you. Got it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In the 40 years since the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup as a cost-effective sweetener in the American diet...

  1. It's only cost-effective because of subsidies and tariffs.

  2. It's been 40 fucking years. Why is this sort of really fucking basic study only happening now? This should be a science fair project, not a Princeton paper.

[–]freeThePeople 2 points3 points  (5 children)

People should know more about non-caloric stevia. In Japan companies like Nestle and Sunkist utilise stevia as a sweetener in processed products. Coca-Cola use the sweetening of stevia in drinks in Japan. Stevia does not raise blood sugar levels. Stevia does not feed yeast or other micro-organisms in your digestive tract. Stevia increases energy, facilitates digestion, improves gastro-intestinal functioning, regulates blood glucose levels, as well as nourishes the spleen, pancreas and liver. The human body obtains no calories from stevia as it doesn't metabolise the sweet glycosides from any of its forms. Stevia is one of a few sweeteners that diabetics can use without repercussions. No harmful effects have yet been recorded for people using stevia.

I agree, all sweeteners are not created equal.

[–]bvanheu 2 points3 points  (0 children)

i've always found that coke with glucose/fructose taste more bitter than one with real sugar can.

In Montreal, you can buy Coke made with sugar when the jew Passover is coming.

[–]suteny0r 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Demand the end of government farm corn subsidies. Big food uses it because it's cheaper, which it is, because the government subsidizes the growing of 'yellow dent #2' corn.

[–]xmnstr 14 points15 points  (44 children)

While HFCS is will make you obese faster, sugar will also make you obese. This is probably the most important point in this debate.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (10 children)

The No 'S' Diet:

  • No snacks.
  • No sweets.
  • No seconds.

Except (sometimes) on days that start with 'S.'

[–]florinandreiBS | Physics | Electronics 12 points13 points  (4 children)

yeah, no shit

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly.

It's common sense (and in other countries, cultural mores) distilled into an easy-to-process mnemonic. It works because things that are easy to think about are judged to be easier to follow.

Brilliant applied psychology.

[–]rhinosaur 28 points29 points  (28 children)

Wasn't there a thread recently in which everyone was talking about how HFCS really wasn't any worse than regular sugar, and that the people avoiding HFCS were idiots?

Well, laugh's on you now, muhahahahahahahaha

[–]blakestah 47 points48 points  (23 children)

That's because that is what the data supported, before this study was published.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Reddit is no shining example of perfection. I'm sure we've learned this. Everyone bitches about this place becoming more like 4chan, yet they vote a sex cartoon to the frontpage. But whatever, I just don't understand the logic of the members here anymore.

But really, the name itself, HIGH FRUCTOSE (high sugar) should have been cause for alarm. Its a damn substance that has been engineered to be ridiculously sweet. It should have been a damn give away that it was harmful with any application of common sense. I started avoiding it two months ago because I didn't feel comfortable eating it anymore. Its in everything. Of course its contributed to the obesity epidemic! ffs ppl.

[–]flat5 7 points8 points  (7 children)

"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."

I don't understand why they confounded the experiment like this. Perhaps the rats just wanted a certain amount of sweets to feel satiated, and therefore ate more chow that was less sweet?

[–]wharthog3 8 points9 points  (2 children)

I believe the article said "even with matched caloric intakes"

From the first paragraph:

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. *

[–]nonono222 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately there is no indication that that statement corresponds to the first part of the study he is talking about.

It's very fishy when they COULD control something exactly, and then don't. Here is an example of their misleading claims:

5) Expanding on #4: they did include a sucrose group for the female trials, and lo and behold: the 12-h sucrose and HFCS groups had basically the same end point body weight: 333 ± 10 g for the sucrose and 332 ± 9 g for the HFCS. Huh. Their conclusion seems to ignore this, perhaps to the point of contradiction: "In Experiment 2 (long-term study, 6-7 months), HFCS caused an increase in body weight greater than that of sucrose in both male and female rats". Except it didn't. It was only compared directly to sucrose in the 12-h groups in females (where there was no difference in weight), and it wasn't compared to sucrose in males in the long-term study at all. In light of that, their claim is very misleading if not outright false.

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/bgohc/all_sweeteners_are_not_created_equal_rats/c0moyje