Photo credit: kgstudios oakland mosaics
HFCS – So why the outcry?
Well, some metabolic scientists are arguing that high fructose corn syrup is to blame for the skyrocketing rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Indeed, there is a large body of literature that supports this epidemiological link. Frank Hu from Harvard wrote in a paper published last month:
“Findings from epidemiological studies clearly indicate that regular consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages can lead to weight gain and substantially increase risk of developing chronic diseases including Metabolic Syndrome, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Coronary Heart Disease.”
As noted below, sugar-sweetened beverages mostly use HFCS as their sweetener for a number of reasons having to do with delivery, chemistry and economics. To a large extent, HFCS has replaced sucrose as a sweetener, not added in addition to it.
But if HFCS is only slightly different in make-up than sucrose (55:45 vs. 50:50; fructose:glucose mix, respectively), can it really be that bad? John S. White, a consultant to the food and beverage industry on sweeteners, recently wrote defending HFCS (no kidding!).
“No one would disagree that HFCS as a caloric ingredient can lead to weight gain if products sweetened with it are consumed to excess. … But there is absolutely no proof that HFCS acts in any exclusive manner to promote obesity.”
WHO obesity rates (BMI >30 kg/m2, age >30y) versus high fructose corn syrup. Used from John S. White.
He does point to some interesting statistics about the correlation between HFCS intake and obesity rates, which, although very clearly correlated in North America, don’t have the same relationship in countries such as Mexico and Japan (see right). This is in slight contrast to what Hu wrote above.
From my research, I had a really hard time coming up with hard data the really clearly supported the hypothesis that HFCS is inherently more dangerous to our health than other caloric sweeteners: the short term endocrine profiles are equivalent among the sweeteners, the metabolic responses of sucrose and HFCS are similar, and there are confusing long-term associations as noted above.
Whatever has happened, scientists have now started pointing their crosshairs towards fructose, a naturally occurring sugar found in many fruits and vegetables.
Fructose is metabolized differently from glucose. Research has shown that when any animal species is fed high amounts of fructose, they develop insulin resistance and have altered glucose homeostasis, hallmarks of what human diabetes looks like.
Ferder et al. recently wrote:
“In glucose metabolism, the uptake of glucose is negatively regulated at the level of phosphofructokinase, but high concentrations of fructose can serve as a relatively unregulated source of acetyl-CoA.”
In English, this means that glucose breakdown or storage can be turned off more easily than fructose. Acetyl-CoA is one of the building blocks for fat. Lots of fructose = efficient building of fat = obesity.
They go on to say:
“… fructose facilitates the biochemical formation of triacylglycerols more efficiently than does glucose, so it is more lipogenic than glucose, an effect that may be exacerbated in subjects with existing hyperlipidemia, insulin resistance, or type 2 diabetes.”
Again, HFCS is a bit of a misnomer as the concentration of fructose in HFCS is not terribly higher than that found in sucrose (~5% higher). The danger is that we can’t get enough of the sweet taste!
What is particularly interesting, is that we mammals find sweetness more addictive than cocaine! Lenoir et al. did an amazing study with rats to test the “addictive qualities” of sweeteners. Check this out:
“Our findings clearly demonstrate that intense sweetness can surpass cocaine reward, even in drug-sensitized and -addicted individuals. We speculate that the addictive potential of intense sweetness results from an inborn hypersensitivity to sweet tastants.”
The assertion that high fructose corn syrup is single-handedly responsible for the negative health impacts we are seeing appears to be ill-founded. It is very clear, however, that with increasing intake of calories in the form of added sweeteners like HFCS, particularly in beverages, there is an increase in weight gain.
One could argue that it was only through massive agricultural subsidies that HFCS could be produced so cheaply and reliably, which has consequently led to cheaper and tastier beverages and therefore the health problems we are encountering today. This would not be a far stretch…
Is it hopeless? Are we just destined to continue drinking liquid calories and perpetuating our own downfall? What are your thoughts?
References after the jump.
Hu at Harvard Epidemiological link:
Hu FB and Malik VS. Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes: epidemiologic evidence. Physiol Behav. 2010 Apr 26;100(1):47-54.
In Defense of HFCS by White (free full text):
White JS. Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain’t. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;88(6):1716S-1721S.
Short-term endocrine profiles (free full text):
Stanhope et al. Twenty-four-hour endocrine and metabolic profiles following consumption of high-fructose corn syrup-, sucrose-, fructose-, and glucose-sweetened beverages with meals. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 May;87(5):1194-203.
Ferder and metabolism of fructose:
Ferder et al. The Role of High-Fructose Corn Syrup in Metabolic Syndrom and Hypertension. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2010 Apr;12(2):105-12.
Rats addicted to sweetness (free full text):
Lenoir et al. Intense Sweetness Surpasses Cocaine Reward. PLoS One. 2007 Aug 1;2(1):e698.
We all need “sweet stuff” since the brain is fueled by glucose, so I understand as an unacademic layman, and the body produces this from a variety of sources. If glucose is from sugars, from starch from carbs, and the best carbs are the slow-release ones with a low hypo-glycemic index, than I tend to go for potatoes and spaghetti, since they’re both less processed and treated with additives than bread, which also has the potential problems of yeast and gluten. And with enough low hypo-glycemic unprocessed carbs, that will give you enough glucose to run a brain as big as a planet, and its also relatively cheap; a sack of 2kgs of spuds is sometimes only one pound sterling. Who needs chocolate, sweets, cake, biscuits, crisps, deserts/puddings, breakfast cereals, (though oats/porridge are okay), etc. Once the ludicrous cold turkey craving for ludicrously tasty “Crunch Nut Corn Flakes” is successfully overcome and eliminated, its plain-sailing to a relatively healthy diet.
Are we just destined to continue on this path? Interesting question. It sure seems that way! I’m reading an interesting book at the moment however, called The End of Food, which argues that it can’t go on for much longer. Our entire food system, including HFCS production, absolutely depends on cheap oil and we all know this resource is limited…
Will anybody take the time to sit down and do the math?
HFCS-55, which sweetens all national brands of soda and many other beverages is 55% fructose: 45% glucose. To the casual observer this appears to be just a nickel’s difference from the 50% fructose: 50% glucose found in sucrose. However, 55%:45% = 55/45 = 1.22. This means in every can of Coke (bottled in the USA) there is, compared to glucose, 22% more fructose. What does this mean in everyday terms?
Drinking 5 HFCS sweetened Cokes is equivalent to drinking 4.25 sucrose
sweetened Cokes PLUS 0.75 cans of pure fructose-sweetened beverage.
Considering that the average teen chugs a couple of Cokes, that’s a lot
of extra fructose the liver is forced to metabolize, with grave health consequences. In my humble opinion, when the CRA was designing their
sweetener, HFCS-50 probably passed the sweeteness test, but they decided to boost the fructose and make it a bit sweeter so the end manufacturers could use less. After all, the production of HFCS is not inexpensive, it is only due to the sugar tariff/corn subsidy that make HFCS so cheap that soda refills are free. But the CRA overlooked the law of solutions. In a two component solution, if you increase the percent of one substance, the other by definition must decrease. So if you increase the % of fructose the % glucose must decrease. It would appear that this change in ratio has wreaked havoc on our bodies.
[...] for everything from cavities to obesity. I touched on HFCS a few months ago, and came to the conclusion that it’s not appreciably different from other sugars typically used: The assertion that high [...]