Training & Nutrition - HFCS VS. Sucrose: Is there really a difference?

I always hear people blame HFCS for many of today's health problems. As I see it the only reason that HFCS is worse than sugar is because that HFCS is used more than sucrose in commercial products. If it were sugar people would be blaming sucrose like they do HFCS.

I was looking for articles spurred on by the recent chocolate milk thread and information that I disagreed with was posted there by some other members regarding HFCS.

I found an article called Twenty-four-hour endocrine and metabolic profiles following
consumption of high-fructose corn syrup-, sucrose-, fructose-, and
glucose-sweetened beverages with meals, by Stanhope et al. in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition; Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:1194 –203.

I thought I would share the abstract. If anyone would like to discuss the issue further I could see if I could share the entire article somehow.

ABSTRACT
Background: We have reported that, compared with glucosesweetened
beverages, consuming fructose-sweetened beverages
with meals results in lower 24-h circulating glucose, insulin, and
leptin concentrations and elevated triacylglycerol (TG). However,
pure fructose and glucose are not commonly used as sweeteners.
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has replaced sucrose as the predominant
sweetener in beverages in the United States.
Objective: We compared the metabolic/endocrine effects of HFCS
with sucrose and, in a subset of subjects, with pure fructose and
glucose.


Design: Thirty-four men and women consumed 3 isocaloric meals
with either sucrose- or HFCS-sweetened beverages, and blood samples
were collected over 24 h. Eight of the male subjects were also
studied when fructose- or glucose-sweetened beverages were consumed.
Results: In 34 subjects, 24-h glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, andTG
profiles were similar between days that sucrose or HFCS was consumed.
Postprandial TG excursions after HFCS or sucrose were
larger in men than in women. In the men in whom the effects of 4
sweeteners were compared, the 24-h glucose and insulin responses
induced by HFCS and sucrose were intermediate between the lower
responses during consumption of fructose and the higher responses
during glucose. Unexpectedly, postprandial TG profiles after HFCS
or sucrose were not intermediate but comparably high as after pure
fructose.

Conclusions: Sucrose and HFCS do not have substantially different
short-term endocrine/metabolic effects. In male subjects, short-term
consumption of sucrose and HFCS resulted in postprandial TG responses
comparable to those induced by fructose. Am J Clin
Nutr 2008;87:1194 –203.

Very interesting. I have a pdf copy of the article. It is too large (344kb) to make as an attachment. PM me if you want a copy.

This is about what I'd expect, since HFCS and sucrose are so similar chemically.

People seem to feel comfortable when they can pick one food or ingredient to be a "villain"--be it fat, carbs, or HFCS. I think it's easier to avoid that one villain food than it is to proactively select a well-balanced diet.

I've read a few similar articles which say that the fructose to glucose ratio of HFCS is very similar to regular cane sugar so they should have the same effects on the body.

I cant dispute that they are very similar but I can say from personal experience that in the past when I consumed something with HFCS in it, it DID effect me in a different way than cane sugar. Its not that I knew I was having HFCS and therefore was biased against it. The story is that I was having issues with some ingredient in my hamburgers which was causing a hypoglycemic reaction in me. Through a process of elimination I narrowed the culprit down to tomato sauce and also that they didn't all have the same effect on me. The brand that did cause a reaction was sweetened with HFCS.

I don't know exactly why I reacted to HFCS. I just did.

Anthony

Link to the pdf if interested. HFCS vs Sucrose (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/87/5/1194)

Link to the pdf if interested. HFCS vs Sucrose (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/87/5/1194)

Nice, I did not know that the AJCN was open to the public like that. I was going through my school library to get it.

What an excellent resource to have at no charge, thanks for pointing that out.

Someday_RN? You wouldn't have cherrypicked that study would you? 'Cause we know scientists don't do that, do they?

Have a look at this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823094819.htm
and the other various studies bookmarked on this page. I'd say there was quite a bit of variation in scientific opinion on this issue, wouldn't you?

If you folks are interested in what HFCS is and does, here's the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup
The section on health effects makes you want to run right out and get a Big Gulp, doesn't it?

For further reading, the links in the wiki are quite extensive.

A little story for you all: Did you ever wonder why the popcorn and soft drinks in movie theaters are so enormous? It's very simple. One of the chains brought in a marketing expert to increase the profits at their concession stands. He took a look and realized that one thing was constant: labor. No matter the size of the drink, etc., the labor was the same. He then looked at the food cost and found that popcorn and soft drinks are so cheap as to be essentially free. But he found people would pay a small marginal cost increase for a large increase in food quantity. And that increased profit. So that's the reason everything is so huge. It's so expensive in theaters because they can make you pay it, can't they?

And why is corn so cheap?
http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=41

Someday_RN? You wouldn't have cherrypicked that study would you? 'Cause we know scientists don't do that, do they?

Have a look at this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823094819.htm
and the other various studies bookmarked on this page. I'd say there was quite a bit of variation in scientific opinion on this issue, wouldn't you?

If you folks are interested in what HFCS is and does, here's the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup
The section on health effects makes you want to run right out and get a Big Gulp, doesn't it?

For further reading, the links in the wiki are quite extensive.

A little story for you all: Did you ever wonder why the popcorn and soft drinks in movie theaters are so enormous? It's very simple. One of the chains brought in a marketing expert to increase the profits at their concession stands. He took a look and realized that one thing was constant: labor. No matter the size of the drink, etc., the labor was the same. He then looked at the food cost and found that popcorn and soft drinks are so cheap as to be essentially free. But he found people would pay a small marginal cost increase for a large increase in food quantity. And that increased profit. So that's the reason everything is so huge. It's so expensive in theaters because they can make you pay it, can't they?

And why is corn so cheap?
http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=41

Thank you for the report it was interesting. Too bad it is an advertisement for a report, are you able to post some evidence next time?

I did not cherry pick, I looked for evidence, not an advertisement for a report.

I like the part where they indicated how HFCS might harm the body

"In the current study, Chi-Tang **, Ph.D., conducted chemical tests among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS. He found 'astonishingly high' levels of reactive carbonyls in those beverages. These undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with "unbound" fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause tissue damage, says **, a professor of food science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are "bound" and chemically stable, the researcher notes."

The problem with what you note is that they only tested drinks containing HCFS and not ones containing sugar, according to the advertisement.

Next they go on do detail that HFCS is not as reactive in non carbonated juice, probably because juice is not carbonated and therefore contains no carbonic acid.

The report continues to say

"They note that non-carbonated fruit juices containing HFCS have one-third the amount of reactive carbonyl species found in carbonated sodas with HFCS, while non-carbonated tea beverages containing high-fructose corn syrup, which already contain EGCG, have only about one-sixth the levels of carbonyls found in regular soda."

Nowhere did they indicate that they tested drinks with sucrose


In one of the links on the page that carbon indicated http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209125821.htm a scientist is quoted as saying

“But what's most important is the amount of sugar, not the type, Shoham said. "I don?t think there is anything demonic about high fructose corn syrup per se," Shoham said. "People are consuming too much sugar. The problem with high fructose corn syrup is that it contributes to over consumption. It's cheap, it has a long shelf life and it allows you to buy a case of soda for less than $10."


Here is something that is contained on the wiki page

“Elliot et al.,[27] implicate increased consumption of fructose (due primarily to the increased consumption of sugars but also partly due to the slightly higher fructose content of HFCS as compared to sucrose) in obesity and insulin resistance. Chi-Tang ** et al. found that soft drinks sweetened with HFCS are up to 10 times richer in harmful carbonyl compounds, such as methylglyoxal, than a diet soft drink control.[28] Carbonyl compounds are elevated in people with diabetes and are blamed for causing diabetic complications such as foot ulcers and eye and nerve damage;[29][30]”

Again studies that are not comparing sucrose and HFCS to look at the effects.

Here is another set of studies quoted in the wiki article

“Forshee et al. concluded "that HFCS does not appear to contribute to overweight and obesity any differently than do other energy sources."[38] Melanson et al. (2006), studied the effects of HFCS and sucrose sweetened drinks on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels. They found no significant differences in any of these parameters.[39] Monsivais et al. (2007) compared the effects of isocaloric servings of colas sweetened with HFCS 45, HFCS 55, sucrose, and aspartame on satiety and subsequent energy intake.[40] They found that all of the drinks with caloric sweeteners produced similar satiety responses, and had the same effects on subsequent energy intake.”

Again in the same Wiki article echoes what I have said about HFCS. If it were some other swetener we would still have the same problems. Don’t believe me though, believe the info that carbonfiberboy posted to refute the evidence.

“One much-publicized 2004 study found an association between obesity and high HFCS consumption, especially from soft drinks.[41] However, this study provided only correlative data. One of the study coauthors, Dr. Barry M. Popkin, is quoted in the New York Times as saying, "I don't think there should be a perception that high-fructose corn syrup has caused obesity until we know more."[42] In the same article, Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department of the Harvard School of Public Health, is quoted as saying, "There's no substantial evidence to support the idea that high-fructose corn syrup is somehow responsible for obesity .... If there was no high-fructose corn syrup, I don't think we would see a change in anything important." Willett also recommends drinking water over soft drinks containing sugars or high-fructose corn syrup.[43]”

Thank you for the report it was interesting. Too bad it is an advertisement for a report, are you able to post some evidence next time?

I did not cherry pick, I looked for evidence, not an advertisement for a report.

I like the part where they indicated how HFCS might harm the body

"In the current study, Chi-Tang **, Ph.D., conducted chemical tests among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS. He found 'astonishingly high' levels of reactive carbonyls in those beverages. These undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with "unbound" fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause tissue damage, says **, a professor of food science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are "bound" and chemically stable, the researcher notes."

The problem with what you note is that they only tested drinks containing HCFS and not ones containing sugar, according to the advertisement.

Next they go on do detail that HFCS is not as reactive in non carbonated juice, probably because juice is not carbonated and therefore contains no carbonic acid.

The report continues to say

"They note that non-carbonated fruit juices containing HFCS have one-third the amount of reactive carbonyl species found in carbonated sodas with HFCS, while non-carbonated tea beverages containing high-fructose corn syrup, which already contain EGCG, have only about one-sixth the levels of carbonyls found in regular soda."

Nowhere did they indicate that they tested drinks with sucrose
<snip>Advertisement for a report? Excuse me? Is there something wrong with journalism? You would be totally welcome to purchase the study from the ACS and post such portions here as might be consistent with the fair use doctrine. Until then, we'll have to content ourselves with the reports of journalists who read the studies and interview the authors.

No, no cherry picking here. I posted links to a variety of studies, so that readers here could read and judge for themselves. Not just one study that attempts to prove there's nothing wrong with HFCS. Nor did I pick phrases from various studies to try to prove a point, because there's always a chance I might not know what I'm talking about, eh?

You call out Chi-Tang **, Ph.D. for not including sucrose containing sodas in his study. However, the paragraph you quote plainly states:


reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are “bound” and chemically stable, the researcher notes.

Maybe that's why he didn't test them? Table sugar is sucrose, whether from beet or cane, BTW.

The very next paragraph in that article says:


Reactive carbonyls also are elevated in the blood of individuals with diabetes and linked to the complications of that disease. Based on the study data, ** estimates that a single can of soda contains about five times the concentration of reactive carbonyls than the concentration found in the blood of an adult person with diabetes.

And that's not even mentioning the mercury that's been found in HFCS.

Nope, no evidence of anything here.

I always hear people blame HFCS for many of today's health problems. As I see it the only reason that HFCS is worse than sugar is because that HFCS is used more than sucrose in commercial products. If it were sugar people would be blaming sucrose like they do HFCS.

Welcome to the world of media hype. That's a big part of it.

The other big part of it is that the "low fat" hype of the previous decade led to a lot of foods that were low in fat but high in carbs, and this happened at the same time as the switch to HFCS.

I should note that it's not all that. People who are fructose-sensitive may have different reactions to to HFCS over sucrose. I know that if I'm exercising I can't tolerate HFCS-sweetened soda, but I can tolerate it with sucrose. Go figure.

I can understand 'pop nutrition' (the new astrology) hyping another bad boy of the month. They peddle what sells. What I can't fathom is how serious nutritionists and doctors didn't learn from the 'bad fat' debacle of the last decade. Don't they get that when they pick a single bad actor that most people believe that, if they just avoid this one, they can eat whatever else they want and be healthy? - TF

Is there something wrong with journalism?

Journalists often misinterpret scientific studies and seek to sensationalize the results of those studies as much as possible to increase readership. The way this specific article is written leads me to believe this "journalist" made both of those errors.


Until then, we'll have to content ourselves with the reports of journalists who read the studies and interview the authors.

Then we should content ourselves to take those reports with a very large grain of salt.


No, no cherry picking here. I posted links to a variety of studies

I count two links to articles and one to wikipedia. Zero studies.



You call out Chi-Tang **, Ph.D. for not including sucrose containing sodas in his study. However, the paragraph you quote plainly states:...

** stated a comparison (not part of his study, or with reference to any other study) between pure sucrose and a carbonated beverage sweetened with HFCS. He should have compared either pure sucrose to pure HFCS, or carbonated beverages sweetened with sucrose to carbonated beverages sweetened with HFCS. His comparison is invalid, and is presented without reference or evidence.


And that's not even mentioning the mercury that's been found in HFCS.

Thanks for the FUD.


Nope, no evidence of anything here.

No, there really isn't.

One thing about the study - they state they were attempting to administer "isocaloric" meals....in real life - this is seldom the case, but I get the point of having a standard reference point for consumption - my only nit pick - that this is not how you would actually be ingesting these sugars.

My own contention is that all Disaccarhides are present problems for at least some of the population. And my own contention (non-scientific - just a hunch) is that the condensation reaction necesitated during the splitting the glucose bonds is responsible in part for a less stable blood-sugar levels in many people. This is pure conjecture, but I believe it anyway.

Read far enough to see what I'm talking about, its about half a page down.....

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

<snip>I count two links to articles and one to wikipedia. Zero studies.If you're going to post to a thread, you should follow the links which have already been posted and read the materials. The Wiki link contains 52 links to studies and articles (mostly studies) from many different viewpoints, which is the reason I chose to post that Wiki link.

The ScienceDaily link contains links to 5 other stories on studies, some favorable to HFCS and some not. Again, the reason that I chose this link rather than links to other publications with this same story.



** stated a comparison (not part of his study, or with reference to any other study) between pure sucrose and a carbonated beverage sweetened with HFCS. He should have compared either pure sucrose to pure HFCS, or carbonated beverages sweetened with sucrose to carbonated beverages sweetened with HFCS. His comparison is invalid, and is presented without reference or evidence.Again, and again, he did not test sucrose sweetened beverages because reactive carbonyls are KNOWN not to occur in sucrose, period. When you get your PhD, you can test this yourself and publish the result.



Thanks for the FUD.See that's what happens when you don't read the linked material. From my Wiki link:
A pilot study reported that some high-fructose corn syrup manufactured in the U.S. in 2005 contained trace amounts of mercury. The mercury appeared to come from caustic soda and hydrochloric acid, two chemicals used in the manufacture of high-fructose corn syrup that can, depending on their manufacturing process, contain traces of mercury. Mercury concentrations in the samples testing positive ranged from 0.012 μg/g to 0.570 μg/g (micrograms per gram). Nine of the twenty samples tested contained measurable amounts of mercury.Here's a link to the Washington Post article which publicized the studies: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601831.html

I don't know what it is about this stuff. People want to believe their soda pop is good for them?

If you're going to post to a thread, you should follow the links which have already been posted and read the materials. The Wiki link contains 52 links to studies and articles (mostly studies) from many different viewpoints, which is the reason I chose to post that Wiki link.

Are you serious? That's like giving directions to the nearest library and expecting me to read every book in it before you will discuss the issue further. You should have posted direct links to the relevant studies instead of expecting people to follow every link on a wiki page and every page those pages link to etc. And thanks for pointing us to wikipedia, we never would have thought to look there :rolleyes:


Again, and again, he did not test sucrose sweetened beverages because reactive carbonyls are KNOWN not to occur in sucrose, period. When you get your PhD, you can test this yourself and publish the result.

Bottom line, he performed an experiment without any good control samples. Regardless of what is "known", this is inexcusably bad scientific practice.


See that's what happens when you don't read the linked material. From my Wiki link:Here's a link to the Washington Post article which publicized the studies: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601831.html


It's FUD because no information was presented on what levels of mercury are normal in foods. Here it is for fish for example: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html. This chart is in PPM, so note that 1ppm = 1ug/g. Average for fresh/frozen tuna is 0.414 ug/g. FDA limit (here: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/reprints/mercury.html) is 1ppm, or 1ug/g. This abstract http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/Abstract.aspx?AcNo=19800706286 found an average mercury content in cereal grains to be 0.011ug/g. So the contamination found in HFCS ranges from the levels found in wheat on the low end to the levels found in tuna on the high end. Shocking :rolleyes:


I don't know what it is about this stuff. People want to believe their soda pop is good for them?

Again, you are drawing the wrong conclusion. Nobody said soda is good for you. I believe it is not good for you. The reason i believe it to be not good for you is because it has a lot of calories with a high glycemic index and negligible vitamins/minerals, not because it contains the evil ingredient du jour.

Often when you look at your all naturally sweetened drink's label it will say "inverted cane sugar" or "inverted sucrose". Inverted sucrose means the glycosidic bond has been acid-hydrolysed to yield 1 glucose and 1 fructose molecule. Guess what, HFCS is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. The only difference is the source - sugar cane vs. corn starch.

There's nothing wrong with HFCS in moderation.