High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)

[ghostrider]

Which leads me to my last point: finding a loaf of good tasting whole wheat bread. I have yet to have a commercial loaf of whole wheat bread that I liked (I'm thinking grocery store, not artisan bakery). They usually aren't stale when I buy them (thanks to fats, sugars, and other preservatives), but they just never taste fresh to me. That said, when I make my own whole wheat bread, for the first 24 hours after coming out of the oven, the smell and taste are divine. The next 24 hours and it's still better than what you get at the grocery store. After that ... it's time to make toast or croutons. It could be the wheat germ that has had sufficient time to oxidize that causes that loss of flavor. But I'm sure it's the same thing with commercial whole wheat breads. Unless you are getting a loaf that is baked on-premises, by the time it's hit the store shelf, it's probably at least two days old. All the fats, sugar, and preservatives in the world aren't going to save the flavor.

Whew! Not that I have an opinion or anything. 

Just my $0.02.

←

Now that's interesting. Probably explains why my local ShopRite chain, which contracts with local bakeries, offers fresh-baked no-sugar/no-fat Italian, Rye & Pumpernickel loaves, but not whole wheat. (Nor do they sell them as "artisanal" or charge a premium for them. Unlike the Stop&Shop chain.)

On second thought, that wouldn't explain it, since the breads are baked fresh daily. Is there something fundamentally different about the baking process for whole wheat that makes t unfit to bake with the others?

[WHT]

I don't get your point. They would be dealing with cane syrup, not with solid sugar, wouldn't they?

←

Not in all cases unless produced fairly localy. Most cane sugar is shipped by rail in solid form.

[tino27]

Now that's interesting.  Probably explains why my local ShopRite chain, which contracts with local bakeries, offers fresh-baked no-sugar/no-fat Italian, Rye & Pumpernickel loaves, but not whole wheat.  (Nor do they sell them as "artisanal" or charge a premium for them.  Unlike the Stop&Shop chain.)

On second thought, that wouldn't explain it, since the breads are baked fresh daily.  Is there something fundamentally different about the baking process for  whole wheat that makes t unfit to bake with the others?

←

Gosh, there could be any number of reasons why you aren't seeing a whole wheat variety being offered. Maybe customer demand is non-existant. Maybe none of the contracted bakeries offer that variety. Maybe the ShopRite chain just hasn't found a good supplier yet.

Really the biggest difference between bread flour (or all purpose flour) and whole wheat flour is the inclusion of the germ (okay, and the bran, too -- but bran doesn't go rancid). The germ is what gives it that "nutty" quality. But it can also oxidize quickly -- and even if extenders are used (oil or sugar) to keep the bread from getting stale, if the germ oxidizes, then you lose some of the flavor. The best whole wheat bread I ever had was a loaf I baked myself with whole wheat flour I had freshly ground myself and used right away. Unfortunately, not many of us have time to do something like that.

[K8memphis]

I haven't made bread professionally for a long time, but we used stone ground whole wheat or stone ground whatever flour at the time and made the best bread on the planet. Each slice of bread tasted the same even after several days.

I was always shocked when I would get whole wheat flour at the grocery store & try to make anything. It was glorified cardboard awful. But if I got some nice stone ground stuff it was awesome. Whether I got it milled on the spot or if it was pre-milled, sitting in a bin. So my verdict at this time is it's the flour. It's possibly the milling process of what you can get that's mass produced. There could be other factors but the flour they use is painfully inferior.

[ghostrider]

Now that's interesting.  Probably explains why my local ShopRite chain, which contracts with local bakeries, offers fresh-baked no-sugar/no-fat Italian, Rye & Pumpernickel loaves, but not whole wheat.  (Nor do they sell them as "artisanal" or charge a premium for them.  Unlike the Stop&Shop chain.)

On second thought, that wouldn't explain it, since the breads are baked fresh daily.  Is there something fundamentally different about the baking process for  whole wheat that makes t unfit to bake with the others?

←

Gosh, there could be any number of reasons why you aren't seeing a whole wheat variety being offered. Maybe customer demand is non-existant. Maybe none of the contracted bakeries offer that variety. Maybe the ShopRite chain just hasn't found a good supplier yet.

Really the biggest difference between bread flour (or all purpose flour) and whole wheat flour is the inclusion of the germ (okay, and the bran, too -- but bran doesn't go rancid). The germ is what gives it that "nutty" quality. But it can also oxidize quickly -- and even if extenders are used (oil or sugar) to keep the bread from getting stale, if the germ oxidizes, then you lose some of the flavor. The best whole wheat bread I ever had was a loaf I baked myself with whole wheat flour I had freshly ground myself and used right away. Unfortunately, not many of us have time to do something like that.

←

Thanks. Sorry, I wasn't very clear there; the breads that we get all have a very substantial & crisp crust. I don't know that I've ever seen a whole wheat loaf with such a crust, they always seem to be done with a softer American-white-bread style crust, regardless of the bakery. What I really wanted to ask was whether there was something about whole wheat flour that doesn't lend itself to making crusty bread, is the germ more prone to burning at crust-producing tmes & temperatures, etc.

I've seen lots of crusty mixed-grain loaves of various sorts, but not a pure whole wheat that I can remember.

[dividend]

I've done some research into HFCS, after a period of dogmatically beleiving all manner of horrid things about it. Most of the studies I've seen that are used as weapons in the anti-HFCS syrup arsenal don't actually have anything to do with HFCS specifically. There's been lots of research into the damaging effects of fructose consumption (sterility in lab rats), and into the different ways our bodies metabalize fructose vs. glucose (more easily stored in the body as fat), and into the effects of consuming sugary tasting liquids (already been touched on in this thread). But HFCS and regular sugar only differ in their fructose component by about 10%. So I'm not at all convinced that there is any scientific evidence that drinking a cane of US coke vs. a can of Mexican coke makes any difference at all.

That said, I think that the presence of HFCS is a good indicator that the item I'm considering purchasing should go back on the shelf. Convincing people to avoid HFCS means that they start seeking out less processed alternatives, or, at the very least, really thinking about what they're consuming. It also means they'll consume less sugar overall, which probably isn't a bad thing.

So I guess the short answer is no, (high fructose) corn syrup is not in and of itself so bad. But I beleive choosing not to eat it makes my diet healthier.

[Rebecca263]

... So I'm not at all convinced that there is any scientific evidence that drinking a cane of US coke vs. a can of Mexican coke makes any difference at all... 

←

Aside from anything else, they taste different, REALLY.

[ghostrider]

...it's literally impossible to find any bread product that doesn't either have partially hydrogenated oils or high fructose corn syrup. I attempted to find a single loaf of commercial bread the other week and gave up after 30 minutes of reading labels.

Fortunately, Triscuits are still pretty healthy.

←

Now I understand.

With the closing of my local Shoprite, I went & perused the bread selection at the Stop & Shop, my next closest market. A wide variety of "artisan" breads at $2.99 - $3.49 the loaf, all laced with partially hydrogenated oils &/or high fructose corn syrup. Lord that was a depressing sight.

My local Shoprite offered "pure" ryes, pumpernickels & Italian loaves for $1.79. This is really sad. (I got the name of the distributor who supplied them & will try to track down another source.)

[slkinsey]

Just saw this thread...

Andrew, I believe there's a difference between corn syrup (like Karo) that you buy in the supermarket for use as an ingredient or topping, and the high fructose corn syrup industrial product that enjoys widespread use as a sweetener.

Pure corn syrup is, I believe, mostly glucose. It is produced via enzymatic reactions from corn starch. Karo syrup contains "light corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, salt, [and] vanilla." Their FAQ says that it "contains between 15% to 20% dextrose (glucose) and a mixture of various other types of sugar." This leads me to believe that the amount of high fructose corn syrup in there is fairly high.

That being said, there are plenty of non-corn syrup products that should make for lovely pecan pies, for example molasses and cane syrup.

Absolutely. I swear by Steen's Cane Syrup for pecan pie, and have also had good results with Lyle's Golden Syrup. Golden Syrup is simply a golden-colored invert sucrose syrup from cane sugar. Cane syrup is, well, cane syrup -- boiled down sugar cane juice. It has some carmelization products, etc. Both could be considered "high fructose" in the same sense that this is used to describe the fructose content of high fructose corn syrup.

I don't think high fructose corn syrup is so much cheaper than sugar. Whatever the cost differential, it can't be more than the equivalent of a few cents on a can of soda. Let's say every can of soda went up by 5 cents. I can't imagine that would affect soda consumption at all.

I think the reality is that high fructose corn syrup is, indeed, quite a bit cheaper than sucrose -- not only on a cost-versus-sweetening power basis, but also in terms of industrial handling costs, etc. Others have mentioned that high fructose corn syrup, being liquid, is much easier to handle on an industrial basis.

As chance would have it, there are all kinds of quotas and price supports for sucrose in the United States, with the last batch introduced by Reagan in the early 80s (although the government has been inflating domestic sugar prices and making importation difficult for almost 200 years). These serve to make it way too expensive to import sucrose in any meaningful amount, and also artificially inflate the price of domestic sucrose. On the other side of the coin, we have all kinds of subsidies and supports for corn growers, which serve to drive down the cost of corn-derrived sweeteners (i.e., high fructose corn syrup). Manufacturers turned to high fructose corn syrup beginning in the 80s in response to this artificial economic imbalance because, when you combine the serious price savings on the raw ingredient with the easier industrial handling of a liquid product, it made sense to change. Other manufacturers in other countries didn't make this change, because they didn't have the special economic conditions that exist in the US. On the world market, I think sucrose is still a good bit less expensive than high fructose corn syrup. In the US, however, the price difference is reversed. There have been times when the US price of sugar was over 700% greater than the world market price.

Yes hfcs is at least as bad as sugar. It blows your blood chemistry. It's bad for the body. And while our bodies can adapt themselves to cruel extremes, it will take its toll with time. Especially since it is included in a billion products that it doesn't need to be in.

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that high fructose corn syrup "blows your blood chemistry" or is "bad for the body" or, indeed, is any worse for you than sucrose. What is bad is that people are eating way too much processed food, which has health consequences that go far beyond overconsumption of simple sugars (too much salt, too much fat, too much saturated fat, etc.).

Edited February 14, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[K8memphis]

Yes hfcs is at least as bad as sugar. It blows your blood chemistry. It's bad for the body. And while our bodies can adapt themselves to cruel extremes, it will take its toll with time. Especially since it is included in a billion products that it doesn't need to be in.

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that high fructose corn syrup "blows your blood chemistry" or is "bad for the body" or, indeed, is any worse for you than sucrose. What is bad is that people are eating way too much processed food, which has health consequences that go far beyond overconsumption of simple sugars (too much salt, too much fat, too much saturated fat, etc.).

←

I'm curious as to what do you mean by simple sugar in the phrase "overconsumption of simple sugars?"

I think we've had this almost discussion before and I'm going to answer this question as to why I believe this from a medical standpoint. I'm not doctor/scientist guru-girl. I know how I have come to understand this, but I want to write it carefully so that my science is correct which is why I'm hesitant to write it. I will be back and explain it though.

But in the meantime, would you explain what you mean by simple sugar?

Thanks

[slkinsey]

Simple sugars = monosaccharides like glucose and fructose, and for the purposes of a discussion like this, I would also include disaccharides like sucrose and maltose, because they are so easily reduced to their constiuent monosaccharides by the body. Also known as sweeteners (although not all mono- and disaccharides are sweet).

My point is that, while I do believe that convincing and well-supported arguments may be made (and have been made) to the effect that overconsumption of mono- and disaccharides has had a negative epidemiological health consequence, I have not seen any that single out high fructose corn syrup as being especially bad compared to, say, a diet in which the same amount of sugar was being consumed in the form of sucrose from sugar cane. These arguments would have to hinge on the belief that fructose is responsible for a wide range of maladies, and considering that high fructose corn syrup of the kind typically used in e.g., soft drinks, is only 55% fructose to 45% glucose (compared to 50% each after sucrose is broken down), one would have to consume a lot of high fructose corn syrup for the fructose to make a big difference compared to consuming the same amount of sucrose, and I believe that these differences would be largely obscured by the larger health impact of simply consuming so much sugar.

Edited February 14, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[K8memphis]

Yes hfcs is at least as bad as sugar. It blows your blood chemistry. It's bad for the body. And while our bodies can adapt themselves to cruel extremes, it will take its toll with time. Especially since it is included in a billion products that it doesn't need to be in.

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that high fructose corn syrup "blows your blood chemistry" or is "bad for the body" or, indeed, is any worse for you than sucrose. What is bad is that people are eating way too much processed food, which has health consequences that go far beyond overconsumption of simple sugars (too much salt, too much fat, too much saturated fat, etc.).

←

I'm curious as to what do you mean by simple sugar in the phrase "overconsumption of simple sugars?"

I think we've had this almost discussion before and I'm going to answer this question as to why I believe this from a medical standpoint. I'm not doctor/scientist guru-girl. I know how I have come to understand this, but I want to write it carefully so that my science is correct which is why I'm hesitant to write it. I will be back and explain it though.

But in the meantime, would you explain what you mean by simple sugar?

Thanks

←

"I don't see any evidence whatsoever that high fructose corn syrup "blows your blood chemistry" or is "bad for the body" or, indeed, is any worse for you than sucrose. "

See to me sugar is like quicksand, it sucks you in and takes you down. It's no secret it's addictive is it? Whether hfcs is the fire that sweeps through the forest to destroy you before you disappear in the quicksand or is just another form of quicksand doesn't really make a great deal of difference to me. It's all rotten for our health. I want to be clear I am not talking about the sugar in fresh fruit, however mono duo or trio it may be I am still not science-girl. I know what I know about sugar and it's equally prolific partner in crime, hfcs.

Lemme quote Dr. Arthur Agatston, a cardio doctor of South Beach Diet fame from his book page 103...104.

"When you carry excess body fat, you make it difficult for insulin to do its job. So the blood sugar doesn't drop as quickly as it should, prompting your pancreas to pump out even more insulin in order to unlock your cells and let the glucose in. Your pancreas sends out insulin until finally it overshoots the mark, which is why the blood sugar level drops so low. It's the high level of sugar in the blood stream and the rapid plunge (when you finally produce enough insulin) That causes your sharp food cravings. The cravings cause you to eat more carbs, and so the vicious cycle goes around and around...

...When  insulin isn't working properly, it takes longer than it should to store the fat you just ate. Because of that delay, your liver is flooded with fatty acids. In response to that, the organ emits harmful particles that deposit fat and cholesterol in the blood vessels of your heart--future blockages in other words.

So this then is the link between obesity and heart disease. the danger isn't the carbs or sugars themselves. It's how they affect your body's ability to process fats. Eating too many jelly doughnuts may not cause a heart attack but it can and does create the conditions that will lead to one."

From Dr. Perricone of The Perricone Prescription page 35 & 36,

"Whenever sugar increases insulin levels in the body, fats are also stored. This leads to obesity, even though the caloric intake may not necessarily be excessive. A rice cake has about 45 calories and 0 grams of fat. Yet this dietary mainstay of millions of Amercan women can make you fat. Rice cakes are quickly converted to sugar, because puffed rice has a very high glycemic index, making it proinflammatory. Eating a rice cake will generate the insulin response that causes us to store rather than burn fat.

Remember this irrefutable fact: insulin release= stored body fat."

Sugar is pure blood chemistry nightmare. Sugar is so much more insidious than trans fats, the trans fat bans are simply ludicrous to me. But sugar is poison to the body. White sugar.

late edit to put in the quote tags & fix some typos

Edited February 16, 2007 by K8memphis (log)

[K8memphis]

PS. My understanding of this insulin/blood sugar thing is that overnight our wonderfully designed incredibly resilient and adaptable selves reconfigure our blood chemistry and we start off fresh every morning. Depending on when as in how early we might blow it during the next day, to what extent we blow it and what our momentum has been in this sugar-consumption-that-triggers-insulin-release-that-means-fat-storage-today-boogie determines how much more damage we do.

And also incredibly as we gain momentum in avoiding the sugar trap boogie we can actually start reversing the ill effects to some extent depending on the multi myriad of factors involved.

I would also like to say that you don't know how good you can feel once you get off sugar until you do get off. It's an addiction. It's hurts to get off. And you constantly want it once you get off it anyways no matter how great you feel. I say 'you' in the figurative sense. It is true for me and I know true for anyone else who's done it.

But man, Valentine's was too hard! I fell off the wagon and like at least one wheel rolled over me while I, oblivious and deliriously happy watched the belly of the wagon pass over me in the delights of chocolate heaven!!

If I stay off sugar and really limit my Splenda intake I can look 5 years younger in a month. Or if I eat more exactly I can see a quicker change. Conversely, you can see the wagon ruts in my mug for my 2-day sugar spree.

I may be rolling my eyes but I'm patting my belly

Edited February 16, 2007 by K8memphis (log)

[slkinsey]

Actually, I would say that it's definitely a secret that sugar is addictive. Probably because it isn't true. There is a huge misunderstanding in the popular imagination about what addiction really is, but suffice it to say that one cannot become "addicted" in any meaningful sense to sugar, fat, carbohydrates, chocolate, etc. Regardless, even if one does develop a taste for and ramp-up consumption of sweet things -- and I agree that this is an issue in the American diet -- the same is true of salt, fat, bitterness, sourness, spice, etc. for other people. This doesn't mean that spicy heat, etc. are "addictive."

As for all the glycemic index and blood sugar mumbojumbo, the scientific concensus seems to be that, unless you have diabetes or the genetic factors that predispose you to diabetes, it's not really meaningful. The Tufts University Health and Nutrition Newsletter had this to say about the South Beach Diet:

The premise of the book is that many foods high in carbohydrates send blood sugar soaring too high too fast, which then gets the hormone insulin in gear to take sugar out of the bloodstream. But the insulin overshoots its mark, causing blood sugar to plunge and leading to reactive hypoglycemia, which in turn produces feelings of incredible hunger and cravings for more carbs that keep the vicious cycle going. ...  There's just one problem. Unless you have diabetes, blood sugar remains in a remarkably stable range. Yes, it may drop lower after eating a hot fudge sundae than after eating a salmon steak on a bed of lettuce. But, points out Christine L. Pelkman, PhD, who studies blood sugar responses to carbohydrate at the State University of New York at Buffalo, research that has looked at this issue simply has not linked relatively low blood sugar to hunger. "At most," she says, "it's a minor player in the hunger/satiety mechanism, with many other hormones and bodily reactions coming into play."

There is also a simple explanation for why people can lose a lot of weight on low carb and low-sugar diets. First, although most of these diets claim to eschew calorie-counting, in fact they are almost always very low-calorie diets in disguise. The South Beach Diet comes out to something like 1,500 calories a day in Phase 1. One of the reasons these diets caution against the evils of sugar (for the same reason others demonize fat) is because it is a very calorie-dense food. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that replacing a diet featuring full sugar cola, cookies and large orders of french fries with mineral water and salad will result in weight loss.

Anyone who has been around low carb/zero sugar dieters also notices that weight gain tends to be precipitous when they fall off the low carb wagon. Again, there is a fairly simple explanation (in addition to the fact that their calorie counts inevitably go up). I quote again from the Tufts article:

Consider that carbohydrates are stored in the body attached to water molecules. When carbs are not taken in with the diet, every carb that comes out of storage to fuel the various organs and other tissues releases water, which ends up in urine and creates weight loss on the scale that can be confused with fat loss.

So, yea... I don't have any trouble agreeing that reducing one's consumption of sweeteners can result in weight loss and improved health. There are lots of reasons why this is so: primarily reduced calorie count, but also increased consumption of nutrients and fiber, etc. But this simply does not equal "high fructose corn syrup is an addictive poison that ruins our blood chemistry and destroys our health." There is, by the way, no chemical difference between the sugars in, say, apples and oranges and the sugars in sucrose or high fructose corn syrup. Those sugars are simply more concentrated in table sugar and syrup, and don't come along with vitamins and fiber as they do in the fruits.

None of the foregoing is intended to discount your own personal experiences. Just as with many things, just because the basic premise behind a diet regimen may be unsupported or inaccurate doesn't mean that the diet regimen itself doesn't work for some people. It's all about finding something that works for you personally. It may be that you really crave carbohydrates and so you need something that will strictly limit them. It may be (and it sounds likely) that any sudden weight gain you may experience after stepping outside of that strict limitation on carbohydrates is "water weight" due to the water-binding properties of stored carbohydrates in the body. Or it may be that you have some insulin resistance issues in your metabolism. As long as it's a diet you can live with, who cares?

[JohnL]

Pollan's "thing" if you will, is a belief that we have become a nation reliant on "industrial" food which is bad. The solution is to shift to small local sustainable farms etc.

I believe this is Pollan in a nutshell:

The root of this evil according to Pollan is corn (see his piece "We Are What We Eat"--what we eat is corn or a result of corn products. It is responsible for french fries (fried in corn oil), fast food, corn fed beef (as opposed to grass fed) soft drinks, and a zillion other so called industrial foods. basically if it is mass produced it is evil.

Pollan even has a problem with mass produced organic foods.

Health issues are secondary to Pollan's thesis. They play a supporting role.

I personally disagree with Pollan's entire thesis. It is a noble effort but is hugely flawed and his conclusion is largely unworkable. In short he sounds good but on closer inspection.....

I find a lot of the belief's about food and health to be based on a near religious fervor and as unreasonable as any prohibition movement. If it's not demon rum its demon sugar, white flour, salt etc. Gimme that ol time religion---folks I rid my life of (pick a food item) and I feel better, look better and I am on the road to salvation.

Unfortunately, common sense like eat a varied diet in moderation and exercise doesn't sell books and self help tapes and is too easy to possibly be true.

On a lighter note: I was riding down Ninth avenue in a cab here in NYC and passed a Pakistani restaurant that had a large sign in the window looking like a newspaper headline and article below:

"CURRY HELPS PREVENT CANCER!"

Now I don't know if there's any solid science here but this is enough reason for me for an extra visit to my favorite Indian (or Pakistani) restaurant (can't hurt can it?)

Edited February 16, 2007 by JohnL (log)

[K8memphis]

Yes it is wonderful that this works for me. Freaking miracle. Too bad I don't stick to it better. It's too cold to exercise.

But again not my point exactly. It's sugar being an addictive poison in our bodies that is my point.

Actually, I would say that it's definitely a secret that sugar is addictive.  Probably because it isn't true.  There is a huge misunderstanding in the popular imagination about what addiction really is, but suffice it to say that one cannot become "addicted" in any meaningful sense to sugar, fat, carbohydrates, chocolate, etc.  Regardless, even if one does develop a taste for and ramp-up consumption of sweet things -- and I agree that this is an issue in the American diet -- the same is true of salt, fat, bitterness, sourness, spice, etc. for other people.  This doesn't mean that spicy heat, etc. are "addictive."...

... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that replacing a diet featuring full sugar cola, cookies and large orders of french fries with mineral water and salad will result in weight loss...

...So, yea... I don't have any trouble agreeing that reducing one's consumption of sweeteners can result in weight loss and improved health.  There are lots of reasons why this is so:  primarily reduced calorie count, but also increased consumption of nutrients and fiber, etc.  But this simply does not equal "high fructose corn syrup is an addictive poison that ruins our blood chemistry and destroys our health."  There is, by the way, no chemical difference between the sugars in, say, apples and oranges and the sugars in sucrose or high fructose corn syrup.  Those sugars are simply more concentrated in table sugar and syrup, and don't come along with vitamins and fiber as they do in the fruits....

...None of the foregoing is intended to discount your own personal experiences.  Just as with many things, just because the basic premise behind a diet regimen may be unsupported or inaccurate doesn't mean that the diet regimen itself doesn't work for some people.  ....

←

However, far beyond the weight loss theories and I don't want to get bogged down there (I just wanted to use the quotes to say that all correctly) is the bigger question/mystery of sugar. Sugar is addictive in the sense of it being craved by the body in those pancreatic islets of langenhan that scream "FEED ME FEED ME" if they don't get what they are accustomed to. It is not addictive in the bigger sense of the war on drugs, carjacking etc. But it nonetheless creates a war for many and certainly is a healthjacker over time.

Sugar now. The white stuff. And the foods that become pure sugar in the bloodstream like orange juice for example and rice cakes. That's real bad juju. But remember it's a quicksand. You have to add in the time. It takes a while to sink and not all of us succumb but lots & lots do and it's a vicious cycle. Would you not agree that the Battle of The Bulge is epidemic?

For example, take a cola drinker, overweight or not. At a certain time in the day, they are going to have to have one or go for a substitute (methodone ) or go cold turkey. That's beyond a bad habit, it's a craving and an addiction. If someone with a regular intake of sugar went cold turkey, they will have a fight on their hands. They will feel bad for a day or two. Now they can get 'a fix' in a lot of other ways as has been mentioned. If you don't get your daily spicy burrito you do not feel ill.

Please define 'popular imagination' how old or recent is it? I really like that phrase but I've been thinking this way for over 30 years. Since a generation is 20...that's not so pop culture. The books I quoted are recently published. But health food publications have been trouncing sugar forever. It's bad.

Edited February 16, 2007 by K8memphis (log)

[slkinsey]

I'm sorry, but there is simply no scientific evidence that added sugar (i.e., sugar that has been extracted from its natural source) is addictive in the clinical sense. None whatsoever. People can develop a taste for sweet flavors, and this may cause them to overconsume calories and perhaps to consume carbohydrates in a way that is not in balance with fat and protein consumption, and most likely to have a diet that is insufficient in fiber and certain nutrients. People can also develop a taste for fat, which carries its own well-known constellation of health outcomes. People can also develop a taste for sourness, which carries another constellation of health outcomes (I have a friend who has ruined his teeth by eating too many lemons). People can also develop a taste for spicy heat, which carries yet another constellation of health outcomes. And so on. None of these things are addictive in the sense that heroin and nicotine are addictive. These are ideas that are promoted in big-selling, big-money diet books -- not by real scientists.

As for whether the Islets of Langerhans "crave" sugar, this is nonsense from a physiological and psychological standpoint. Pancreatic cells cannot, and do not "crave" anything at all. The Islet cells are endocrine cells that release hormones like somatostatin, insulin, glucagon and amylin into the bloodstream. Period. As pointed out in the Tufts article, blood sugar level, which is acted upon by these hormones, remains within a stable range and does not seem to affect hunger and produce "cravings."

What I mean by "popular imagination" is that people have the idea that "I really like pizza and crave it sometimes, and I eat too much of it even when I know I shouldn't" equals "addicted to pizza." No. No, it doesn't. Pizza does not activate the addiction centers of the brain. There is no similarity between the psychology and physiology of heroin and pizza. Heroin is addictive. Pizza is not. Neither is added sugar.

So, what I'm saying is that there is a) no generally-accepted scientific evidence that added sugar is a "poison to our bodies" and b) no generally-accepted scientific evidence that added sugar is addictive in the physiological/psychological sense that could be compared to real addictions such as heroin, nicotine or alcohol.

Edited February 16, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[K8memphis]

...As for all the glycemic index and blood sugar mumbojumbo, the scientific concensus seems to be that, unless you have diabetes or the genetic factors that predispose you to diabetes, it's not really meaningful.  The Tufts University Health and Nutrition Newsletter had this to say about the South Beach Diet:

...There is also a simple explanation for why people can lose a lot of weight on low carb and low-sugar diets.  First, although most of these diets claim to eschew calorie-counting, in fact they are almost always very low-calorie diets in disguise.  The South Beach Diet comes out to something like 1,500 calories a day in Phase 1.  One of the reasons these diets caution against the evils of sugar (for the same reason others demonize fat) is because it is a very calorie-dense food.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that replacing a diet featuring full sugar cola, cookies and large orders of french fries with mineral water and salad will result in weight loss.

...So, yea... I don't have any trouble agreeing that reducing one's consumption of sweeteners can result in weight loss and improved health.  There are lots of reasons why this is so:  primarily reduced calorie count, but also increased consumption of nutrients and fiber, etc.  But this simply does not equal "high fructose corn syrup is an addictive poison that ruins our blood chemistry and destroys our health." 

←

So you believe that caloric control alone will reduce weight?

Sugar and hfcs does hurt our blood sugar and this does get really dicey as it progresses with the liver thing that can create weight issues in addition to cardio blockage and stroke and diabetes, cancer.

When folks get sick, it is recommended that they cut back or eliminate sugar and eat a proper diet. If it's not harmful, it's use would not be discouraged or forbidden.

Sugar is simply an allowed poison. A little won't kill you. America in general is way beyond this point. The 'a little' point.

I'll grant it's the same chemically as fruit sugar. It is however so refined it is dangerous to us. If we refined habernaro or jalapeno to that extent and used it our food (as in the craving for spicey food being equal to the craving for sweets scenario) we would burn our tongues off with the first use.

[K8memphis]

I'm sorry, but there is simply no scientific evidence that added sugar (i.e., sugar that has been extracted from its natural source) is addictive in the clinical sense.  None whatsoever.  ...

...So, what I'm saying is that there is a) no generally-accepted scientific evidence that added sugar is a "poison to our bodies" and b) no generally-accepted scientific evidence that added sugar is addictive in the physiological/psychological sense that could be compared to real addictions such as heroin, nicotine or alcohol.

←

Which is exactly why it is so damn scary.

Edited February 16, 2007 by K8memphis (log)

[JohnL]

Addiction!

There's a pattern here. first something--your favorite evil here-- is harmful and yes, maybe even fatal--it is "killing" us (usually if one can make a case that the item in question is killing our children all the better for dramatic sake and urgency).

Next--once some studies are cited and some science twisted and convoluted to make the case, the calls for restrictions, taxes, laws --you know action!

I especially love the tax thing--"hey we can all feel good and make some money off of these killers!"

Then--we need to establish that this item is addictive! We can't help ourselves (everyone is off the hook for any personal responsibility) and those evil bastards producing this stuff are plotting to get us all hooked!

"Let's tax em even more!"

--some people wanna actually ban foie gras because it "is uncomfortable" for the ducks and geese. But a substance that many claim actually kills humans--we're okay with--as long as we can get some tax money.--Art Linkletter was right--people are funny.

It has been shown that people can actually be addicted to hot peppers (I may be--whatta rush!).

If someone will just make the connection between the acid reflux epidemic and, well, spicy foods......well my bowl of vindaloo will be $39.95!!!! (what with the inevitable tax).

I have a "healthy" respect for anyone who is concerned with what they eat and make choices based on whatever belief system they may have. As long as their choices are theirs and their families that is. My concern is food substance health zealotry that threatens the incredible amount of choices we have.

We are using "addiction" as a political tactic and thus are cheapening it--there's too much hyperventilation and hyperbole too much matter of life or death assigned to too many issues.

I say let's live and let live, adhere to the golden rule and keep our fingers out of our neighbors vindaloo!!!

[K8memphis]

....I say let's live and let live, adhere to the golden rule and keep our fingers out of our neighbors vindaloo!!!

←

I agree with everything you say actually especially this last. I think the awareness of the wide spread use of added sugar in items on the store shelves coupled with the realization/education of how refined sugar acts on our organs over time would be whole heartedly embracing the golden rule.

Heads Up! Hold high the hopefully sugar-free vindaloo!!!

I mean just by starting to read ingredient labels then avoid the added sugar and hfcs products is a great great start.

Everything in moderation and sugar consumption is out of control in our world. We need more sugar free choices in items that should not be sugared.

[Jennifer F]

I went to PubMed and quickly found the following article abstract (From the Diabetes Journal):

Effect of eucaloric high- and low-sucrose diets with identical macronutrient profile on insulin resistance and vascular risk: a randomized controlled trial.

Black RN, Spence M, McMahon RO, Cuskelly GJ, Ennis CN, McCance DR, Young IS, Bell PM, Hunter SJ.

Regional Centre for Endocrinology and Diabetes, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, U.K.

The long-term impact of dietary carbohydrate type, in particular sucrose, on insulin resistance and the development of diabetes and atherosclerosis is not established. Current guidelines for the healthy population advise restriction of sucrose intake. We investigated the effect of high- versus low-sucrose diet (25 vs. 10%, respectively, of total energy intake) in 13 healthy subjects aged 33 +/- 3 years (mean +/- SE), BMI 26.6 +/- 0.9 kg/m(2), in a randomized crossover design with sequential 6-week dietary interventions separated by a 4-week washout. Weight maintenance, eucaloric diets with identical macronutrient profiles and fiber content were designed. All food was weighed and distributed. Insulin action was assessed using a two-step euglycemic clamp; glycemic profiles were assessed by the continuous glucose monitoring system and vascular compliance by pulse-wave analysis. There was no change in weight across the study. Peripheral glucose uptake and suppression of endogenous glucose production were similar after each diet. Glycemic profiles and measures of vascular compliance did not change. A rise in total and LDL cholesterol was observed. In this study, a high-sucrose intake as part of an eucaloric, weight-maintaining diet had no detrimental effect on insulin sensitivity, glycemic profiles, or measures of vascular compliance in healthy nondiabetic subjects.

That was after only one key-word search (low carbohydrate diets). I agree with what Slkinsey has been posting. It is consistent to what I have learned via my bachelors & masters degrees in Dietetics. Just adding my two cents.

[K8memphis]

I went to PubMed and quickly found the following article abstract (From the Diabetes Journal):

Effect of eucaloric high- and low-sucrose diets with identical macronutrient profile on insulin resistance and vascular risk: a randomized controlled trial.

Black RN, Spence M, McMahon RO, Cuskelly GJ, Ennis CN, McCance DR, Young IS, Bell PM, Hunter SJ.

Regional Centre for Endocrinology and Diabetes, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, U.K.

The long-term impact of dietary carbohydrate type, in particular sucrose, on insulin resistance and the development of diabetes and atherosclerosis is not established. Current guidelines for the healthy population advise restriction of sucrose intake. We investigated the effect of high- versus low-sucrose diet (25 vs. 10%, respectively, of total energy intake) in 13 healthy subjects aged 33 +/- 3 years (mean +/- SE), BMI 26.6 +/- 0.9 kg/m(2), in a randomized crossover design with sequential 6-week dietary interventions separated by a 4-week washout. Weight maintenance, eucaloric diets with identical macronutrient profiles and fiber content were designed. All food was weighed and distributed. Insulin action was assessed using a two-step euglycemic clamp; glycemic profiles were assessed by the continuous glucose monitoring system and vascular compliance by pulse-wave analysis. There was no change in weight across the study. Peripheral glucose uptake and suppression of endogenous glucose production were similar after each diet. Glycemic profiles and measures of vascular compliance did not change. A rise in total and LDL cholesterol was observed. In this study, a high-sucrose intake as part of an eucaloric, weight-maintaining diet had no detrimental effect on insulin sensitivity, glycemic profiles, or measures of vascular compliance in healthy nondiabetic subjects.

That was after only one key-word search (low carbohydrate diets). I agree with what Slkinsey has been posting. It is consistent to what I have learned via my bachelors & masters degrees in Dietetics. Just adding my two cents.

←

I boldened that line ^^^ above. This agrees with me. Umm, 4 weeks and 6 weeks while great for this study are not long enough time frames to bring the detriment I am referencing. (Not to mention personally experiencing.) How long did the study continue overall?

And as I said before, I am not a medical science guru.

So from this are you saying that long term over consumption of sugar is not harmful?

Hey, one can jump in their own petri dish. Drink two Cokes a day for a week. Then stop and go sugar free for 24 hours. Then make your own determination as to whether that's not an uncomfortable "heavy craving" in your gut. Do it for a year and then stop. Three decades, four. That's an addiction. Physical and emotional et al.

Edited February 16, 2007 by K8memphis (log)

[K8memphis]

I went to PubMed and quickly found the following article abstract (From the Diabetes Journal):

Effect of eucaloric high- and low-sucrose diets with identical macronutrient profile on insulin resistance and vascular risk: a randomized controlled trial.

Black RN, Spence M, McMahon RO, Cuskelly GJ, Ennis CN, McCance DR, Young IS, Bell PM, Hunter SJ.

Regional Centre for Endocrinology and Diabetes, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, U.K.

The long-term impact of dietary carbohydrate type, in particular sucrose, on insulin resistance and the development of diabetes and atherosclerosis is not established. Current guidelines for the healthy population advise restriction of sucrose intake. We investigated the effect of high- versus low-sucrose diet (25 vs. 10%, respectively, of total energy intake) in 13 healthy subjects aged 33 +/- 3 years (mean +/- SE), BMI 26.6 +/- 0.9 kg/m(2), in a randomized crossover design with sequential 6-week dietary interventions separated by a 4-week washout. Weight maintenance, eucaloric diets with identical macronutrient profiles and fiber content were designed. All food was weighed and distributed. Insulin action was assessed using a two-step euglycemic clamp; glycemic profiles were assessed by the continuous glucose monitoring system and vascular compliance by pulse-wave analysis. There was no change in weight across the study. Peripheral glucose uptake and suppression of endogenous glucose production were similar after each diet. Glycemic profiles and measures of vascular compliance did not change. A rise in total and LDL cholesterol was observed. In this study, a high-sucrose intake as part of an eucaloric, weight-maintaining diet had no detrimental effect on insulin sensitivity, glycemic profiles, or measures of vascular compliance in healthy nondiabetic subjects.

That was after only one key-word search (low carbohydrate diets). I agree with what Slkinsey has been posting. It is consistent to what I have learned via my bachelors & masters degrees in Dietetics. Just adding my two cents.

←

I boldened that line ^^^ above. This agrees with me. Umm, 4 weeks and 6 weeks while great for this study are not long enough time frames to bring the detriment I am referencing. (Not to mention personally experiencing.) How long did the study continue overall?

And as I said before, I am not a medical science guru.

So from this are you saying that long term over consumption of sugar is not harmful?

Hey, one can jump in their own petri dish. Drink two Cokes a day for a week. Then stop and go sugar free for 24 hours. Then make your own determination as to whether that's not an uncomfortable "heavy craving" in your gut. Do it for a year and then stop. Three decades, four. That's an addiction. Physical and emotional et al.

←

Also of extreme interest is, who funded this experiment in Belfast Ireland the undisputed mission control of all things nutritional.

[slkinsey]

So you believe that caloric control alone will reduce weight?

Yes! In fact... wait for it... waaaaaaait for it... burning more calories than you consume is the only scientifically-proven way to reduce excess adipose tissue. As I mentioned above, not all weight loss is the same. Loss of "water weight" through a low carb diet is not meaningful weight loss.

Let us imagine the following: Take two identical twins at the same weight, and with the same exercise habits. Put them on calorie deficit diets that have equal caloric value. Both diets have the same amount of fiber, vitamins, etc. The difference is that one twin gets 50% of his calories from carbohydrates, including simple sugars, and the other twin gets only 5% of his calories from carbohydrates, with no simple sugars. At the end of the trial, the twins will have lost approximately the same amount of body fat. The low-carb, no-sugar twin may be several pounds lighter because of the water weight-shedding effect of a diet that contains insufficient carbohydrates.

Sugar and hfcs does hurt our blood sugar and this does get really dicey as it progresses with the liver thing that can create weight issues in addition to cardio blockage and stroke and diabetes, cancer.

There is no scientific evidence of which I am aware that this is the case with respect to any kind of real-world diet (no one is suggesting a diet of 100% fructose) and a fair amount of evidence that it is not the case.

When folks get sick, it is recommended that they cut back or eliminate sugar and eat a proper diet. If it's not harmful, it's use would not be discouraged or forbidden.

Again, no one is suggesting that people don't overconsume sugar, or that overconsumption of sugar doesn't have negative consequences. So does overconsumption of fat, overconsumption of protein, overconsumption of salt, and indeed, overconsumption of water. That doesn't make fat, protein, salt and water poisons, and it doesn't make sugar a poison either. Similarly, just because reduction in consumption of certain foods may be recommended when one is sick (although I am not aware of any scientifically-supported recommendations to eliminate sugar from the diet when one is sick) does not make that food "harmful" in normal circumstances. For example, someone with the flu might be advised to lay off the red wine. And yet, we know that red wine in amounts of a glass or so per day is actually beneficial.

Sugar is simply an allowed poison. A little won't kill you. America in general is way beyond this point. The 'a little' point.

Again, this is a common American misunderstanding, the idea that "if a lot of something is bad for you, then it's a 'poision' and you shouldn't have any of it." This is simply not true. Cigarettes are a "poison." A lot of cigarette smoke is bad for you, and even a little of it is bad for you as well. Alcohol is a poison, too. A lot of it is bad for you. But, interestingly enough, a little alcohol is actually good for you. Who knew? There is no evidence that sigar is a poison or that a reasonable amount of refined sugar in the diet is terrible for the human body.

No one is suggesting that Americans don't have too much refined sugar in their diet. Indeed, I say above that "convincing and well-supported arguments may be made (and have been made) to the effect that overconsumption of mono- and disaccharides has had a negative epidemiological health consequence."

I'll grant it's the same chemically as fruit sugar. It is however so refined it is dangerous to us. If we refined habernaro or jalapeno to that extent and used it our food (as in the craving for spicey food being equal to the craving for sweets scenario) we would burn our tongues off with the first use.

It's not clear from this that you have a firm understanding of "refined." There is very little difference between the sugar content of, e.g., unrefined honey and high fructose corn syrup.

As for the spicy heat example, there certainly are plenty of places in the world where the "craving" for spice is every bit as real as the "craving" for sweet, salt, etc.

I boldened that line ^^^ above. This agrees with me. Umm, 4 weeks and 6 weeks while great for this study are not long enough time frames to bring the detriment I am referencing. (Not to mention personally experiencing.) How long did the study continue overall?

No, actually it does not agree with you. That sentence only says "this is what people are saying these days" (and, again, I would add that no one is recommending a high-sucrose diet). This is just cherry picking a sentence out of context to make it seem like the study supports one viewpoint when in fact it supports the opposite.

The key sentence to read in that abstract is: "In this study, a high-sucrose intake as part of an eucaloric, weight-maintaining diet had no detrimental effect on insulin sensitivity, glycemic profiles, or measures of vascular compliance in healthy nondiabetic subjects." Another way of wording this would be: "The basic premise behind the South Beach Diet and other insulin-based diets is horsecrap unless you are diabetic."

Also of extreme interest is, who funded this experiment in Belfast Ireland the undisputed mission control of all things nutritional.

Peer-reviewed science is peer-reviewed science. Discounting the results of a study because of the source of its funding, or on any basis other than the soundness of its science, is a primary tactic of fringe quackery.

Look... if you want to believe Agatston and Perricone, and the scare tactics and rhetoric of their big-money diet books instead of common sense and mainstream science, be my guest. But saying that sucrose and white bread flour are poisons that ruin our blood chemistry again and again and again still doesn't make it so.