Comfort in the Unreal

[darlox]

I've been reading a lot of publications lately, mostly as a result of real-life conversations that I wanted to know more about. At zoethe's prompting, I read a study on High Fructose Corn Syrup in rats. I skimmed a few of the references on whether vaccines cause autism, in the wake of a US Court ruling. I ready a study that found the first conclusive

Comments

[darlox]

*laugh* Ok, so it seems that ALL of my posts lately somehow end up as HFCS debates.

The issue is Acid Hydrolysis. I don't dispute that monosaccharides are more biologically accessible than disaccharide. So when you look at studies that compare the effects of monosaccharides versus disaccharides, you do see significant differences. That's to be expected.

But then we get into acid hydrolysis. The problem is that disaccharides (sucrose in particular) break down into monosaccharides fairly rapidly in the presence of acid. Most manufactured foodstuffs with high sugar are also acidic to reduce bacterial action. Even for the ones that aren't, when you eat a disaccharide, the acid in your stomach (then combined with other enzymes and biologic factors that are meant to make monosaccharides for the body to "eat") breaks that sucrose into a 50/50 blend of glucose and fructose. (Zero calories expended, unless you count acid production, which most people do at a fairly constant rate anyhow.)

HFCS is a 45/55 blend of glucose and fructose. And typically less than 2% of sucrose fails to hydrolize in acid over time. So you're looking at best a 7% discrepancy between table sugar and HFCS. Which, in studies that have accounted for that, hasn't amounted to a statistically significant result.

So. What you say makes sense. But any study that's controlled for the metabolic processes of sugar has come up inconclusive. Only those that force-test individual sugars in isolation tend to get discernible results. Which is great from a discovery standpoint, but not especially meaningful from a life-lab standpoint since those conditions don't occur naturally. It would be a different argument if HFCS was 100% fructose, but it isn't.

[darlox]

Absolutely agree with that, but as I've always said, the issue with that is quantity -- not the specific substance. Because of American preferences (what tastes out the best in focus groups and market trials) we have all of this stuff crammed into our food.

But HFCS has become the red herring of the sugar debate. People seem to think that banning HFCS will somehow solve the obesity epidemic. When, in fact, prices will go up 5-cents per package, and manufacturers will switch to sucrose, or sugar alcohols (like Xylitol) or even manufactured glucose syrup... all of which have their own problems, sometimes the same ones as HFCS.

Until we get a handle on quantity of consumption -- which is actually the larger problem of changing preference -- all the "war on HFCS" will do is raise prices and spin out a lot of questionable and inapplicable research looking for a cure-all.

[darlox]

... and inside the US as well. They boosted the price 5 cents per can, and called it Pepsi throwback. ;)

One thing to look at here is that the "obesity epidemic" is emerging in places throughout the world where HFCS isn't broadly used. Kids in Japan are getting diabetes and putting on weight, but there's nary a drop of HFCS to be found, since southern Japan is great for cane sugar, but most of the country is terrible for corn. So you have familiar trend lines starting to form, but completely different products. If that doesn't kick the HFCS crowd in the pants eventually, I'm not sure what will...