Fructose and Obesity
Tso, back several months ago a study appeared on slashdot:
https://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/24/2122231/High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup-Causes-Bigger-%7C
which, despite naysaying by the Corn Refiners Association, proves that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) makes rats fatter than sucrose.
That got a "hmm" and a bit of research, which showed a couple websites which show that it's fructose, not something weird about the processing of HFCS, that makes you fat:
http://ihealthbulletin.com/blog/2008/07/24/new-fructose-study-yes-fructose-makes-fat-faster/
That got a few days of thought, and then a sudden realization:
Fructose is traditionally/historically associated with fruit.
Fruit is seasonal, and, for animals, a source of effectively free energy.
When faced with a seasonal source of free energy, which creatures is most likely be reproductively successful (commonly defined by "have grandbabies" )?
The creature that adds this energy to their daily store, and burns it all up?
The creature that turns it into fat as quickly as possible, so it's saved for when there isn't free energy to be had?
Or the creature that turns it into fat as quickly as possible, and marks it for long term storage -- "use me last"?
And at that point the whole fructose problem makes a lot of sense -- it's not a bug, it's a feature. We, and most other animals have a built-in propensity to store a valuable resource for a later day.
Unfortunately fructose isn't seasonally available anymore -- it's always available, and ever more common.
Since that's a result of government subsidies on corn and tarifs on sugar, the first step to fixing it would be to cut the sugar tarifs back to the point that imported sugar's about as cheap as HFCS -- I don't know if that can be done without cutting our corn subsidies.
But cutting the sugar tarifs is a lovely "small government" fix, and promotes the free market as able to solve the problem -- cut the economic incentive to use HFCS, and it will become less common, particularly in conjunction with the current selective pressures against it.
At worst, it's a cheap first step.
https://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/24/2122231/High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup-Causes-Bigger-%7C
which, despite naysaying by the Corn Refiners Association, proves that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) makes rats fatter than sucrose.
That got a "hmm" and a bit of research, which showed a couple websites which show that it's fructose, not something weird about the processing of HFCS, that makes you fat:
http://ihealthbulletin.com/blog/2008/07/24/new-fructose-study-yes-fructose-makes-fat-faster/
That got a few days of thought, and then a sudden realization:
Fructose is traditionally/historically associated with fruit.
Fruit is seasonal, and, for animals, a source of effectively free energy.
When faced with a seasonal source of free energy, which creatures is most likely be reproductively successful (commonly defined by "have grandbabies" )?
The creature that adds this energy to their daily store, and burns it all up?
The creature that turns it into fat as quickly as possible, so it's saved for when there isn't free energy to be had?
Or the creature that turns it into fat as quickly as possible, and marks it for long term storage -- "use me last"?
And at that point the whole fructose problem makes a lot of sense -- it's not a bug, it's a feature. We, and most other animals have a built-in propensity to store a valuable resource for a later day.
Unfortunately fructose isn't seasonally available anymore -- it's always available, and ever more common.
Since that's a result of government subsidies on corn and tarifs on sugar, the first step to fixing it would be to cut the sugar tarifs back to the point that imported sugar's about as cheap as HFCS -- I don't know if that can be done without cutting our corn subsidies.
But cutting the sugar tarifs is a lovely "small government" fix, and promotes the free market as able to solve the problem -- cut the economic incentive to use HFCS, and it will become less common, particularly in conjunction with the current selective pressures against it.
At worst, it's a cheap first step.