High Fructose Corn Syrup: Toxic or Tame?

If Big Pharma, Big Corn or Big Govt pays me $100, I will vigourously support any unhealthy scheme they have going.

Seriously. I'll post a YouTube video in which I take a big swig of HFCS, turn to the camera with a smile and say "Mmmm, it's fructolicious!"

H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
June 09, 2009 7:29am

"Go to someone like the American Medical Association. They're not on anyone's payroll; they're an association of all of the world's best doctors, and their only purpose is to promote public health."

LMFAO! Is that why they prevent the free use and distribution of CPT codes? Is that why they support the practice of overbilling patients and calling it an "adjustment"? Is that why they allied with the tobacco industry in 1964 to oppose the creation of Medicare? Or because they're more concerned about their members' incomes, like any labor union?

And since when is the AMA an "association of all of the world's best doctors"? Don't they accept any US doctor who pays a fee to join?

Max, Boston, MA
June 09, 2009 8:15am

Did anyone manage to get some Pepsi Throwback while it was out? Tastes so much better than standard Pepsi, I think. I don't care about the health, I care about flavour, and regular sugar doesn't have this sticky aftertaste.

I think a problem is that because so much corn is being grown in the US, the farmers need a reason to justify all this corn, so they put HFCS in EVERYTHING. Go to your store and try and find a processed food that doesn't have HFCS in it. Bread has HFCS in it. I don't really like sweet things all that much, so it can be a problem that everything is artificially sweetened nowadays.

I think this is what causes the obesity, yes, it is a lot about calories, but you'd have to eat a lot more organic spinach than soda to get the same calories, so people are getting more calories while eating less food. I judge how full I am by how much volume I've eaten, not how calorific the food is. If HFCS is adding empty calories, then this would cause obesity.

Jason, College Park
June 09, 2009 8:30am

I doubt they are arbitrarily adding HFCS to foods simply because they have a corn surplus. If I make bread and don't need HFCS, why on earth am I going to pay farmers for corn and change my production facilities to add it for no good reason? That makes no business sense.

They put HFCS in there for the reasons Brian noted. It's cheaper than sugar and easier to handle.

H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
June 09, 2009 8:45am

To control surplus, if there is too much of something floating around, not being used, it screws with the market, corn farmers lose money, and its the Great Depression all over again. So government subsidies are used to ensure that these farmers keep in business.

And as Brian also notes, the reason HFCS is cheaper than sugar is partially due to the tariffs put on sugar. Why don't the corn farmers grow something else, a crop that the market isn't already over saturated with. You could probably feed more people that way, too.

Jason, College Park
June 09, 2009 8:55am

Brian, this is a very interesting commentary on corn sugar in our diets. I generally agree with what you say, but it doesn’t cover everything. Just the same, you are honest enough to say “you shouldn’t listen to me anyway, you should find out the facts for yourself”. Great advice.

It’s funny how conspiracy theories always spring up around a topic. If you support something vigorously you can be accused of being bought off. This is true if you oppose “human-caused global warming”, or “blood for oil wars” or “alternate medicines therapy” etc.

A factor which you didn’t mention at length was human metabolism. Sure, obesity and bad health stems in part from bad diet but there are a lot of people who can handle what we think of as abnormal diets. I have a niece in her 40’s who is about 120 lbs yet she can eat tons of crazy foods and still stays slim and healthy. I myself can religiously care for my teeth and still have rotten denture health. Go figure. Everybody’s metabolism is different. There are exceptions to the rules.

I don’t generally trust medical associations. Kudos to Max (above) for pointing this out. IE, can you really believe the IPCC on climate change? I certainly don’t, so there goes your trust in “studies of high quality that pass peer review”. I rarely trust them because they are loaded with high octane politics, and they are NOT generally reliable. And...I loved the poke at Michael Moore!

Oh...good points, Jason.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 09, 2009 9:20am

This has all the hallmarks of old margarine propaganda. "It's cheaper and more convenient than butter, has less saturated fat, is made from natural vegetable oil, had been in use for decades, and is vegan." Never mind the health risks of trans fat.

Max, Boston, MA
June 09, 2009 9:59am

I assure you, there is no corn surplus, corn prices have leveled out since their peak in 2008, but there remains ample demand compared to the supply, it remains higher than its previous levels prior to 2007, and HFCS was put in our food long before that.

Alex, Iowa City
June 09, 2009 10:20am

Mexican Coke is made with sugar? I'd pay extra for that. Is it made with real coke too?

Max, Boston, MA
June 09, 2009 10:43am

Thanks Alex, and again - it makes no difference. The point here is that HFCS is no worse than sugar. Both are bad for you, especially if taken in large quantities.

I probably ingest a ton of HFCS every day and my gut shows it. Is this Big Corn or Big Govt's fault? No. It's mine, because I eat crappy food.

If HFCS were banned, I'd eat stuff laden with sugar. If sugar was banned, I'd move to South America. None of these actions would give me a six-pack and strong heart, though the latter may improve my Spanish.

The only way to prevent obesity and diabetes is to promote healthy food choices and exercise - especially in children. If Michael Moore wants to make a difference, he should film a documentary in which he eats healthy and hits a treadmill every day.

H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
June 09, 2009 10:45am

I don't believe the HFCS hype but I'll tell you that if you put sugar in everything from cereal to soups, to the canned nuts, you will get a population that eats way more sugar than they think they do. As my grandmother used to say too much of anything is good for nothing.

We went on a home cooked meal system in which our family cut as much processed foods as possible from our menu and say a drop in our kids desire to overeat and our sugar addiction is now firmly under control.

Dennis Francis
http://tinyurl.com/npzy2t

Dennis Francis, Sacramento, CA
June 09, 2009 10:54am

i agree, its not vary believable that HFCS is a cause of obesity if its in nearly everything(why not talk about neutrons, those are in every product), its more logical in this case to look at diet composition than HFCS chemistry.

James, Harrison twp. MI
June 09, 2009 11:11am

In response to Alex, what is causing this high demand? I imagine its all the corn going to biofuel, cattle feed, and HFCS, not being eaten as corn. I don't know what it is with the US's love affair with corn is, but they waste so much on frivolous ventures. This is farm land that can be used to feed people, but is instead used to add empty calories to every food to make them sweeter, make less efficient fuel for our cars, and feed cattle that are also over consumed.

Corn does grow great in the US, but other stuff grows good, too. But as with most everything else in the US, its all about the money, a farmer can make more money growing corn than food, and they are enabled by government subsidies and tariffs on the competition. Not good capitalism if you ask me.

Jason, College Park
June 09, 2009 11:19am

The Mexican Coca Cola's are highly over-rated. However, the Dr. Peppers that are made in Dublin with real sugar are amazing.

Brian W., Denton, Texas
June 09, 2009 11:29am

I learned a lot with this episode. Thanks!

My only question is:

What about skinny people who overeat? Isn't that correlation not cause then?

Amanda B., Grandville, MI
June 09, 2009 1:22pm

Generally speaking I agree with this article. It is a high signal, low noise analysis of an interesting and relevant topic.

My only comment is that there is some evidence to support a higher incidence of food related allergies with HFCS than with cane or beet sugar.

I am no expert on this matter and the research seems to be insufficient to draw any firm conclusions, but I do think this is an area that should be studied further.

Rick Smathers, Raleigh, NC
June 09, 2009 1:37pm

Thank you. I'm so grateful to you for doing all the research I don't find time to do, so I can incorporate it into discussions. For the past several years, I've known many people who have given up certain beloved foods (and encouraged me to do the same) because they were high in HFCS, but couldn't tell me exactly why.

Personally, I try to focus on calories and exercise when trying to trim the waistline. I find that focusing on those two things helps eliminate a lot of the underlying stuff by default, particularly if I want to feel satiated ever. All these random, unsupported claims are too much to try to juggle without losing my mind.

So I'll be linking this article for many of them - maybe your wonderfully thorough (yet still succinct) efforts will break through. :)

Thanks again!

ymberlenis, AZ, US
June 09, 2009 1:37pm

Brian, You are pretty thorough, typically. However, on this issue I think you may be engaging in too much over-simplification and summation. And you are buying into a number of medical/culture memes and myths:
A) "fat is fat" implying the fat you consume is the cause of what actually ends up in your adipose tissue as opposed to consuming fat _correlates_ to the appearance of excess increases in adipose tissue.
B) "If you're overweight, stop overeating..." implying that overeating causes obesity as opposed to overeating _correlates_ to obesity.
You're not the first to make these errors. However, since you advocate being stringency in maintaining integrity, I would invite you to consider delving a bit deeper into the issues.
First, there is a book, “Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes (http://tinyurl.com/myz8hw) which addresses this area with the historical, political and scientific context in lots more detail. I have read lots of other works in this area, but this one seems to be the most thorough and documented.
He also has a video available on GoogleVideo which covers some of the ideas presented in his book (http://tinyurl.com/mh6bvb).
This subject area is fraught with all sorts of complex confirmation biases. I would invite you to be cautious jumping to conclusions without studying quite a bit more deeply all the issues related to hyperinsulemia and its _correlations_ to types of sugars processed by the human digestive system.
Keep up the good work.

Jim OFlaherty, Richardson, Tx
June 09, 2009 2:06pm

How is using corn for non-food ventures frivolous? I won't stand behind biofuels, but starch from corn is used to make a number of chemical products without using hydrocarbons. It is used in a large number of products from aspirin to sheetrock. The use of corn as non-food is not frivolous, it is frivolous to dismiss corn as an important part of the world economy. Corn also is the most efficient grain per acre by calories, showing its importance as a food crop.

Alex, Iowa City
June 09, 2009 2:31pm

So it seems to me that fructose is worse than HFCS, and is hidding behind the studies that are getting HFCS off the hook(fructose.org). Which is being used more in the foods having the calorie wars, like yogurt and sports drinks, and sodas. It is supposed to have 2x the sweetness and 20-30% less calories than sugar or HFCS.

Marianne, Aliso Viejo
June 09, 2009 2:58pm

BTW, the comments at the Amazon link I provided for the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (http://tinyurl.com/myz8hw) are fantastic in how thorough they are in analyzing the book. I highly recommend reading the first three as they will give you a huge summary bang for your buck.

That said, reading the book is the only way to get the historical depth, the political expediency and the scientific clarity of specific key figures and studies.

Jim OFlaherty, Richardson, Tx
June 09, 2009 3:11pm

The shot at Moore almost makes up for the near-blind spot on corn subsidies. Not saying the presence of the subsidies diminishes the scientific similarities between HFCS and cane sugar (which I understand is the main point), but the significance of the public contribution to the private proliferation of HFCS would seem a reasonable avenue for exploring why so many jump to the conclusion that it must be evil. Some cold, rational analysis of how corn subsidies help HFCS's popularity could promote understanding of why it's in so many foods, and help dissuade some of the Maher-esque nonsense about a pact with the Pharm team to keep everybody sick. I know you like to eschew the risk of political baggage (and for good reason), but I think excessive caution might have kneecapped your analysis here a bit.

Ryan, Toronto
June 09, 2009 4:28pm

There was a glaring omission from this episode. The farm Subsidies which tend to favor large streamlined monoculture also contribute to make corn the sweetner of choice. Also, i'm not a chemist but there are a large number of other corn derived compounds used for preservation etc. We also use corn in our livestock feed which with over crowding are reasons why antibiotic courses are being fed to our industrial food. If the saying "you are what you eat" is true then we are also what our food eats. I'm a big guy and am sure that processed foods have helped me get here. Not only have the portion sizes gotten larger (and i'm one who was taught to clear my plate), but more sweetner has been crammed into alot of our foods. Also, be careful with your straw men. Who has actually called HCFS "toxic"? It might be better to state unhealthful which would be very different than toxic. And the notion that you are in the pay of big pharma or big corn is not one that would cross my mind.

Bob, Columbia, MD
June 09, 2009 5:19pm

Was I the only one with a huge root beer float craving at the end of this episode? Glad to see you're focusing on more science-base issues again! ( I found skeptoid too pseudo-y for me for a while there)

Nettie, Calgary
June 09, 2009 8:39pm

I tried to listen, but was so buzzed from excess HFCS in my soda that I couldn't focus. I'll try again later. ;)

Really good article, Brian. Thanks for doing the research as always.

Randy, Memphis, TN
June 10, 2009 8:46am

The real problem isn't the corn subsidies, per se; its the tariffs on foreign sugar imports. And this isn't a health problem, at least not for us, it just means non-diet beverages are slightly more expensive than they'd otherwise be.

The 'health' problem is for the third world populations who are stuck further in poverty than they otherwise might be, because they can't sell their sugar production in first world markets. No exports means no hard currency income, which means no real hope of ever rising from poverty, no matter how much western liberal guilt and charity there might be.

And before someone blames 'Big Agri', realize that Europe is just as protectionist or moreso, and as often as not the tariffs are supported by environmental and union lobbies as much as by big business. . .

Brian Kilkowski, Washington DC
June 10, 2009 9:19am

I just wanted to say thanks for this episode! I've always wondered about people who dismiss studies that come from company's as a way of using the "poisoning the well" logical fallacies. I'm glad that I was on the right track. Its the peer review of any paper that really matters what it says.

Thanks!

Chad, Columbus ohio
June 10, 2009 9:51am

Brian K.,
I'm familiar with the notion of corn subsudies damaging farmers etc from 3rd world countries. The only thing I will say about "big-agri" also being present in Europe is that these companies are multi-national.

On trying to cite statistics about subsudies vs. terrifs my google-foo failed me. The only sites found were the "raise your fist at HFCS or ethanol" variety. My aim is to learn the facts in this situation and not parrot someone's political view. My origional point does stand in that the subsudies didn't get any mention in the episode.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
June 10, 2009 10:29am

Hi Brain.

Generally another great episode.

However, I was disappointed with the Tu quoque ad Hominem fallacy used in reference to Michael Moore.

"I know whenever I seek advice on healthy living, I go to someone who looks and eats like Michael Moore."

As I know you are likely aware (as someone who has helped me understand the wonderful world of logical fallacies), he could live on a diet of pure high fructose corn syrup and it would have nothing to do with the validity of whatever argument he is advancing.

Cheers,

David

David H, Victoria, BC
June 10, 2009 11:42am

I'm not a chemist, and I'm not a nutritionist. But two things disturb me.

First is the prevalence of HFCS in so many foods where I would not normally expect it to be. Is this a symptom of an evil corn industry conspiracy, or is it a symptom of Americans' overactive sweet tooth? I do NOT need to have my bread sweetened, for example--and the substance sweetening it does not change my conviction that the sweetener does not need to be in my bread.

The second thing is the growing equation of cane sugar with a health food. People reach for the can of soda that screams "made with real sugar!" while bemoaning the toxicity of the sugar made with HFCS. If you are not going to move your body enough to use the calories you ingest, then avoid the artificially sweetened foods--regardless of whether it was sweetened with sugar or HFCS.

Adam, Mount Vernon, OH
June 10, 2009 12:51pm

You may not need to have your bread 'sweetened', but almost every bread recipe requires some form of sugar, whether it's table sugar, molasses, honey, or HFCS. It's part of the chemistry required to make bread.

Dave, Canada
June 10, 2009 3:38pm

Thanks, Dave. A lot of people mirror this sentiment out of ignorance- they should try cooking. Another side effect of our fast food culture?

Casey K., Riverside, CA
June 10, 2009 4:37pm

HFCS also is used as an additive for texture reasons in many food products.

ALthough frankly, this podcast made me upset. I was really set on my 'All Coca-Cola From Mexico" diet until this episode ruined it.

Morgan, Tracy, CA
June 10, 2009 4:43pm

I loved this episode and I reached an important insight. I have always liked Mexican Coca-cola a lot better than the american counterpart. I had no idea that the mexican one used sugar, while the american one uses syrup. Thanks for teaching me something new today.

Johnny, Mexico City
June 10, 2009 10:11pm

We have a problem with gravitation towards fad stances in our societies. Be it anti-immunisation, organic farming, crazy investment deals etc.

The problem with all this is that great public profiles seem to represent these ideas.

Yes look up the science by all means, there are innumerable journals that display original work that has been peer reviewed.

Going to pubmed has its major flaw. A hell of a lot of articles are review articles or those that dont make it into top flight medical journals... They are dumped into other journals like J. Nurses .. Its a trick you should be aware of.. Its a ploy that is overused by those who couldnt publish in a pink fit.

An example would be the astounding results achieved by German alternative medicine researchers. Their results can never be repeated and if you look closely, the stats are just awful.. All on Pubmed

As a brewing hobbyist who's leasure is derived from getting grains (and berries should you want) to do their magic thing, I appreciate the point that basically your body and gut bugs approach all different mono and di saccharides to produce a single result... fuel for you.

As Brian essentially said; "stuff your face and you will die"; how true.

Now if fructose behaved like Viagra but the heart failure rate increased; what would be the outcry on removing it from the market.. That would be a real and defined reason to act..

Gotta go guys.. the missus has brought some apples..Yippeeee

Henk van der Gaast, Sydney, Australia
June 10, 2009 10:33pm

Dear Abby - or was it Ann Landers - used to answer on a regular basis the question, 'Can kissing make you pregnant?' by saying 'No, but it might lead to what will...'

Mr. Dunning's discusison of HFCS is similar but without the caveat. The basic pragmatics or physiology is there in his discussion but 'obesity' is something larger than bodies, appetites, food (in excess) and sugars. The politics, national and international, of food production, subsidies, and the rest play a very large role.

The obesity epidemic we see currently, and not alone in the US, is partly because of HFCS - and the manner in which its deployment in so many low-nutrition, artifically low-cost foods and beverages has come about. This trend, largely since WWII, has accelerated and has displaced traditional foods of lower sugar content and higher nutritional value, in both quality and quantity.

Lame, City/Piemonte/Italia
June 11, 2009 12:33am

Has anyone ever seen an admission of error, a correction or retraction on Skeptoid?

I don't follow Skeptoid with enough detail to know. So I am curious to see if Brian is as consistent with his follow-ups as he is with his original postings.

Jim OFlaherty, Richardson, Tx
June 11, 2009 7:01am

Brian has posted numerous additions and corrections to his podcasts, when they are warranted. He discusses these in his 'reader feedback' podcasts, addressing actual concerns with comical ones.

He has not done a complete retraction on any of his topics, mostly because of the amount of research he conducts prior to each podcast. He would probably lose all credibility if he had to post an entire retraction. Such research has lead to him being certified for use in a classroom.

Mark, San Diego, CA
June 11, 2009 11:02am

Just because the proportions of HFCS can be similar to sucrose, it doesn't follow that one can make a valid comparison by equivocating the two. Sucrose is bonded with a glycosodic bond, which is broken down with the enzyme sucrase. This isn't true for HFCS.

You've left out side effects (and impurities) in the HFCS process which introduce harmful carbonyls such as methylglyoxal.

You've left out that HFCS stimulates the liver to produce triglycerides, and promotes insulin resistance.

You've left out the corn subsidies that made it economical in the first place.

On a more personal note, I can attest first hand to HFCS's role in producing kidney stones in myself.

Shoddy work, sir.

Queued, Chicago, IL
June 11, 2009 11:39am

Mark,

A retraction would typically elevate, not degrade, credibility. It shows that Brian's human just like everyone else. And that sometimes even with scads of reason and rationality, insufficient context sabotages one's best intentions at high fidelity truth generation.

I'm hopeful Brian will choose to reflect, re-research and respond.

Jim

Jim OFlaherty, Richardson, Tx
June 11, 2009 12:02pm

I think many of you are missing the point of this episode. Brian was not trying to prove that HFCS is great and has no downsides(in fact he said exactly the opposite if you listen to the episode). He was trying to get the point across that people who think "HFCS = pure evil" are mistaken. Nowhere in the article does he claim that HFCS is good for you or that artificially sweetened food makes for a good diet. He is just pointing out that people who fear HFCS but are fine with sugar do so without any good evidence.

If you notice, most Skeptoid episodes are around 10 min. Brian doesn't always have time to delve into the socioeconomic, political, and other parts of an issue(in fact he usually tries to distance himself from these aspects of a topic). He presents the basic science behind the issue and then urges you do research further. It is impossible for him to comprehensively cover any topic in this short amount of time, so it is unrealistic to expect this of him.

Finally, several people seem to be making claims about the evils of HFCS. Before you start slinging insults at this episode, take a few minutes and go to PubMed. Search for the phrase "high fructose corn syrup" and you will find multiple peer reviewed papers that say the same things that Brian highlighted above. The body treats HFCS almost identically to sucrose and differences tend to be minor. It is not the consumption of HFCS in particular, but the over consumption of calories in general,that is causing problems.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
June 11, 2009 2:51pm

Mark,
I don't recall Dunning covering any corrections in listener feedback episodes. Those episodes are for him to mercilessly tease people who disagree with him, fall prey to various logical fallacies, or are simply crackpots. In the first feedback episode I heard (Feedback Reloaded), he even opened with "You listen because you like to hear me make irreverent personal attacks on people I disagree with. Far be it from me to fail to provide the content my listeners really want to hear, so let's get started."

I've been listening for only a year, but I just looked at the (3) feedback episodes in that time, and I see ZERO corrections. "Revenge of the Listener Feedback" is the only one that isn't totally negative, and the positive feedback was simply praise; no corrections. What corrections are you referring to?

Even when thoughtful questions challenging his claims have been posted as comments to his podcasts (I'm not talking about the "Ur rong and stoopid!" type comments, of course), I haven't seen responses from him. In fact, a comment I posted in response to a December podcast is missing, but since someone else has since made the same point (asking for a response to a Scientific American article and podcast on the same topic from the other side), I don't think it was intentionally removed for any nefarious reasons.

Erik Harris, Alexandria, VA
June 11, 2009 2:53pm

Yes/no/maybe, Queued.

For all intents and purposes, HFCS is chemically identical to "invert sugar": sucrose split into glucose and fructose by an enzyme (such as sucrase) or an acid.

Guess what sodas are typically full of? That's right, acids. And keep in mind that the first step in digesting sucrose is to split it into its component glucose and fructose molecules. So, by the time the sucrose is in a position to have any health impact whatsoever, it's already chemically identical to HFCS anyway.

That said, I do like Mexican Coke and Pepsi Throwback more than their HFCS-based counterparts. It has nothing to do with the health issues on either side. I like them because not all of the sugar has been inverted by the time I drink it. This makes the drink less syrupy. (I've been drinking mostly zero-calorie soda for a few months, and have lost 25 pounds... but that's cutting both sugar and HFCS.)

Benjamin Geiger, Bartow, FL
June 11, 2009 4:10pm

If he is going to correct something, he will wait until the 200th episode. He corrected a few mistakes he made in the first 100 episodes during the 101st episode "things I'm wrong about." That will be the best avenue for him to make whatever corrections you feel he needs to.

Now if you cannot wait March 2010 for that correction, that is your problem.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
June 11, 2009 5:02pm

Hi Brian

Just a couple of points when you said about the health complications due to obesity. Recent research says you can be fit and fat fatness can contributes to morbidity and mortality but it also can cause no problem what so ever. Particularly if you enjoy a balanced diet with regular exercise.
My second point is when you said that it makes no difference if you over eat fructose, glucose high fructose corn syrup or spinach well there is a slight difference in the nutritional profile that spinach has some extra micronutrients that have positive health benefits. Although in excess they can be toxic it is very difficult to consume such quantities. But more realistically a diet consisting of a healthy balanced diet is going to be much better for you than a diet consisting of fat and sugar if the Kj or K/cal are the same.
Thirdly there is new evidence to show that sugars do not get stored as fat and so do not contribute to obesity, they can of course still contribute to diabetes in those that are sensitive and they high gi foods can cause you to eat more when you come down from the sugar high. More often how ever high sugar foods are consumed in conjunction with high fat foods ie. Coke and Pie.

I apologies for the lack of references I am going of the word of my nutrition and exercise physiology lecturer.

Not to criticize this research is relatively new so you were not to know I am just trying to keep you from denial any longer than you have to.
Keep up the good work
Barr

Barry Williams, Elizabeth, South Australia
June 11, 2009 6:29pm

Barry,

You're point about spinach is correct, but it isn't the point the podcast made. The point was that it doesn't matter were cal. come from, if one is to overeat on spinach, one will have an increase in weight. However, I think you're point is a very interesting one. How many people can really eat enough spinach to gain weight, compared with the amount of ice cream needed to gain weight....

On a side note, why do people point at a logical fallacy when Brian is making a joke? I've been reading this site for a few months now. It seems like every time Brain is making a joke, some has to post that it is a logical fallacy. This would drive me to drink... People, half the fun of the skeptic movement has been the humor that skeptics use! Think about the father and grandfather of the skeptic movement, Randi and Houdni. Both entertainers.

Michael, Worcester
June 11, 2009 9:59pm

Barry,

I would love to see the research showing that sugar is not converted to fat. I have seen/scanned/read a few papers that discuss the specific mechanism of how sugar is converted to be stored as excess body fat. I am not trying to say that you are wrong, but there would need to be some pretty compelling evidence to convince me of this.

I am curious as to where all this sugar is supposedly going if it is not being converted to fat. The average body can hold about 2000 kcal of glycogen. Unless this is severely depleted, say from vigorous exercise, there is no way these stores could absorb the carbohydrate calories from a large meal. This would mean that the sugar would stay in the blood causing hyperglycemia. Hyperglycemia comes with specific symptoms such as dry mouth, frequent thirst, frequent urination, etc. You would expect these symptoms to manifest in the general public after a large meal, but I have never heard of or experienced this myself.

If possible, please track down the research you are talking about so I can take a look at it.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
June 12, 2009 7:01am

Has anyone noticed that the only ones who trumpet the benefits of HFCS are the industry? BTW I don't think that Brian is apart of any conspiracy or on the payroll (yadda yadda). I do consider the FDA to be the spokesman for the industry since they are on the government branch of this intrest. If I receive my pay from you chances are I'll bend my opinion in your favor. Again no conspracy just normal out in the open collecting of paycheck.

Brian noted in the podcast about not eating so much sugar and as I've been on a diet it's alot easier to reduce intake when eating unprocessed foods (fruits veggies and the like) and have a difficult time with my apetite when eating "man-made" (esp from industry) foods.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
June 12, 2009 10:32am

Robert,
When exactly did the FDA 'trumpet the benefits' of HFCS?

Morgan, Tracy, CA
June 12, 2009 1:01pm

I recently launched a 30-Day HFCS Fast and others have decided to join me. Here is my unscientific approach to this:

1. HFCS is an artificial sweetener that I don't need. I don't need extra fructose, sucrose or any combination of the two in my diet. I don't put sugar on my cheerios and I don't need it in my peanuts.

2. All Diets Reduce Calories. My limited research found that the only really effective way to increase longevity is to eat less (or at least in rats). The bottom line is that with any restrictive diet you eat less and this usually results in fewer calories. Fewer calories in, same calories burned... you get the math. Yes, this sounds like a future Skeptoid episode in the making.

3. I'd like to be able to pronounce the ingredients in the foods I eat. Yeah, call me a liberal freak but I like my food to be food. I don't really desire for my food to be better. I'm fine with the unprocessed, spoils if you don't cook it quickly, grow it, kill it, cook it kind of food.

So my HFCS fast is aimed at reducing ingredients in my diet that I don't need. I need Vitamin C but I don't need artificial sweeteners. Next month I might go on a maltodextrin fast. After that I might try eating less dipotassium phosphate. Not because I believe maltodextrin is MSG or that either is going to kill me, make me obese or cause cancer. Just because.

Darwin Stephenson, San Francisco, CA
June 12, 2009 1:59pm

Dude, you should know as well as anyone that the causes for obesity are myriad. Injury, disease, genetic predisposition, etc. Your closing comment seems a more than a little glib.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not what anyone would call fat. I just don't think it's a good idea to suggest people who are already treated as invisible, jokes, or immoral for being fat should all just blame themselves for eating (too many of us have screwed up relationship with food as it is). It's not always food that's the problem.

Although it doesn't represent the sum of my experience, I personally know plenty of "fat" people who eat a lot better than I do and exercise more. No, it doesn't have to HFCS, but it's not always overeating, either.

Cola, Portland
June 12, 2009 3:09pm

Hi;

I enjoyed your show about HFCS, except for your comment "The cause of obesity...is overeating..Too many calories is too many calories...Fat is Fat". I think this an assumption (based on correlations not causes) which deserves your skeptical eye.

Please check out "Good Calories Bad Calories" by science writer Gary Taubes. For a link to your HFCS talk start on chapter 12 "Sugar" especially the paragraph ending on page 199 and continuing into page 200. This discusses how fructose is metabolized by the liver which converts it into triglycerides (fat). On the other hand glucose is not metabolized like this.

For a critique of the hypothesis that overeating causes obesity you should read Chapter 16 "Paradoxes".

This is a well researched and documented book which I'm sure you will enjoy whether you agree with all it says or not.

Greg Fulton, Fort McMurray, Alberta
June 13, 2009 10:49am

@ Greg Fulton

I may be wrong here but the fructose doesn't simply become fat is it metabolized with fatty acids to form triglycerides. Triglycerides are a great source of energy for the body. Metabolizing this way allows your body to store and later use this energy in the future. It is also worth pointing out that glucose can be metabolized into triglycerides as well for storage as fat.

Nick M, Chicago, Illinois
June 13, 2009 12:09pm

wooo and nick M lays the smackdown on greg fulton! also saying "science writer" doesnt addd credibility to what your trying to get us to read greg, if it was "gary taubes PHD in nutrition" i'd maybe give it a second glance. im also assuming that your a fatty whos looking for places to pass off the blame cos really who else would read a book that essentially says "there there chubby its not your fault"

peter zaltzman, birmingham
June 13, 2009 4:24pm

I follow a simple rule in buying groceries: if I'm not buying candy, then the first few ingredients cannot be sugar or HFCS. Also it can't contain any of those horrible artificial sweeteners that don't so much taste "sweet" as much as taste "metallic".

Otherwise the food will be disgustingly oversweet.

Paul, Walnut Creek, CA
June 14, 2009 12:08am

@ Darwin Stephenson

"My limited research found that the only really effective way to increase longevity is to eat less (or at least in rats)."

If I recall correctly, this has only been shown with DRASTIC calorie reduction, e.g. putting the rats just on this side of starvation for long periods of time. The results do NOT translate to human dietary habits, because a marginally low calorie diet (i.e. for weight loss) wasn't enough to do it. Very few people have the willpower to force themselves to constantly remain very hungry just because it _might_ add a few years to their lifespans.

Erik Harris, Alexandria, VA
June 14, 2009 5:31am

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/00195.2008v1

"Fructose-Induced Leptin Resistance"

So if I overeat organic spinach, I get fat? Interesting...a vegetable with a low glycemic index, high in phytonutrients is going to cause me to overproduce insulin, ultimately leading to insulin resistance and eventually diabetes and/or metabolic syndrome?

I'm skeptical of your skepticism.

Dan Ware, Pittsfield, MA
June 14, 2009 8:11pm

Saying the AMA acts only in the interests of health is like saying politicians only act in the interests of the people they represent - not always true and examples are in abundance.

The bottome line is you should seek information from a variety of sources - not just a seemingly non biased, publicly funded ogranisation, or whatever. Then it is up to you to determine out what is fact from fiction using critical thinking and logic.

Anthony Despoja, Adelaide
June 15, 2009 1:52am

Dan,
Overeat (key word there) anything, and see what happens. Spinach (organic or not) or Pepsi. Eat 5,000 calories of wheat germ a day you'll gain weight.

The study you cite seems to agree with everything said in this podcast about leptin. Interesting... but did you catch the part where Mr. Dunning clearly stated that HFCS and table sugar have the same ammount of fructose, and that HFCS isn't the boogeyman it's made out to be?

I'm skeptical that you read the article before responding.

Morgan, Tracy, CA
June 15, 2009 8:44am

Dunning, you are an embezzler.

awake, close
June 15, 2009 3:52pm

Paraphrasing: Sucrose is nothing more than fructose and glucose linked together chemically.

Similarly, water is nothing more than a proton and a hydroxide ion chemically linked together. Therefore, drinking 1 cup of hydrochloric acid followed by 1 cup of sodium hydroxide is equivalent to drinking 2 cups of salt water.

It’s basic high-school chemistry: NaCl + H2O = HCl + NaOH


That burning sensation is purely psychological as science tells us that they are chemically equivalent, and therefore not distinguishable by your big stupid body.

Dom, Toronto
June 15, 2009 5:45pm

Wow what an interesting false dichotomy you constructed for yourself there. You are making an analogy that you know is not equivalent to make HFCS sound more dangerous than it is.

NaOH and HCl are not the same because they will not mix to form water and salt. Go right ahead and drink it though.

But, you can drink HFCS because your body does not give a rats ass about how it gets its sugar. The fact that humans have been using HFCS in one form or another for over a century will tell you that your reality is false.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
June 15, 2009 6:34pm

"NaOH and HCl are not the same as they will not mix to form water and salt."

False. NaOH and HCl will indeed instantly mix together to form salt water (and a lot of heat and fumes, depending on how concentrated the NaOH/HCl is). It's a very straight forward equilibrium, abnd occurs spontaneously. Sucrose, conversely, will not spontaneously convert to fructose+glucose but requires an enzymatic response in your body, which will regulatable.

"your body does not give a rat's ass as to how it gets its sugar"

Patently false. Enzymes and receptors are highly specific and can easily distinguish between the two. Thus, different monosaccharides can ellicit very different responses in yout body. Case-in-point: An increase in insulin is a response to increasing levels of circulating glucose, but not fructose.


"The fact that humans have been using HFCS in one form or another for over a century will tell your reality is false."

Huh...so you mean chewing tobacco, which has been around for centuries, is harmless because it has been around for that long?

--------------------------------
You might be surprised, Joseph, to know that I (generally) agree with Brian's thesis. It is the structure of his (and now your) arguments that I am having fun smacking around, as you both sometimes smack of false authority and a naive sense of biology. And I know you can take it. :-)

Dom, Toronto
June 15, 2009 7:08pm

Regardless of his mistake, you are still making a false equivalency Don. Because H20 and NaCL ahave the same chemicals, then it is as safe as HCL and NaOH. Like hell it is.

If your basic high school chemistry tells you that this is the same chemically, be the first one to drink it. I will not because I like living.

Fact is we have been using HFCS for close to a century in one form or another. My grandmother used it in her cookie recipes. My mom used it in her baking as well. I do too.

We do not complain about how it is making us fatter. We accept that it is our fault and move on with out lives.

Jakob Ambrose, Holtville
June 16, 2009 5:57am

About studies in reputable journal:

"A study on 159 clinical trials published ... in the British Medical Journal, ... "

Concluded

"The finding were 'significantly more positive toward the experimental intervention'(i. e. the new drug compared to an older one) when the study had been funded by a for-profit organization."

P. 49 from : Mistakes were made (but not by me).

Always be skeptoid

Bruno Langlois, Québec, Canada
June 16, 2009 9:30am

The 1000 year use of the current formulation in HFCS sounds off to me. As a species we've been eating sugars through out our entire existance, but not HFCS. Unless I'm entirely wrong this was made in a lab where scientists were trying to make use of the surplus corn.

Can anyone answer if the missing bond in HFCS makes it easier to break down to useable sugars in our systems? From what I remeber for your body to break down and use the sugars from fruit is a longer process and inefficient at lest in comparison with pure cane sugar and HFCS.

I'm willing to change my understanding with new information but some skeptics appear to be fanatical in their beleif.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
June 16, 2009 10:31am

"You are still making a false equivalency Don."

My point was that the body can easily distinguish between subtle variations in molecules, and that A or B individually may ellicit a different response from A+B together.

Therefore, saying that sucrose is composed of fructose and glucose does not mean that a solution of fructose and glucose will give the same response in your body as sucrose.

The NaOH/HCl was only an (extreme I admit) example of this idea.

Dom, Toronto
June 16, 2009 1:08pm

Robert, a century is 100 years, not 1000.
The missing bond in HFCS means it's already broken down to simple sugars, so it may be easier for folks with sucrose intolerance to digest.
But folks with fructose malabsorption don't tolerate fructose in general, so it must suck for them when HFCS is added to everything.
And people afflicted with hereditary fructose intolerance can die from fructose.

Max, Boston, MA
June 16, 2009 1:33pm

Oops was writing from work and didn't think the time span though. Your answer does lead back to one of my points.

I'll try to be more suscinct. If I understand the process a body expends eneergy gaining the form of sugar (fruit or twinki) then there is the energy in digestion. Fruit tends to have complex sugar that has to be broken down which requires a bit of effort. Also, if your group finds a peach tree this fruit isn't limitless. Chances are you will deplete the tree and need to find more sugar. There are alot of other animals that are intrested in the fruit also. Compare that to the twinki, which most of the time would take little effort to find and stuff your face full of. On top of that they are around and "good" year round unless the twinky factory has a strike.

Then there is the chemical reaction, which I'll admit again to not being versed on. The peach takes more work to get the sugar from then the twinki which is composed of simple sugars which don't take the same effort for the body to break down.

Am I missing something in this?

Bob, Columbia, MD
June 16, 2009 2:13pm

Hi everyone,

Pretty good episode, Brian. The timing of it is fortuitous, too, I might add. The Journal of Nutrition (a good quality, peer-reviewed publication) put out a supplement with its June 2009 issue titled “The State of the Science on Dietary Sweeteners Containing Fructose.” It contains several research articles and reviews on fructose-containing sweeteners, at least one of which is free to the general public, I believe. Direct link: http://tinyurl.com/fructo5e

(Yes. I am proud of that tinyurl link, thank you.)

Tom, Portland, OR
June 16, 2009 3:12pm

I'm reading the "tiny differences" argument above, and I'm just a regular schmoe, not a scientist of any stripe, but can these tiny molecular differences, say from "breaking down complex sugars" really make that big a difference? Sugars come mixed up with tons of stuff, right? Our digestive system has to tackle it all at once, breaking down sugars and fats and whatever else we shove in our pie-holes, so why is this small difference of a monosaccharide vs. a ... uh...disaccharide?...going to do a thing? It seems like waaaaay too much weight given to a very, very small thing.
Additionally, if some benefit is gained by "breaking down complex sugars from fruit", then shouldn't table sugar (cane, beet, whatever) have the same exact issue as HFCS?
I'm really curious, from a layman's point of view.

Garth Hansen, San Diego, CA
June 16, 2009 4:07pm

Wow, since last week I have been looking at these fad sites about fructose.. It's astounding that so many people can get sucked into this thing by a ride of testimonial.

Even here some are talking about how Brian doesnt know about one molecule and another.

Well to the protagonists I can only say; "If you are worried about molecules of fructose, you have a major problem!".

But by all means dont stop your diet based on healthy fruits and vegetables. Free range fruit and vegetables of course.

Henk van der Gaast, Sydney
June 16, 2009 6:28pm

Hey Garth, I appreciate the frankness of your position.

First, the size of a molecule has little to do with how much it can affect, as all the basic reactions in your body occur at this molecular level.

Rather, it is a matter of amount. The sugar content of many foods/drinks is quite high, and is a significantly component. Plus, it is the component that is the most directly metabolized by your body.

You are right in thinking that your body is designed to tolerate quite a large variety of molecules, as most foods will contain millions of different cheimcal components, though most in minuscule amounts. However, the proportion of all molecules in a foodstuff like twinkies is that is fructose or glucose or sucrose is significantly high (maybe 20% or so, a number indeed pulled out of my a**, but a rough approximation nonetheless). Therefore, the identity of these large components are more likely to have a significant inpact on how your body react to a foodstuff as a whole. That is why I would not be so quick to say that your body will react to fructose+glucose the same way it will react to sucrose, when the molecules in questions are a significant part of a diet. In most, especially junkie treats, these are a large component, and not negligeable.

Dom, Toronto
June 16, 2009 7:23pm

Garth,

Both starch and cellulose are chains of glucose, but you can't digest cellulose because of its molecular bonds. That's why it's a dietary fiber.
Many people are lactose intolerant because their digestive system doesn't produce the enzyme lactase to digest lactose.
Likewise, some people can't digest sucrose.
People with hereditary fructose intolerance can digest glucose, but they can die from fructose.

Max, Boston, MA
June 16, 2009 8:32pm

@ Nick M Chicago Ill.

Yes, the pathway for Fructose to become fat is not a simple one any more than the path for light to become useful for a plant is not simple.

That's a little beside my point which is that a statement like "overeating causes obesity" or "a calorie is a calorie" is something that requires a skeptical look.

If you are interested in the side issue you can find more information about how fructose becomes fat by looking into the Triglyceride/fatty-acid cycle. Another process that is of interest is called de novo lipogenesis. Peer reviewed articles are all over the place, but you could start in the "Handbook of Physiology"

Greg Fulton, Fort McMurray, Alberta
June 17, 2009 5:28am

While I totally appreciate the contents of your website, I’m left a true skeptic even in the face of what you write.

Please read the following article which is plastered with information from scientific studies. I’ll grant you that if you torture numbers long enough, they’ll tell you anything you like but it does bear food for thought.

Article from SFGate titled - Sugar coated: We're drowning in high fructose corn syrup. Do the risks go beyond our waistline?

Personally, and, with only basic chemistry behind my belt, I understand one thing. If it’s a man-produced chemical, it is probably fair to say it isn’t meant for consumption. If consumption is ok, then certainly, large quantities of it would probably not be a good thing.

That being said, moderation in everything is key, as stated in your post. Americans are obsessed with more for less. Remember that quality trumps quality all day long.

Ask yourself a simple question. Would I rather eat natural food, as Mother Nature intended – true natural foods – not necessarily the ones FDA says are natural – or, would I rather eat processed foods? My choice is clear.

BTW: tinyurl.com is known to distribute spyware. It is probably not a good idea to redired your readers to that site.

Thanks for some great reading.

Josee, Raleigh, NC
June 17, 2009 7:34am

In general, American corn farmers = big agribusiness. They really need protection from cheap sugar producers.

Thomas, Virginia
June 17, 2009 8:30am

I really appreciate this episode, particularly the discussion of the tariff. However, I find one assertion to be dubious: the AMA's "only purpose is to promote the public health." Come on now, the AMA is essentially a cartel and lobby for doctors, and one of their purposes as such is to promote its members and marginalize those operating outside of it. That's not to say that they do not promote public health, or even that they don't primarily do so (and this is not to say anything about the value of alternative medicine either), but no organization is so altruistic by nature that it is immune from institutional self-interest. Information coming from the AMA is deserving of as much skepticism as information coming from industry research.

ray mangum, Salt Lake City, UT
June 21, 2009 8:00am

I hate the word "natural." What does that even mean? Is natural good? I don't know if I trust "natural" snake venom or wild mushrooms any more than I trust "man made" mustard gas.

The Glycosidic bond in sucrose is broken in the gut before anything is absorbed by the small intestines. Your body absorbs HFCS just the same as glucose tabs taken by diabetics and fructose eaten from fruit.

The chemistry speaks for itself. HFCS is sugar PERIOD. It is no better or worse for you than table sugar.

Bill Petry, St Peters
June 27, 2009 7:37am

I enjoyed the podcast but I couldn't help but compare the arguments for and against HFCS to the reporting by Tom Scheve (http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/high-fructose-corn-syrup1.htm) and corresponding Stuff You Should Know podcast titled "Is high fructose corn syrup bad for you" (uploaded 4-28-2009 by HowStuffWorks.com). The main difference by Brian Dunning's report was the absence in mentioning how fructose metabolism is different than dextrose; primarily that, the liver is the main organ for metabolizing fructose while glucose can be used by any organ/tissue. What that means is what I would like to have clarified. Will the liver turn the extra fructose in HFCS into triglycerides at a faster rate than an equivalent amount of sucrose? Does the additional burden of metabolizing 10% extra fructose make a difference to the liver over several years versus if instead an equivalent amount of sucrose was consumed? That's what I'd like to know and I believe it is lacking in Dunning's report.

Joe Chemler, Buffalo, NY
July 01, 2009 3:22pm

Brian,

You mentioned referring getting medical advice from the AMA. The AMA is a professional organization that by its nature first pursues the goals of physicians first, and of patients (or society) second. While the AMA does many good things, it has a long history of pursing agendas it knew to be contrary to public health. A couple examples: suppressed the use of Pap smears (surgeons were getting a lot more money for cancer surgery), took money from Big Tobacco for 20 or so years to "study the problem" before making a decision...that is why most physicians like myself are NOT members of the AMA. Read the book "The Secret History of the War on Cancer."

Overall though, an excellent article, I will be sharing it with my patients and directing them to your website.

MD in NC, North Carolina
July 05, 2009 7:35pm

I'm a little surprised that no one mentioned this study cited in the Washington Post that states that almost half of all products containing high fructose corn syrup contain mercury. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601831.html

Brock, Long Beach, CA
July 07, 2009 3:59pm

Indeed, the mercury study was conducted ages ago but the FDA has declined to study the issue further. Independent research is currently underway and it will be interesting to see what bears out.

However, you over simplify the chemical composition of HFCS. Sucrose is indeed fructose and glucose chemically bonded together, the two primary components in HFCS. However, HFCS (and sugar for that matter), is not a pure glucose-fructose mixture. It is a byproduct of an industrial processing of corn products (which is how the mercury mentioned above is likely introduced into the product). There are many other compounds present.

Often time in nature and chemical processes it's not the big things, but the little things that change how we process foods. It's quite possible that the multitude of other compounds present in HFCS present some danger (or not). Still, much of the detrimental effects mentioned are indeed related to the increases in the amount of sugar/HFCS that food producers keep packing into products. A chart of the sugar content of food products (say breakfast cereals) vs US obesity rates over the last 30 years tells a nearly identical tale to one linking HFCS and obesity. Maybe having cheap HFCS is NOT as good a thing as you believe it is, because manufacturers just keep putting more of it into our foods. And we're subsidizing this sugary attack on our systems, to boot.

Patrick, Bellingham, WA
July 07, 2009 6:17pm

Hi there,
stumbled across your blog today and would like to add my two cents. Starting with chemistry I would disagree with you: While you are right that sucrose is composed of a fructose and glucose molecule they are bound and not lysed until reacted on by enzymes. HFCS is a mixture of the two that sidesteps this regulatory action. Fructose is massively absorbed and then bypasses other regulatory steps in liver and immediately is processed to fat. In animal and human models hypertension, hyperlipidemia, etc. are well documented. For an even more interesting discussion please do some research on Advanced Glycation Endproducts. I also would advise that you invest in some good quick research software like EndPoint.

Dr. James Pendleton, Seattle, WA
July 08, 2009 7:40am

All of this chemical discussion misses one of the major complaints about HFCS. It is CHEAP, made moreso by large government subsidies. (Another part of the reason is that "processed" foodstuffs are cheaper to store and transport, and have a longer shelf-life than unprocessed foods.) Consequently, when you only have $3 to spend on a meal, you are more likely to buy a fast-food hamburger and a Coke rather than a healthier meal which costs three times as much.

R. Matta, Washington, DC
July 09, 2009 7:44am

A simple proposal: Given a choice, people will eat more of sweet foods. Sweetness is an appealing taste to all ages, even people with reduced ability to taste (such as the elderly or smokers). This alone would explain why food manufacturers use sweetners (including corn syrup) in foods that don't obviously need them such as hamburger buns and french fries (most restaurants do exactly that). This gives many, many foods their unique "restaurant" taste. It's not a conspiracy to make us fat and sick. It's a conspiracy to sell us as much crap as possible.

David H., Minneapolis, MN
July 09, 2009 12:18pm

please check out Doug Kaufmann's KnowTheCause.com Phase I Diet He has LLLLLOTS TO SAY ABOUT CORN AS A SOURCE FOR ANYTHING and also the dangers of sugar in general. The key words are toxin and fungus. One could begin by looking up aspergillus and its relation to corn, but nevertheless, Doug has already done the homework!!!

Dr Dorothy M, St James LA
July 16, 2009 10:21am

Like the post. I know a mother who will not let her child eat anything not organic, and when I asked her her opinion of HFCS, she turned white as a ghost and told me no...no...never... Kind of spooky, really. Gotta love the militant food moms.

One thing - eating too much sugar or HFCS is not the same as eating too much spinach, as is pointed out. The body processes these foods differently. Our body recognizes spinach or any vegetable as just that, whereas the consumption of sugar and certainly HFCS is a relatively new occurrence in the human race. It's estimated that it may take another 10000 years for our bodies to become accustomed to the high cabohydrate intake diet we eat today. This is one reason diabetes and some say cancer are such big, recently developed problems for society.

Read Good Caloried Bad Calories by Gary Taubes.

Dan, Southern MN
July 22, 2009 9:20pm

This was a sound and informative podcast except for the cheap shot at Michael Moore's weight, which implied that you shouldn't listen to anything Michael Moore has to say about nutrition because he is obese - a perfect ad hominem fallacy and very low-hanging fruit.

Jarek, Ohio
August 02, 2009 3:25am

You are reading way into that comment and it is really no different than hearing about people that took offense to any picture of Cheney as an attack against the Bush White House. You need to learn to take a joke. No one is above criticism.

There are many other reasons why skeptics hate Michael Moore. The biggest one is that he lies in his movies. Roger and me has a lot of lies that he was called on back when the movie first came out. He did have a sit down meeting with Roger, in fact he had several. GM has the minutes of those sit down meetings; all you have to do is ask for them. He also was able to talk to the man at the convention where he claimed to be ignored.

Just because Michael Moore made a few movies does not mean he is credible at what he does. He is a conman that relies on confirmation to make his case. He does this because he knows reality does not side with him. He has a premise, and he goes through the data points to make sure his premise is correct. He ignores everything that does not support that premise. When he gets called on that, he does not acknowledge it, he goes on the attack.

Those are better reasons not to listen to Michael Moore.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
August 02, 2009 7:50am

I think the main problem with this argument is assuming a calorie is a calorie. In fact, foods are chemical compositions that you take into your body, and do different things. From Robert Lustig, UCSF Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology: "Glucose, the standard sugar, can be taken up by every organ in the body, only 20% of glucose load ends up at your liver. So let's take 120 calories of glucose, that's two slices of white bread as an example, only 24 of those 120 calories are metabolized at the liver. But with fructose 72 out of the 120 calories will hit the liver, three times the substrate as when it was just glucose alone. The first thing it does is it increases the phosphate depletion of the hepatocyte which ultimately causes an increase in uric acid. Uric acid is an inhibitor of nitric oxide, nitric oxide is your naturally occurring blood pressure lowerer. And so fructose is famous for causing hypertension. The second the problem is that fructose initiates what's known as de novo lipogenesis, or fat production. And then the last thing that fructose does in the liver is it initiates an enzyme called Junk one, and Junk one has been shown by investigators at Harvard Medical School basically is the inflammation pathway. When you initiate Junk one what happens is that your insulin receptor in your liver stops working and your insulin rises... Insulin actually interferes the leptin; leptin is the signal which would tell your brain that you've eaten enough."

Abby, Charlotte, NC
August 03, 2009 1:01pm

Dan Ware went ahead and made the point I wanted to make for me (with a citation no less). Thanks, Dan! The comment from Abby is interesting too. In the show you don't really talk about how fructose is metabolized and the consequences of ingesting more fructose than a "natural" diet could ever provide. Although, I suppose your original point that a 50% fructose HFCS and table sugar are essentially processed the same by the body (minus the time needed to break the disaccarhide bond). I hope you'll revisit this topic.

Josh Scheidler, Indianapolis, IN
August 06, 2009 10:48am

Joseph,

Those are perfectly good reasons not to listen to Michael Moore. The fact that he's a fat man is not a good reason not to listen to him.

I did not imply that Michael Moore is a credible person - in fact, I'd like to hear Brian pick apart his documentaries by exposing the falsehoods, and I'm hoping he's covered them in the immense backlog of episodes I'm working through. I only criticized the suggestion that you "shouldn't listen to the nutritional advice of anyone who looks like Michael Moore", which IS an ad hominem.

Jarek, Ohio
August 07, 2009 9:59pm

I have doubts that using Michael Moore's weight is an ad hom attack in this case.

If you were using it like this:

"You're fat, so you don't know anything about building a house."

That's Ad Hom.

Saying:

"You're fat, so I doubt your knowledge about good nutrition or exercise."

That's a relatively valid argument.

I'm not going to ask the builder who's house is falling apart to build my house. It's not an ad hom attack on the builder because it's actually (somewhat) relative to building my house.

John, New York
August 08, 2009 9:35am

I've noticed that people have a gut dislike of michael moore but, have little to say about his actual claims.

And the comments about not listening to michael moore's criteaque of the healthcare system because he is overweight is an adhominym attack. He isn't producing a how to live healthier video (and never claimed to) but rather what the problems are with our healthcare system even though for example the french tend to drink more, eat more, and smoke more; yet have healthier lives than we do.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
August 27, 2009 5:26am

New information on the topic:

http://tinyurl.com/ny3q4z

*Title and first paragraph excerpt*

"Heat Forms Potentially Harmful Substance In High-fructose Corn Syrup, Bee Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Aug. 27, 2009) — Researchers have established the conditions that foster formation of potentially dangerous levels of a toxic substance in the high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) that is often fed to honey bees. Their study, which appears in the current issue of ACS' bi-weekly Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, may also have implications for soft drinks and dozens of other human foods that contain HFCS. The substance, hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), forms mainly from heating fructose."

Karl Johanson, Victoria BC
August 27, 2009 9:56am

Here you imply that the AMA is a non-biased entity with no financial ties to big pharma, and none to big ag. You call this skepticism? Very cute website!

Insider, Oklahoma
August 28, 2009 9:47am

Wow, another coward calling Brian a non skeptic because he is not suspicious of an organization because of their non scientific activities. Even though the AMA's lobbying efforts have nothing to do with the science, you want him to hate the entire organization.

Prove to him that your right. How you may ask? with evidence? Name calling is not going to do it.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
August 28, 2009 3:48pm

This particular episode seemed to make the point that because HFCS and sucrose are nutritionally identical, that means HFCS is just as safe as sucrose. But couldn't it also lead to the conclusion that sucrose is just as bad for you as HFCS?

If there is evidence that HFCS does cause obesity and diabetes, then we should be worried about HFCS and sucrose rather than dismissing the health claims on the assumption that surcrose is okay.

The idea that 'calorie is a calorie' is not the entire case. Some types of food are more easily converted into fat (e.g., fructose)and are worse for us. While others types of food(e.g., organic spinach) can be eaten in large amounts and pass through the digestive tract with less of the calories absorbed by the body. http://tiny.cc/Ojaei

David Hooks, Auckland, NZ
September 07, 2009 9:57pm

David Hooks has a good point. The book "Sweet Poison" by D Gillespie suggests that it is the fructose component that is to blame. It mentions that it doesn't matter which source it comes from, but rather the quantity available to us all today. BTW I am not endorsing the opinions in the book, I am actually presently trying to find more material to either support or refute the claims. My GP wasn't moved by the whole fructose argument.

Lance, Brisbane Australia
September 08, 2009 3:01am

Okay, so table sugar might be just as bad for you as HFCS. I suppose that means we should simply be consuming less sugar in general.

On the other hand, if fructose is so bad for you and if HFCS has fructose in ready-to-poison-you form, then maybe it really is worse for your health to eat it because table sugar may not be all broken down by the time it gets through your body, or at least it may provoke less of an insulin response.

Carl, Boston, MA
September 14, 2009 2:25pm

David - I'm curious about your comment that organic spinach passes through without its calories being consumed. What gives it this power? If it has a resistance to being digested, how does this jive with the claims that organic produce is more nutritious? To transmit nutrition, it has to be digested, unless you know of some other way.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
September 21, 2009 2:08pm

The inherent energy that the universe infuses into organic produce can sometimes conflict with colonic chakras in those who are affected by fluoride in chemtrails, Brian. Duh!

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
September 21, 2009 7:55pm

Brian - the power of spinach comes from dietary fibre which is found in most vegetables and cereals. Dietary fibre is not absorbed by the intestine and also reduces absorption of cholesterol, fats, and proteins. Partial digestion means the calories gained from foods like spinach are less than the amount of calories eaten. Compare that to fructose (from, say, lollies) which is easily absorbed by the intestine and processed in the liver to glycogen and fat.

Fibre has other dietary benefits such as stabilising blood sugar and insulin levels and providing a feeling of satiety. Consuming fructose leads to an overproduction of insulin and prevents you from feeling 'full'. This means the person who ate all those calorific lollies is still hungry for more.

I'm not aware of any nutritional differences between organically and conventionally grown spinach. They certainly both contain dietary fibre, so either will do.

Carl - the sucrase enzyme in our body is highly efficient and breaks apart sucrose rapidly while still in the GI tract. There is no effective difference between consuming HFCS and sucrose.

David Hooks, Auckland, NZ
September 22, 2009 2:34am

I'm generally a supporter of government intervention and as such I'm sad to say that the FDA is little more than a rubber stamp of the industries that they regulate. So the FDA suggesting that food is safe should be read as the company making the same statement.

David---there is a difference that even Brian admits. Else he could say that they are chemically the same thing. Sucrose is also made through natural processes not in a lab.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
October 06, 2009 10:29am

Robert - I wouldn't call the modern sugar refineries a 'natural' process for producing sugar. Both sucrose and HFCS have to go through numerous industrial steps to extract them from plants (sugar cane or corn) before being suitable for market.

Ever eaten honey? This all natural product contains about 40% fructose and 30% glucose. Not quite the same as HFCS but very similar. Whether a product is natural does not tell you much about whether it is safe to eat. After all cyanide, hemlock, and aflatoxins are all natural but extremely dangerous to consume.

David Hooks, Auckland, NZ
October 06, 2009 10:27pm

David - "Whether a product is natural does not tell you much about whether it is safe to eat."

It does when we talk about sucrose.

Max, Boston, MA
October 07, 2009 8:43am

David---Sorry if I gave the impression that I like or advise any to eat sucrose either. Honey is better than either (due to some health benefit that I can't remember now) and triggers the "not hungry" response. I have no idea if studies have confirmed this, but anecdotally I recall a number of times eating chicken nuggets and feeling as though I was still hungry, with the quanity making little difference. There is also the fact that a majority of foods (many of which shouldn't need to be sweetened).

I'm not suggesting that HCFS is toxic (though it may be harmful for glucose intolerant people like me), but it isn't healthful either. For example, back before HCFS was introduced Americans had large starchy diets. While they weren't as healthy as they would have been (for being large) they were small by today's standards. And there weren't as many obese people as today.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
October 07, 2009 10:32am

Max - Why does sucrose get an exemption? This seems like a case of special pleading.

Robert - I don't think I actually understand what you are saying, but we don't seem to disagree on any of the main points.

David Hooks, Auckland, NZ
October 07, 2009 10:11pm

I'm not convinced either way. I just want healthy kids so if the problem is not HFCS then I want to know what it is.

The thing that bothers me is that that the fructos and glucose aren't mixed with a spoon to make HFCS - they are connected molecularly.

Do a google on reactive carbonyls and hfcs. Diet soda has none while HFCS-sweeted soda has tons. Oh, and table sugar has none.

FWIW - I don't pay much attention to the AMA - they are lobbied as much as everyone else....

Ian, Boston, MA
October 29, 2009 3:26am

Of all the skeptoid episodes, this one kinda rubbed me the wrong way. I love skeptoid but the one thing that Brian failed to address in the episode is that HFCS has a higher level of fructose. Yes fructose is completely normal and the fructose in HFCS is chemically identical but it cannot be used by the whole body. This increase in fructose results in an increase in fat stores.

And I stumbled upon this article today which reminded me of the episode: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6954603.ece

Fructose in moderation, even with HFCS is fine, I fully agree. But when everything has HFCS you get way too much fructose, more than your body can use and that is what causes problems.

Justin, Denver, CO
December 15, 2009 9:22am

David, you said that "natural" doesn't mean safe because cyanide is toxic. That argument works when we talk about pills that have unfamiliar natural ingredients that could still be toxic. But here we're talking about sugar, and we know that natural sucrose is not toxic.

Max, Boston, MA
December 15, 2009 9:57am

Choosing sugar over HFCS because of health benefits is silly.

There are far many more important questions than that. First, does it make sense to attempt to use a single plant (corn) to make so much of America's food supply?

Second off, what environmental benefits and detriments are there to corn monocultures/agriculture industry controlling so much of how our food supply is made?

Thirdly, would Americans choose a sugar substitute over real sugar simply to protect a few American business interests over those of Mexico, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic? Does this help to protect us from terrorists or foreign invaders? How does it help America as a whole?

I agree, the health benefits of sugar over HFCS may be complete B.S. But we can't just choose one or the other based on health reasons. There are many other geopolitical/environmental issues to contend with in this debate.

Justin, Corrales, NM
December 19, 2009 7:07pm

Hello Brian-
I followed your HFCS arguments with some interest, but I also think you miss the larger point(s), and entirely so.

For starters, we have all heard the phrase: "you are what you eat".

HFCS does not exist on some island, all by itself. It is instead a symptom of a highly processed food reality, one that is the only food reality that many Americans are aware of, or in some cases the only food reality they can afford.

HFCS, and by extension all of the highly processed foods that so many Americans eat so frequently (if not exclusively), are (along w/ inactivity) collectively the root cause of an obviously unhealthy, largely obese, disease laced population. In other episodes (bare feet?) your comments reflected some tendency or ability to see things from an evolutionary perspective, why not consider rampant obesity in that light? (hard to stomach, perhaps?)

Michael Pollan has suggested that we are in fact what we eat eats... He points out that animals grown in dense lots and corn grown in dense monoculture are both highly chemical and hydrocarbon dependent (fertilizer & insecticide from oil and antibiotics from?), and Americans eat mostly those products or their derivatives (commercially grown meat or corn based foods) and it's slowly killing us, while their production slowly kills our planet, or our part of it.

Are we SO detached from nature itself that we can survive like this? Am I just some dirty CA hippy? Have you failed to see the beach for the trees?

Matt Owen, Albany, CA
January 13, 2010 9:02pm

My earlier comment is that sugar and HCFS are both best to be avoided. Not due to toxicity but the general unhealthfulness of the stuff. That being said, look at how chain resteraunts (not only fast food) all want to push more product onto our plate. To those suggesting that it is healthy in moderation miss the point that food vendors keep pushing the line on how much we intake.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
January 14, 2010 10:20am

Wow, please do more research. It's true that HFCS and sugar are equivalent, they're both hideous substances. The simple calories-in-calories-out model is a gross oversimplification because different macronutrients affect our bodies differently. While I do share your belief that the truth does eventually come to light, the history of science is littered with orthodoxies, bad ideas that those in power have built their careers on, that take years to be disproven. Yes scientists want the truth but the research money is going to saying what the large companies want to hear. That's not conspiracy talk, it's just the way business is done. The fact is that our bodies weren't meant to take the amount of carbs that we are receiving. There is a lot of research on primitive societies, previously in good health, who take on the western diet, and then take on a host of our modern infirmaties: diabetes, obesity, heart disease, etc. And the main difference between the old diets and the western diets is the prevalence of cheap carbs, HFCS, sugar, starches, etc. So the answer is HFCS=Toxic!

Also, NOBODY gains weight eating organic spinach, the ridiculousness of that statement proves my point.

Matt, USA
January 18, 2010 11:45pm

It's incredible the effect that moron Michael Pollan has had on the youth (and not so youth) of America. Putting aside the question of why I'd listen to a professor of Journalism when deciding what and how to eat (and that's a huge task), it's ludicrous for Berkeley-ite people like him to go around introducing memes like "factory farms" and "highly processed" into an already confusing and emotional debate.

The minute I hear one of those buzz words, I know that the people involved are thinking with their EMOTIONS, not with their critical thinking skills. They say things like "sugar is toxic" (see earlier comment). Toxic? Are you kidding? Without sugar, your brain won't even work and you could die! It's vital as we grow up that we consume sugar (ask any child), and it's something we crave our entire lives. People who cut all sugars out of their diets are unhealthy and look like drowned rats (visit U.C. Berkeley sometime and look around).

I just read a ridiculous comment saying that "NOBODY gains weight eating organic spinach." First of all, you can gain weight eating just about anything. And second, you might want to get yourself into a classroom and a) learn about the idiocy of "organic" food, and b) try eating a lot of spinach and see what happens. All those oxalates are going to build themselves into a nice big kidney stone for ya. And you'll be cursing Pollan and his moronic, peacenik books as you pass it.

Sheldon W. Helms, San Ramon, CA
January 25, 2010 12:54pm

"Without sugar your brain won't even work and you could die!"

"It's vital as we grow up that we consume sugar..."

Hmmm.

I've been on a sugar-free diet since April, 2005, after re-reading a book called "Sugar Blues." Last time I checked, my brain is functioning and I'm still alive. I'll ask around to be sure, but I'm also fairly positive I don't look like a "drowned rat."

Growing up, my brother and I weren't allowed to have soft drinks. We drank plain tea, milk and water and only had candy, cookies, cakes, etc. on holidays.

Sugar has no nutritive value whatsoever, and in fact is detrimental to human health. Cavities, anyone? Obesity? Diabetes? No thanks.

Lisa, Ft White, FL
January 29, 2010 10:33pm

Lisa says: "Sugar has no nutritive value whatsoever, and in fact is detrimental to human health. Cavities, anyone? Obesity? Diabetes? No thanks."

This is really not true.
Sugar most certainly does have nutritive value. Anything with calories in it has "nutritive value"--without sugars, our metabolism would not function.

Also, Lisa claims to be on a "sugar-free" diet. I very strongly doubt that her diet is really entirely sugar-free. Presumably she means she avoids foods with sugar ADDITIVES. After all, all fruits have quite a bit of sugar, and surely Lisa does not abstain from those.

Nevertheless, Lisa is quite justified in avoiding sugar in order to lower her chances of cavities, obesity and diabetes. Sugar is high in calories and, if one's dental hygiene is less than optimal, can be bad for our teeth too.

But this doesn't mean that it is unacceptable to eat sugar. We all have to eat sugar, even though we are wise to take it in small amounts.

As for HFCS, my only complaint with it is the taste--I just think cane sugar tastes better, although I'm not a huge fan of sweet foods anyway. Are there decent blind taste tests that can tell me if this is normal? (Or for that matter, is the taste difference between HFCS- and sugar-based sweets actually attributable to something completely different, and not to the sweeteners at all?)

Collin, Tigard OR
February 13, 2010 7:03pm

Justin from Denver wrote:
"...when everything has HFCS you get way too much fructose, more than your body can use and that is what causes problems."

Interesting point. But how many healthy, non-obese people really eat tons of HFCS foods every day?

I never thought of HFCS vs. sugar as being an economic issue due to where sugar and corn grow naturally, but it makes total sense. Thanks for another great episode!

Abby, Austin, TX
February 22, 2010 10:52pm

After this episode a journal article came out that covered the effects of glucose sweeteners vs fructose sweetener. The media started yapping about how finally there was evidence of HFCS was the cause of childhood obesity. The study said nothing of the kind, and didnt even include HFCS or anyone under the age of 52.

I wrote about it here if you are interested
http://techskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/12/latest-study-on-high-fructose-corn.html

Nothing in that study invalidates anything written here.

Lisa, you ate sugar when you ate fruit or vegetables. You cant live without sugar. Cells need glucose to respirate.

techskeptic, Troy, NY
February 24, 2010 12:19pm

A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

bill, new york
March 22, 2010 2:36pm

Lisa,
And bread and potatoes are sugar.

I saw that Princton study. That's a head scratcher. We'll know soon enough if the theory is correct as others attempt to duplicate the work and larger scale studies are done on humans. And if the link between HFCS and obesity is proven, I am sure a man of reason such as Brian will be the first to report it. Don't you just love it when the scientific method works like it's supposed to?

Marietta Kaplan, Libertyville, IL
March 23, 2010 8:13pm

Have you read the study? Read the study. The controls are a joke, the claims of statistical significance are suspect, the number of individuals in one of the groups isn't stated, the data contradicting the main hypothesis is unremarked upon. It's a mess. "Why is this sort of crappy research coming out of Princeton?" I asked myself while reading the paper....oh, it's from the psychology department. shocking.

Blake, Rochester NY
March 24, 2010 10:18am

the federal government subsidies the production of corn more heavily than other produce.

The popular belief is that this is due to Iowa being the first presidential primary state

side note:
i think Pepsi would taste beter with real sugar

stobe, -
March 24, 2010 2:15pm

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 79, No. 4, 537-543, April 2004

Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=High+fructose+corn+syrup&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

bill, new york
April 01, 2010 9:44am

One nutritionist publicly retracted her argumants against fructose after reading the literature. Her bahavior in light of checking up on the evidence against her beliefs is a very peoud moment for science...

http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/nutrition_articles.asp?id=486

In it, she says, “Today I am here to confess that as a trained, nutrition professional, I blatantly ignored the No. 1 rule of providing reliable nutrition education for the public. I forgot to rely on published research and evidence for my nutrition recommendations!”

Jason Hall, Doha Qatar
April 03, 2010 8:09pm

Has it occurred to you that excessive and unnatural levels of fructose consumption is the cause of obesity, heart disease and diabetes. Whether it comes from HCFS or sugar is irrelevant.

Unlike carbohydrates, fats, protein and even glucose, fructose does not affect appetite and hunger levels. The body has no intake control mechanism for it. A soft drink or fruit juice (basically fructose and water) has a huge number of calories, but virtually no affect on appetite.

Humans are not naturally obese. We have natural controls which govern our appetite when we have had sufficient calories. Calories from fructose are not "counted" by the body and allows us to consume too many calories.

In my experience, limiting fructose intake to that obtained from whole, unprocessed fruit and avoiding foods with added sugar or HCFS is a simple and easily sustainable way to move down to and sustain a healthy weight, without ever going hungry.

John H, Sydney, Australia
May 09, 2010 11:28pm

"Has it occurred to you that excessive and unnatural levels of fructose consumption is the cause of obesity, heart disease and diabetes. "

Considering the wide range of factors that contribute to these diseases, anyone saying that one thing causes any one of them, much less all, sounds alarm bells to me. For example, my father had high blood pressure, caused by stress and alcohol. My sister has a friend who has diabetes because of a malfunctioning organ, not diet. My grandfather had blood surgar level issues due to a particular type of cancer. A brief glance through the medical literature will yield other results.

What you say may be true--fructose may not trigger the normal response in the body--but it's irrational to state that fructose is THE cause of diseases as complex as those you mention.

Gregory, Alabama
May 25, 2010 2:31pm

I don't yet see the very recent Princeton study mentioned, which suggested based on results in rats that HFCS results in significantly greater weight gain and abnormal increases in body fat as compared with sugar, even when caloric intake was the same.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322121115.htm

Let me go on record here as saying that I am 100% in agreement that the primary cause of obesity is overeating, and that HFCS is not poison. I am not trying to jump to any extreme conclusions. However this study (and I believe others, though I may be mistaken) suggests that HFCS may have greater deleterious health effects than an equal caloric quantity of table sugar.

Granted, this is a study on rats, but I do believe it is still relevant science.

Chris, Philadelphia, PA
May 26, 2010 7:25pm

i think what is shown in Food, Inc (movie) about HFCS is quite relevant. because it is cheap, it is used in many products and these products are hence cheaper than healthy foods.

for ppl who cannot afford the expensive healthy foods, they end up eating more of the cheap unhealthy ones. sure, they could control their calorie consumption but they are mostly ignorant or already sucked into a vicious cycle.

jon marc, singapore
May 27, 2010 2:54am

For anyone who cares to, "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" speaks to this topic.

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717

Dr. Lustig outlines very clearly the mechanism by which HFCS is different than table sugar (although he is no fan of sugar either) and explains exactly why we should avoid this ingredient.

Also, there is indeed a difference between the bound molecules of glucose and fructose, in that while bound, sucrose triggers insulin production signaling the brain that it is full.

HFCS, on the other hand, as a mix of unbound molecules, works differently. Only the glucose dampens the appetite and the free fructose hinders this mechanism so it takes longer for you to feel full and stop eating.

mothergrace, Richmond, CA
May 27, 2010 9:39am

Nitrosamines found in e-cigarettes are the same trace level as found in pork, meat, fish, egg, poultry, so why was that report left out?

Strange Bellowing, Question
July 01, 2010 6:26am

What do people have to say about this study in rats that says HFCS is different and made the rats obese even when they eat the same amount?

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

Josh Luzania, Fresno
July 03, 2010 11:29am

Can anyone tell me what caused sugar and HFCS to become evil in the first place? Where did the idea that certain foods are causing all our ills come from? The GI came from diabetes research and may or may not apply to the general population, but Dr. Oz says that one's true, so it must be. But I have not been able to determine when sugar became evil.

Sheri Kimbrough, Wyoming
July 14, 2010 2:30pm

Thanks for the info on this, I'm so used to hearing so much mis-information when it comes to HFCS.

I gotta say though, I agree with jon marc... HFCS is used in cheaper foods which are more often than not unhealthy! You can buy imported soda from mexico made from sugar, but it'll cost you more. So you'd probably drink less of it if you bought it... Now that HFCS is so readily available, it's become so cheap that it's just hard to avoid! Perhaps this has something to do with the rise of obesity...

But anyway... my number one reason for avoiding HFCS is that sugar just tastes better!

Dani Richardson, SLC, UT
July 29, 2010 10:27pm

update:

Aug 2 (Reuters) - Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0210830520100802

Vincent Lewandowski, Bellefonte, PA
August 12, 2010 1:07pm

@Vincent Lewandowski:

That study is about straight fructose. As the episode points out, HFCS and table sugar are both approximately the *same* in terms of fructose content -- 50/50 for table sugar, either 55/45 or 42/57 depending upon the blend for fructose. So either one is going to feed the cancer cells an equivalent load ...

Brian, Dearborn, MI
August 12, 2010 2:44pm

Brian, some news from UCLA...

“Pancreatic cancers use fructose, common in Western diet, to fuel growth, study finds:”

From UCLA, August 4…

Pancreatic cancers use the sugar fructose, very common in the Western diet, to activate a key cellular pathway that drives cell division, helping the cancer grow more quickly, a study by researchers at UCLA's Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center has found.

...Sources of fructose in the Western diet include cane sugar (sucrose) and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a corn-based sweetener that has been on the market since about 1970. HFCS accounts for more than 40 percent of the caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages, and it is by far the most frequently used sweetener in American soft drinks.

...In his study, Heaney and his team took pancreatic tumors from patients and cultured and grew the malignant cells in Petri dishes. They then added glucose to one set of cells and fructose to another. Using mass spectrometry, they were able to follow the carbon-labeled sugar

More: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/pancreatic-cancers-use-fructose-165745.aspx

Chris Bidlack, Ann Arbor, MI
September 02, 2010 7:48am