High-Fructose Corn Syrup vs. Sugar (Part 2)

When something goes awry in society, be it an increase in autism or obesity, or 90s fashion trends reentering teens' closets, it is human nature to want to blame a culprit.


Researchers at George Mason University are studying parents’ decisions to immunize their children and looking at what one of the researchers calls the “Jenny McCarthy Effect.” Ms. McCarthy, of 1990s-Playboy-model-turned-TV-hostess fame, leads the campaign that claims childhood vaccines cause autism. Many people have chosen to skip immunizing their kids, even though studies show that immunizations do not lead to autism and protect children from diseases.


The researchers were surprised by who was most susceptible to the “Jenny McCarthy Effect.” People who were highly educated, intelligent, and well-off were more likely to choose to forgo immunizing their children because of concerns about autism. In fact, the more educated a person, the more likely they were to fall victim to the “Jenny McCarthy Effect.” Poorer, less educated people routinely listened to their doctor’s advice (and the literature) and immunized their kids.


I feel like high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has become a little like the childhood-immunization-leading-to-autism hype. Educated, intelligent people are swearing off all foods with HFCS based on pretty shaky scientific knowledge.


I really want to tell you that HFCS is the root cause of our obesity epidemic, because that would be the socially acceptable thing to do. It would also be such a simple solution to the battle of the bulge and, boy, could we use a simple solution. Unfortunately, the research out there is pretty far from this conclusion.


Nearly everything I’ve come across in reputable journals like the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Nutrition and Metabolism, and The Journal of Nutrition, say that sugar and HFCS work the same way metabolically. An article in The Journal of Nutrition even goes far enough to say “Misconceptions about high-fructose corn syrup abound in the scientific literature, the advice of health professionals to their patients, media reporting, product advertising, and the irrational behavior of consumers.” (White, 2009) Studies have not found that HFCS is unique in the way it leads to obesity, predicts obesity, or that eliminating HFCS from the food supply would decrease obesity (White, 2008).


It’s true that as HFCS has increased in food, the obesity epidemic has also increased. There’s more food available and people are eating more of everything, especially fat and starches (White, 2009). The two things are correlated, but it doesn’t appear that one caused the other.


There is one study out of Princeton that showed that rats that were fed HFCS overwhelmingly became obese, while those who ate sugar did not (Parker, 2010). This is interesting, but I would like to see more studies on humans in this area. If the science goes this way, I will be sure to update my blog post.


Don’t get me wrong, I’m in no way calling HFCS a health food or advocating purchasing products that contain it. It’s processed and calorie dense and has all of the makings of an unhealthy food-like substance. I just no longer think it’s a magic obesity potion. In doing this research, my view of the unhealthiness of HFCS didn’t really change, but my view of sugar did. Table sugar does all of the same bad things to blood sugar, triglycerides, and our svelte figures as HFCS, so if you’re going to rid your cabinets of HFCS, might as well throw out that sugar too.


I feel that all of those “No HFCS!” and “Now with real sugar” labels are the epitome of misleading advertising, as are most health claims on packaging. So, here’s my advice:


• Try to avoid savory foods with any kind of added sugar, be it HFCS, brown sugar, evaporated cane juice, agave nectar, or plain-old sugar. It’s just adding extra calories.
• Use HFCS on a food label as a warning sign that the product is ultra-processed, high in calories, and contains other unhealthy ingredients.
• Don’t go crazy banning HFCS. If you really like something every once in a while that contains it, have it. You will still be able to zipper your jeans tomorrow.




Sources:


Parker, H. (March 22, 2010). A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain. Retrieved online from http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/.


White, J.S. (2008). Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: What it is and what it ain’t. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 88(suppl):1716S-1721S.


White, J.S. (2009). Misconceptions about high-fructose corn syrup: Is it uniquely responsible for obesity, reactive dicarbonyl compounds, and advanced glycation endproducts? The Journal of Nutrition. 1219S-1227S.

Throw Down: High-Fructose Corn Syrup vs. Sugar

My husband and I were eating walnut-chocolate chip pancakes with Aunt Jemima Butter Light Syrup a few weeks ago. (I know, it’s the nutritional equivalent of supersizing a Double Whopper Meal and then ordering a Diet Coke.) During breakfast, I read the back of the syrup label and  high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) was staring at me. If not for my husband’s pardon, Aunt Jemima would have found herself headed to a landfill that day. (Just kidding; I would have recycled her.)

HFCS has been on many of our nutritional no-no lists for a few years. I saw a blog post a few weeks ago that mentioned HFCS. In the comments, someone wrote “What’s the matter with HFCS?” She might have well of asked “What’s the matter with genocide?” The readers went crazy, citing “research” studies that gave HFCS magical obesity-causing properties.

Background

HFCS gradually began replacing sugar in beverages and processed foods during the 1970s and 80s. It was cheaper and, since corn is grown domestically, not susceptible to the pesky little episodes of civil unrest prevalent in the tropical environments where sugar cane is grown. Because it is already in liquid form and corn is highly subsidized by the government, HFCS makes producing vats of soda much, much cheaper.

Nutritional Makeup

The nutritional make up of HFCS and sugar is pretty similar. HFCS is comprised of 55% fructose, 42% glucose, and 3% “readily hydrolysable polymers of glucose” (your guess is as good as mine). Table sugar (sucrose) has a 50/50 fructose to glucose ratio. Both substances are heavily refined and striped of nearly all nutritional value. Honey has a similar ratio to the other two sweeteners (White, 2008).

 

The HFCS Hater’s Argument

HFCS haters feel that HFCS reacts differently in the body than sugar and disproportionately causes obesity, especially the dreaded abdominal obesity. They also point out that as HFCS use has increased, so have the waistbands of Americans.

 

The Defense

Much of the defense of HFCS comes from ads and “expert” testimony produced by the Corn Refiners Association that claim that HFCS is identical to sugar. It has all of the markings of a big business moneymaking conspiracy. Watch the commercial below.

Why It’s Not So Cut and Dry

I’ve been a member of the I Hate HFCS Club for a bit, but a few things recently have made me want to take a closer look at this. The first red flag came when I saw a friend drinking a Pepsi Throwback. In the midst of the HFCS controversy, Pepsi came out with a soda made with real sugar accompanied by some borderline health promoting advertising. Wait, so soda is healthy if it’s sugar and not HFCS? I don’t think so.

I’m not particularly proud of the second reason I started doubting the evilness of HFCS. I was searching for a video on youtube and came across this one produced by the Corn Refiners Association. Normally, I would write this off as a super-biased video from an association that has everything to gain from hooking Americans up to intravenous HFCS. My issue here was one of ego. One of the experts in this video was the medical director at the George Washington University. I happened to go to grad school at GW. If you know anything about GW, you know that I will be paying for my education there until my hair is completely gray and robots rule the earth. I can’t let myself think that a representative from my alma mater would flat out lie about HFCS and still send them so much money every month. Besides, we’re “the” George Washington University. That means we’re super smart.

So, the battle of HFCS vs. sugar is open. Do you think HFCS is worse than sugar? Vote here. Stay tuned for the science on both sides.

Sources:

White, J.S. (2008). Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup:  What it is and what it ain’t. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 88(suppl):1716S-1721S.