Hi,
I have just been reading up on HFCS High Fructose Corn Syrup and it

is scary stuff. It is in so many things we eat or buy from the store. It is

made wierdly and is not good for us like trans fats we found out aren't

good for us either. Here is a link to a website that lists many foods with

HFCS in them:
http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2005/0 6/09/foods_and_products_containing_high_fruct

Take a look and hope this helps:

I should add some further info about HFCS here is a site that really gets

nto it without being too techy
http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup. html

Again, gotta be aware as we dip our favorite veggies in that salad dressing or such

I absolutely agree that HFCS is bad stuff and in general should be avoided. Unfortunately the article you posted... without being "too techy"... is also probably not the greatest resource.

Saying "They had anemia, high cholesterol and heart hypertrophy--that means that their hearts enlarged until they exploded.", recommending that children not be given any fruit juice whatsoever, and labeling foods made with manufactured enzymes "genetically engineered" are all errors committed by the author.

I encourage people to use a heavy dose of skepticism when looking at food fads and trends. It makes me curious why the author has no problem with honey (honey typically has a fructose/glucose ratio similar to HFCS 55- the kind used in soft drinks). Here is a well-cited article that discusses fructose sweeteners.... http://www.enerex.ca/articles/whey_protein_and_fru ctose.htm

As for the documented effects of HFCS- it does seem to be bad stuff. One study linked high consumption to raised triglycerides in the blood (a risk factor for heart disease). Another study found that consumption resulted in increased body fat in mice, but you should be careful when looking at that data because the mice were ONLY fed fructose, and most HFCS in drinks is only about half fructose- more similar to honey.

There are many other studies with interesting- but not totally conclusive- results. I'd be more than happy to answer questions on the medical end of this, to the extent that answers exist. More research, always more research!

Here are a few studies if anyone is interested.

Bantle, John P.; Susan K. Raatz, William Thomas and Angeliki Georgopoulos (November 2000). "Effects of dietary fructose on plasma lipids in healthy subjects". American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 72 (5): 1128-1134.

Jurgens, Hella; et al. (2005). "Consuming Fructose-sweetened Beverages Increases Body Adiposity in Mice". Obesity Res 13: 1146-1156.

Is HFCS the same as fructose syrup?

HFCS = High Fructose Corn Syrup

Food Processors use it as a cheap alternative to Sugar

Yes, I know what HFCS stands for...is High Fructose Corn Syrup the same thing as fructose syrup? I have seen that as an ingredient, and since two of the four words are missing, I wanted to know if they are the same thing.

sorry Jackie... I didn't know where you were coming from...

Finally, we get to discuss something in my field of expertise...

HFCS, fructose, and corn syrup are not the same. They are different products, with distinct physical, functional, and metabolic properties. Commercial fructose is pure crystalline fructose. Corn syrup contains only glucose and glucose polymers. HFCS contains nearly equal amounts of fructose and glucose.

So is the "high fructose" in HFCS just normal fructose, but just chemically/enzymatically created from the glucose in corn syrup? Or is it a totally new kind of fructose, the same way that trans-fats are not naturally occurring fats?

I don't quite get why the "high fructose" bit is evil either. So if I eat a lot of fruit that's high in fructose, will the same bad effects hit me?

fructose is fructose is fructose. chemistry does make some decisions for us, and there is only one way that can be built. I guess the thought is it's near impossible to eat as much fruit-fructose as you can readily obtain in soda-fructose, etc.

Thanks! That clears up a major misunderstanding I had.

So how much fructose is in a can of soda compared with fruit? Is it that drastically different?

I don't have a handy reference, but I thought I had read somewhere that fruit juice was just as bad as cola, because it had the same sweetener content -- just no carbonation/fizz.

So should we just avoid any kind of food and drink that comes in a can or bottle regardless? I'm not even sure bottled water is good, judging by some threads here...

if you look hard enough, you will find a thread on traineo (or somewhere else on the internet) stating that studies suggest it's no longer benefical to breathe.

here is a nice, referenced article that I believes covers this in the detail you're looking for. if you have technical questions feel free to ask!

http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/results.php?story article=4486

Thanks for the article, Megan!

Part of the confusion I think is that I still read articles by reputable sources that trumpet the evils of HFCS. I'm reading "You: The Owner's Manual" book by Drs. Oz and Roizenthal that says fructose can affect how the chemicals ghrelin and leptin are secreted, which affects your perception of hunger vs satiety.

More recent studies say that HFCS sweetened drinks and sugar-sweetened drinks have no discernible difference in their effects on leptin, ghrelin, blood glucose, and insulin levels. (See reference notes 17, 18, and 19 in this Wikipedia article.) However, all of those studies cited are reportedly funded by the American Beverage Institute and the Corn Refiners Association.

So for now, I'll live by: HFCS, not necessarily bad but don't eat too much of it or any other sweetener anyway.

Oh, and breathing really isn't good for you, because it causes oxidation and tissue aging! So hold your breath and live longer.

HFCS is fine. In fact, given that its consumed by the United States probably more than any other ingredient, means its field tested quite well. If it was causing harm, we'd know it by now.

Besides the obvious fact that it has calories in it and spikes your blood sugar. But keep track of what you eat, burn more calories than you take in, and you'll lose weight and be healthier.

Theres too many demagogues out there pushing scare tactics on foods. Its a waste of life energy to worry about a random ingredient in food that has been consumed by the billions of tons.

The simplest explanation tends to be the right one. It's the simple over consumption of calories that'll hurt you not HFCS.

J.C.

Well said. I am more worried about dihydrogen monoxide. That stuff is in everything!

Vern

Oh noes! I just drank my eighth glass of dihydrogen monoxide today! If I get hit by lightning and it undergoes spontaneous electrolysis, I could explode! Of course being hit by lightning I might not mind so much by then, but the cleaners would.

Doesn't the fact that an incredibly high number of children are obese, type 2 diabetes is practically an epidemic, and nearly everyone one knows anymore is suffering from some form of Metabolic system disorder, seem to point to, PERHAPS, there is something wrong with the standard American diet? and, could it POSSIBLY be, HFCS?

Of course it is - just like one particular drug that killed thousands of people after it was approved by the FDA!

Hey RaeVynn. I agree with you. And you're right, the problem is *currently* HFCS. But do you think if they switched everything to plain old sugar it would help? It's not the HFCS thats the problem, its just the demand for sweet, tasty foods, and the overconsumption of them.

With respect, the "field testing" argument is persuasive but it's still a non sequitur. There are plenty of historical analogies of products that have been used in massive quantities over extended periods of time, but which have later been shown to be harmful (or harmful, except when used with great caution).

Thalidomide.

DDT.

Cocaine.

Arsenic.

Ephedra. Field tested for roughly 5,000 years.

I'm not equating HFCS to these. Just pointing out that the field tested argument is not necessarily a sound one.

ETA: I agree with j c. I think the real problem is overconsumption of refined carbohydrates, including sweeteners of any kind. If you dropped HFCS, I'm willing to bet that wouldn't put a dent into the obesity problem at all. I don't approve of the unfair trade restrictions that support the HFCS market in the U.S though.

Thats true, but I dont think any of those ingredients are consumed at the same insane level as HFCS. The average american consumes 19.2 kg of HFCS a year. I would wager Ephedra (the largest example you mentioned) was consumed on average (all americans) maybe .01 grams a year, considering a very small percentage of the population took it.

I mean.. we're talking 5 or 6 orders of magnitude. Literally a million times more HFCS is ingested on a daily basis.

I'm actually glad you brought up Ephedra. Because this is a prime example as to the lack of sound reasoning by Americans. Millions of people took Ephedra and got positive results. I took it and it seemed to helped. I understood the stuff wasnt benign, so I took it in cycles and in general saw a boost to my energy during cardio days, and lost more weight.

But because it harmed a few people (a few dozen at max), it is banned for everyone and all the potential benefits are wiped out for good. But typical of the line of reasoning that if something harms a handful of people, it must obviously be harmful to everyone. I think emotions tend to get the better of people when dealing with health products.

It sounds so much better to say "let's all just exercise and lose weight the natural way", and thats great but many people don't mind taking calculated risks to their health for a potential benefit. We do this unconsciously every day when we get on a plane, drive on the freeway, etc. But as soon as someone pops a pill to lose weight that might have a .000000001 chance of killing them, people get irrational and decide we need to ban it altogether.

A little off topic, but I was an ephedra user for about three years. I liked it too, because it made me more energetic without the withdrawal effects of caffeine. I stopped before it got banned because I was borderline hypertensive with a family history of heart problems and I didn't think the risk was worth it in the end. (That, and it made me aggressive, which was scary.)

I had thought that there were studies of ephedra that showed causal links to heart problems though, not just the correlative ones. Correlative studies still have their place as early indicators that a problem exists -- thalidomide and DDT were initially suspect due to correlative studies or observations, with later research finding hard causal links.