Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Princeton researchers find that HFCS prompts considerably more weight gain

princeton.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 63 posts

Re: Princeton researchers find that HFCS prompts considerably more weight gain

#11

Post by riahi »

zackattack wrote: post #4
superjared wrote: post #2

One interesting part is that they used fewer calories of HFCS than sugar in the trial, yet it still prompted more weight gain.

This would make more sense if I had a better understanding of biochemistry. It's only a matter of time before an awesome explanation is posted. (Yes....!)

A basic explanation is that fructose is metabolized very differently from glucose. Glucose is absorbed from the digestive tract and directly enters the blood; fructose is routed to the liver and converted into fat.

Considering the difference in these mechanisms, it isn't surprising that HFCS leads to higher weight gain, because it directly leads to increased synthesis of adipose tissue.

Re: Princeton researchers find that HFCS prompts considerably more weight gain

#12

Post by theorique »

icey wrote: post #3

Unfortunately, I don't see the amount of HFCS that's used in the American food system changing much; at least until the government can find a way to continue to prop up the corn farmers.

I realize you're talking about a collective problem, but at least we can individually choose to avoid this nasty stuff by checking labels and refusing to eat / drink foods that contain it. Save ourselves first, then we can help others.

Re: Princeton researchers find that HFCS prompts considerably more weight gain

#13

Post by hyperbovine »

maxharris wrote: post #7
icey wrote: post #3

Unfortunately, I don't see the amount of HFCS that's used in the American food system changing much; at least until the government can find a way to continue to prop up the corn farmers.

What you should argue for is that the government stop subsidizing farmers (and everyone else) altogether. That way, you don't have to worry about unintended consequences inherent in any subsidy program. (Nothing bad happens when you don't rob Peter or Paul.) The important thing is not the political reality of the moment, but the philosophy people go by in the future.

I seem to recall the very Internets on which you are now ranting arising out of a government-subsidized research program.

Irony.

Re: Princeton researchers find that HFCS prompts considerably more weight gain

#14

Post by grannyg00se »

maxharris wrote: post #7
icey wrote: post #3

Unfortunately, I don't see the amount of HFCS that's used in the American food system changing much; at least until the government can find a way to continue to prop up the corn farmers.

What you should argue for is that the government stop subsidizing farmers (and everyone else) altogether. That way, you don't have to worry about unintended consequences inherent in any subsidy program. (Nothing bad happens when you don't rob Peter or Paul.) The important thing is not the political reality of the moment, but the philosophy people go by in the future.

Subsidizing things like education and health care seems like a good idea to me.

Subsidizing poison, kind of offensive.

Re: Princeton researchers find that HFCS prompts considerably more weight gain

#15

Post by maxharris »

hyperbovine wrote: post #13
maxharris wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you should argue for is that the government stop subsidizing farmers (and everyone else) altogether. That way, you don't have to worry about unintended consequences inherent in any subsidy program. (Nothing bad happens when you don't rob Peter or Paul.) The important thing is not the political reality of the moment, but the philosophy people go by in the future.

I seem to recall the very Internets on which you are now ranting arising out of a government-subsidized research program. Irony.

Sure. But do you really think that the only possible technologies that could give you the features of the current internet are TCP, IP and Unix?

There are lots of ways to do networking, and government subsidy didn't pay for all of them. (Even if HTTP didn't exist, gopher would have filled in just fine!) Nor did it pay for the commercialization of the web browser, which is what made it truly practical for people to use the web. (Remember that before Netscape, browsers from academia didn't support JPEG, and javascript hadn't been invented yet.)

Re: Princeton researchers find that HFCS prompts considerably more weight gain

#16

Post by icey »

theorique wrote: post #12
icey wrote: post #3

Unfortunately, I don't see the amount of HFCS that's used in the American food system changing much; at least until the government can find a way to continue to prop up the corn farmers.

I realize you're talking about a collective problem, but at least we can individually choose to avoid this nasty stuff by checking labels and refusing to eat / drink foods that contain it. Save ourselves first, then we can help others.

I agree with you, and that's what I do now. However, it's quite difficult to cut out all products that contain HCFS since it's so widely used.

Cutting out soda was the easiest, but you'll find corn syrup in everything from bread to lunch meats.

Re: Princeton researchers find that HFCS prompts considerably more weight gain

#17

Post by lacrossegm »

icey wrote: post #3

Unfortunately, I don't see the amount of HFCS that's used in the American food system changing much; at least until the government can find a way to continue to prop up the corn farmers.

If the demand for corn drops because of a ban on HFCs, most of the corn farmers would just find some other crop to plant or planet more varieties that are used for other things.

Re: Princeton researchers find that HFCS prompts considerably more weight gain

#18

Post by elblanco »

I notice that if I have lots of HFCS items I suffer from semi-diabetic type symptoms if I go too long without food: an urgent desire to eat, cold sweats, the shakes, blurry vision, etc. It's usually not too bad, but sometimes can pretty much take me out of commission. For years, before I figured out it was HFCS, I tried to deal with it by constantly eating which made me very heavy.

About a year ago I figured it out and have systematically gone about trying to eliminate HFCS from almost everything I eat, which is easier said than done. In the U.S. at least, it seems to be in almost everything from Soda to Bread to Ketchup. I also notice that when I travel overseas, I can eat with relative abandon and not suffer any of the typical ill effects I have from HFCS loaded food in the States.

I noticed within a week of doing this that I could actually get hungry again without getting "sick" and go thus go longer between meals. In the last year, I've lost about 15-20 pounds by just eliminating HFCS from my diet but not making any conscious effort to change my diet or exercise habits.

Re: Princeton researchers find that HFCS prompts considerably more weight gain

#19

Post by hyperbovine »

maxharris wrote: post #15
hyperbovine wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I seem to recall the very Internets on which you are now ranting arising out of a government-subsidized research program. Irony.

Sure. But do you really think that the only possible technologies that could give you the features of the current internet are TCP, IP and Unix? There are lots of ways to do networking, and government subsidy didn't pay for all of them. (Even if HTTP didn't exist, gopher would have filled in just fine!) Nor did it pay for the commercialization of the web browser, which is what made it truly practical for people to us…

The failure of private firms to account for network externalities is one of the classic examples of coordination failure. So yes, the fact that the US government stepped in and built ARPAnet probably accelerated the emergence of what you and I call the internet by a decade or more.

I agree that private innovation almost always outpaces public innovation. But it took massive government to get the ball rolling in the first place. You need to keep this in mind next time you make silly overgeneralizations like "all subsidies are bad."

Post reply on HN