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

High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

princeton.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 128 posts

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#101

Post by YokoZar »

tanzam75 wrote: post #72
kansface wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sugar is only expensive because of the extreme tariffs the government places on it.

From 2008-2011: - Average price of raw sugar, world market: $492.8 per tonne - Average price of HFCS-55, US market: $528.1 per tonne (HFCS-55 has equivalent sweetness to sucrose.) Sugar vs. HFCS is a natural experiment. Americans are the experimental group, and the rest of the world is the control group. In non-OECD countries, HFCS has less than 1% market share. Why would you pay more money for an inferior product? A…

You can't compare the US price of HFCS to the world price of raw sugar as it doesn't count the absurd US tariffs on it. When you count these in I'm pretty sure that HFCS is cheaper than sugar in the united states.

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#102

Post by Terretta »

pkulak wrote: post #83

Wow, this blows my mind just a little bit. Especially since I've been wrong about this for so long even though this study has been out for years. I always thought that table sugar and HFCS were the same. 50/50 glucose to fructose (about). But then there's this: "...as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption…

Encourage your supermarket to carry Pepsi Throwback alongside their real Pepsi.

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#103

Post by jjoonathan »

maxerickson wrote: post #31
jjoonathan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, I tend to agree with the sibling posts accusing you of failing to maintain scholarly decorum. The "paid shill" remark was uncalled for, even if I tend to agree with your criticisms (at least, all but the most crucial one). > pondering whether sucrose breaks down into fructose and glucose immediately: No, it doesn't. Can you substantiate this further (say, with an in-vivo sucrose half-life)? I don't have…

In the paper, they state that they did daily measurements of chow and sugar drink intake. So the intake was mostly unregulated, but it was measured.

My bad, turns out I was completely wrong:

> There was no overall difference in total caloric intake (sugar plus chow) among the sucrose group and two HFCS groups.

Technically, I was right in that they didn't control overall intake, but they did prove that they didn't need to control overall intake so my alternative hypothesis was refuted in any case.

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#104

Post by rwmj »

__--__ wrote: post #90
colinprince wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that getting rid of the subsidies would let the price of HFCS increase and would be less attractive to food producers. Regarding the idea that sucrose is healthier than HFCS, I remain unconvinced. See Robert H. Lustig's awesome expostion, Sugar: The Bitter Truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM He explains the endocrinology behind why our bodies cannot stay ahead of our sugar intake.

Saying sugar is healthier than HFCS is sort of like saying morphine is healthier than heroin. It may technically be true, but both will kill you eventually. That said, I agree that if the cost of sugar and HFCS were higher, it would no longer be cost effective to put it in bread. I think everyone can agree that HFCS and sugar probably shouldn't be in bread.

When I make bread at home, I put sugar in it to help the yeast grow.

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#105

Post by newbie12 »

YokoZar wrote: post #101
tanzam75 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From 2008-2011: - Average price of raw sugar, world market: $492.8 per tonne - Average price of HFCS-55, US market: $528.1 per tonne (HFCS-55 has equivalent sweetness to sucrose.) Sugar vs. HFCS is a natural experiment. Americans are the experimental group, and the rest of the world is the control group. In non-OECD countries, HFCS has less than 1% market share. Why would you pay more money for an inferior product? A…

You can't compare the US price of HFCS to the world price of raw sugar as it doesn't count the absurd US tariffs on it. When you count these in I'm pretty sure that HFCS is cheaper than sugar in the united states.

That's right, HFCS is slightly cheaper than raw sugar in the US because the government has extremely protective import quotas against world priced sugar. The invention of HFCS in the 1980s is a direct result of the U.S. sugar program. But if you allowed a free market for sugar in the U.S. the U.S. raw sugar price would equalize at the world sugar price, and it is likely that HFCS would disappear.

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#106

Post by newbie12 »

yajoe wrote: post #91
Groxx wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an... interesting mechanism. I can't figure out what the goal is, aside from, as you said, keeping prices high (specifically for those two kinds of sugar, which seems extra weird) - is there another reasonable explanation?

It's extremely complicated. One reason for keeping prices high this season is to prevent loan defaults from the farmers/producers in the fall. So one part of the federal government may spend another $40mil affecting the sugar market (high prices this season) to prevent a loan default of $100mil to different parts of same federal government and all of the fallout to those small businesses. Bankruptcy threatens familie…

The "family farm" defense of agricultural subsidies is dead wrong. In fact, most programs are price subsidies, so the more you produce, the more you benefit, and as a result most of the subsidies go to the largest producers-- we actually subsidize agribusiness over family farmers, relatively speaking. Further, the value of the subsidies gets capitalized into the land and makes it impossible for young farmers to get started in the business.

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#107

Post by ramchip »

zanny wrote: post #47
kyllo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, if corn were not subsidized, corn syrup would probably not be wholly replaced with cane sugar, as cane sugar is much more expensive, a lot of it is imported, and it can't really be grown productively in most of the US--inside the US it's really only grown in Florida, Texas, and Hawaii. The 89 million acres[1] of corn harvested in the US would be partly replaced by some other starchy crop x, and high fructose c…

> we as a nation eat too much food I really don't know how to fix it, because it is more the subconscious drive to overeat when you can than any cultural issue. Food is plentiful and cheap, so Americans devour it incessantly. One thing I think could fix it is decoupling the social aspects of eating - most families only see each other for food, which prompts them to eat more if subconsciously they want more human inte…

All these arguments could apply just as well to Japan, which has an obesity rate far, far lower than the US.

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#108

Post by sjwright »

__--__ wrote: post #90
colinprince wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that getting rid of the subsidies would let the price of HFCS increase and would be less attractive to food producers. Regarding the idea that sucrose is healthier than HFCS, I remain unconvinced. See Robert H. Lustig's awesome expostion, Sugar: The Bitter Truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM He explains the endocrinology behind why our bodies cannot stay ahead of our sugar intake.

Saying sugar is healthier than HFCS is sort of like saying morphine is healthier than heroin. It may technically be true, but both will kill you eventually. That said, I agree that if the cost of sugar and HFCS were higher, it would no longer be cost effective to put it in bread. I think everyone can agree that HFCS and sugar probably shouldn't be in bread.

Point taken, but the wheat in bread is not much better for you than the pure sugar...

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#109

Post by nnutter »

I haven't looked yet but I would like to see experiments that look at how varying amounts of HFCS cause extra weight. It could be that even a small amount (over time or not) damages something and then causes weight gain or it could just be that they have more accessible calories.

I'd also like to see an experiment about the reversibility of the weight loss. If you get them fat on HFCS and then switch to regular sucrose do they end up looking like the rats that had sucrose the whole time.

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#110

Post by cpncrunch »

jwmerrill wrote: post #56
panic wrote: post #21

You can find the original paper at http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/HFCS_Rats_10.... . The statistics are a bit confusing to me, but it looks like they only find a significant difference for males over 8 weeks, not females over 7 months. The "significant" difference for males seems pretty small given that the rats started out weighing between 300 and 375 grams. And the conclusion doesn't mention sucrose…

The short study and the long study apparently disagree about whether 12hr or 24hr access to HFCS results in more weight gain. The 8 wk study shows 12hr HFCS leading to much larger weight gain than any of the other groups, and 24hr access not being significantly different from sucrose or chow alone. But then reading the 8 wk number off the weight chart from the 6 month study shows 24hr access being ahead of 12hr acces…

Agreed. The study is actually deceptive because they're drawing conclusions that aren't supported by their own results. My conclusion: bad science.
Post reply on HN