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

111–120 of 128 posts

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

#111

Post by cpncrunch »

Khelavaster wrote: post #85

Where's the rampant fact-checking and criticism of major dietary studies I usually see on HN? Could this have anything to do with bias against high-fructose corn syrup, which is chemically almost identical to honey? The LA Times reported on the study in depth, and there are some serious deficiencies. > "After eight weeks, three groups of rats weighed essentially the same – the chow-only rats (462 grams on average), t…

People just like to have a scapegoat for their health problems: MSG, gluten, GMO, etc. Better to blame the big bad corporation for making you fat than the fact that you like to eat lots of sugary shit and don't do any exercise.

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

#112

Post by cpncrunch »

Actually, all this proves is that some people on HN are idiots who can't be bothered to read the actual study. Remove the last two words of your title and your post would be technically correct (i.e the same title as the news article).

Male rats fed HFCS did have more weight gain than rats fed only chow. However there was no difference between rats fed HFCS and rats fed sucrose over the long-term. Please actually read the study and look at Table 1.

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

#114

Post by specialist »

__--__ 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.

I'm not a biologist, related from Lustig's video, probably incorrectly:

fructose + glucose = sucrose. Body needs glucose. Fructose goes straight to liver, metabolized like alcohol, a bunch of bad stuff happens. Reason fruits are better than fruit juice is the fiber blocks the fructose from being metabolized, letting the needed glucose through.

Eating straight refined sugar is probably almost as bad as HFCS. But other sources of sugar (in moderation) are proably fine.

FWIW, I add fruit into my morning kale smoothie, and it tastes delicious.

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

#115

Post by cpncrunch »

buddylw wrote: post #25
MostAwesomeDude wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound like you are a paid shill. I know that you aren't, which disappoints me further, because I'd like to think that people are capable of educating themselves instead of spreading misinformation. On your first paragraph, pondering whether sucrose breaks down into fructose and glucose immediately: No, it doesn't. HFCS makes sugars available to the bloodstream sooner, causing larger swings in overall blood sugar…

Wow. I think you severely miss-read my comment as some formal argument and you are holding it to a much higher standard than your own comment. Your first paragraph is an ad hominem attack that is subsequently withdrawn adding nothing to the conversation. I think you might have misread my questions for arguments. Questions have a symbol at the end: '?'. Also, sentences starting "I thought" are not formal arguments, bu…

Actually, the article doesn't show that HFCS is worse than sugar - if you look at Table 1 you'll see that rats fed HFCS and sugar had the same weight-gain over the long term. However the article is slightly misleading in implying that HFCS is worse than sugar, even though their own results don't show that.

Bad science, move on. All the evidence we have shows that HFCS and sucrose are equally bad for you.

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

#116

Post by cmpxchg8 »

Terretta wrote: post #102
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.

Or you could just drink water which is way healthier.

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

#117

Post by nawitus »

kyllo wrote: post #45
buddylw wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree completely that corn subsidies are out of control, but it's not clear that getting rid of corn would solve the health problem. It would likely be replaced with 'high fructose' . Fructose has properties (very sweet, doesn't crystallize like sucrose, etc.) that junk food purveyors love and corn doesn't even contain any fructose naturally. Any starch + amylase makes a syrup (my personal favorite is rice syrup).…

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…

>The root problem is really the fact that we as a nation eat too much food,

It appears that people used to eat more food in the past. At least for Finland, modern Finns eat 40% less calories than they used to 100 years ago. The reason is that agriculture work demands a lot of calories.

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

#118

Post by nawitus »

btilly wrote: post #38
justin66 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is not exactly solved, because it is not clear what the farmers should grow in the place of corn. It's quite possible they should stop being farmers and that the nation should farm out (get it?) much of its agriculture to the developing world. This is certainly what "the market" dictates and something which government spends a lot of money working to prevent.

The problem with the free market and agriculture is that demand is highly inelastic. Therefore the natural price difference between a good year for a crop and a bad year isn't 10%, it is more like 10x, and lots of people get to be hungry from time to time. However if you can convince farmers to always grow extra, then the difference between a good year and a bad one is closer to 10%, and you never have famines. After…

>However if you can convince farmers to always grow extra, then the difference between a good year and a bad one is closer to 10%, and you never have famines.

Storing food doesn't require subsidies. The government can buy non-subsidized food from the global market which may include local sources, and store it at their own expense.

During low-yield years, the private market (grocery stores) can buy food from the global market or from private food stores. If they cannot, the government can finally step in.

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

#119

Post by corresation »

paul_f wrote: post #100
swamp40 wrote: post #92

I can't believe the smartest people on the planet here are arguing about this. HFCS is cheaper than sugar because of the tariffs, but it is an equivalent substitute. No better, no worse. Americans are getting fatter these days because the food industry (McDonald's as well as prepackaged foods) can make desirable, filling foods for a dollar or two. If they needed to use sugar instead of HFCS, it would be about 10 cent…

It is carbohydrates and "low fat" diets making people obese. The only think unhealthy in a bacon cheeseburger is the bun. Until we can kill this "low fat" nonsense, people will continue to get fatter.

The low-fat/high-fat argument is entirely dominated by pseudo-science.

Eat less. Be more active. Period.

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

#120

Post by ryguytilidie »

buddylw wrote: post #39
ck2 wrote: post #3

Stop giving out corn welfare to corporations and problem solved. It's the ONLY reason why it's so heavily used. Corn syrup and ethanol - two massively damaging products of a completely corrupt system that everyone refuses to change because of massive profits off taxpayers.

I agree completely that corn subsidies are out of control, but it's not clear that getting rid of corn would solve the health problem. It would likely be replaced with 'high fructose' . Fructose has properties (very sweet, doesn't crystallize like sucrose, etc.) that junk food purveyors love and corn doesn't even contain any fructose naturally. Any starch + amylase makes a syrup (my personal favorite is rice syrup).…

I wouldn't call saying "sure, we would save hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, but not much beyond that would change" to be shitting on the persons point that we should stop corn subsidies.
Post reply on HN