Healthy eating has had a sizable enemy for quite some time, according to a variety of news sources and public advocacy groups. It's called High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). The onslaught against it has been so great that its producers have been attempting to rebrand it, corn sugar, in an attempt to avoid the bad reputation and increase profitability. Researchers at Princeton University released a paper indicating that Americans consume about sixty pounds per year, per person, of HFCS. They also highlight the concurrent rise in usage of HFCS and the rise in obesity rates. I have studied a wide variety of research from both sides of the argument. I will attempt to answer the question, is HFCS worse than sugar?
The FDA allows HFCS' use in just about everything. It is always found in very poor-quality foods with limited nutrition and can contain high levels of other negative substances, including fat, sodium, and other chemicals, even mercury. High-fructose corn syrup is a common sweetener in sodas and fruit-flavored drinks as well as salad dressings, breads, and breakfast cereals.
HFCS does not differ significantly from sucrose (table sugar) from a chemical standpoint. It has about 5% more fructose and 5% less glucose. It's sweetness level is about the same as honey, while its glycemic index is a fair amount higher than table sugar (75 vs. 60). In order to make HFCS, it must undergo significant processing as all of the fructose contained within the syrup is artificially added. Fructose does not naturally occur in corn starch.
In a study completed three years ago, researchers gave subjects a diet that provided 25% of daily energy needs in sweetened beverages. There were three groups: glucose; fructose, and HFCS. Those volunteers in the latter two groups had notable increases in bad cholesterol in just two weeks while the control group, those receiving glucose, saw no negative changes.
The body absorbs table sugar and HFCS differently, but they both digest rapidly, leaving little difference in blood sugar levels. But because fructose is added to the glucose (as is typical in HFCS production) and not naturally bonded, it allows the fructose to mainline directly to the liver, causing a domino effect: lipogenesis, a fatty liver, and ultimately, diabetes. It is also believed by many scientists that HFCS does not stimulate insulin production, meaning your body will not know it's full and can lead to overeating.
Based on existing research, HFCS looks to be more dangerous than sucrose by a fair amount. That being said, sugar is still dangerous. Added sugar should be avoided or used in very small amounts. It still carries significant risk of diabetes, heart complications, and significant weight gain, which creates a host of additional issues.
Some people believe this evidence should be extrapolated to avoiding naturally-occurring sugars, like fruit. You've probably heard the saying, "fruit makes you fat". It does not appear to be true. Fruit does garner most of its nutrition from sugar, but the body appears to digest natural sugars dramatically differently than added sugar in a soda or other processed food. Naturally-occurring sugar in fruit is healthy and necessary for your body. Added sugar and artificial sweeteners are not.
The FDA allows HFCS' use in just about everything. It is always found in very poor-quality foods with limited nutrition and can contain high levels of other negative substances, including fat, sodium, and other chemicals, even mercury. High-fructose corn syrup is a common sweetener in sodas and fruit-flavored drinks as well as salad dressings, breads, and breakfast cereals.
HFCS does not differ significantly from sucrose (table sugar) from a chemical standpoint. It has about 5% more fructose and 5% less glucose. It's sweetness level is about the same as honey, while its glycemic index is a fair amount higher than table sugar (75 vs. 60). In order to make HFCS, it must undergo significant processing as all of the fructose contained within the syrup is artificially added. Fructose does not naturally occur in corn starch.
In a study completed three years ago, researchers gave subjects a diet that provided 25% of daily energy needs in sweetened beverages. There were three groups: glucose; fructose, and HFCS. Those volunteers in the latter two groups had notable increases in bad cholesterol in just two weeks while the control group, those receiving glucose, saw no negative changes.
The body absorbs table sugar and HFCS differently, but they both digest rapidly, leaving little difference in blood sugar levels. But because fructose is added to the glucose (as is typical in HFCS production) and not naturally bonded, it allows the fructose to mainline directly to the liver, causing a domino effect: lipogenesis, a fatty liver, and ultimately, diabetes. It is also believed by many scientists that HFCS does not stimulate insulin production, meaning your body will not know it's full and can lead to overeating.
Based on existing research, HFCS looks to be more dangerous than sucrose by a fair amount. That being said, sugar is still dangerous. Added sugar should be avoided or used in very small amounts. It still carries significant risk of diabetes, heart complications, and significant weight gain, which creates a host of additional issues.
Some people believe this evidence should be extrapolated to avoiding naturally-occurring sugars, like fruit. You've probably heard the saying, "fruit makes you fat". It does not appear to be true. Fruit does garner most of its nutrition from sugar, but the body appears to digest natural sugars dramatically differently than added sugar in a soda or other processed food. Naturally-occurring sugar in fruit is healthy and necessary for your body. Added sugar and artificial sweeteners are not.
About the Author:
Please see my website for additional information at reading food label ingredients or my blog at why artificial sweeteners are bad
No comments:
Post a Comment