high fructose corn syrup vs "natural" sweet

[JJM]

There may be another thread in this subforum on this topic; but I cannot find it. There is an excellent article http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501 that compares high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) to a large number of "natural" sweeteners. Most such articles only point-out that HFCS is nutritionally indistinguishable from sucrose (commonly used cane, or beet, sugar).

 

[CurtC]

That is a good article. In my experience, people who demonize HFCS do so by equating HFCS with fructose. Fructose is bad (which is true), and the "HF" in "HFCS" stands for "high fructose" - end of story, right?

If the subject comes up in conversation, I guess the ten-second explanation is:

1. HFCS contains both glucose and fructose in about the same proportion as table sugar and honey (but it has way less fructose than agave sweetener). There is no reason to substitute any other sugar product for HFCS.

2. The real problem with HFCS is that it's cheap, so that manufacturers can add it to all kinds of foods you wouldn't normally expect to find added sweetener in.

 

[pgwenthold]

2. The real problem with HFCS is that it's cheap, so that manufacturers can add it to all kinds of foods you wouldn't normally expect to find added sweetener in.

I was in the grocery store the other day and saw some "real sugar" versions of Pepsi products. My interpretation is that these are sucrose based, or at least moreso (no, they weren't the Mexican products - apparently it is a new product line). The amazing part, I thought, is that it was the same price as the regular stuff. I thought sugar was supposed to cost more?

Or maybe it is an introductory price, or something. I don't know.

 

[elgarak]

I was in the grocery store the other day and saw some "real sugar" versions of Pepsi products. My interpretation is that these are sucrose based, or at least moreso (no, they weren't the Mexican products - apparently it is a new product line). The amazing part, I thought, is that it was the same price as the regular stuff. I thought sugar was supposed to cost more?

Or maybe it is an introductory price, or something. I don't know.

In this case, normal sugar (sucrose, fructose and glucose covalently bound) is used instead of HFCS (essentially, fructose and glucose mixed, but not bound) as sweetener. The nutritional and health impact of that should not be changed much. Essentially, for us as consumer it doesn't matter -- they're both equally unhealthy.

The problem is that HFCS is used to 'cheapify' other food processes and ends up in processed products that are not sweet at all. I tried to find articles that explain 'traditional' food processes and how they are changed by introduction of HFCS, and couldn't. Anybody have some references?

One such process I think I read about a few years back was the 'simulation' of Maillard-processed goods (baked bread, fried potatoes, waffles etc.) by addition of HFCS and food coloring, which was a whole lot cheaper and simpler than the real process by reducing the amount of heating, number of heating/cooling cycles etc. The end result was a product that tastes and looks awfully similar than the real thing, but is chemically a great deal simpler, and presents a whole different metabolic problem to the human body.

 

[bokonon]

There is no reason to substitute any other sugar product for HFCS.

Sucralose is a sugar product, and one reason to use it instead of HFCS would be to consume fewer calories.

Glucose is a sugar product, and one reason to use it instead of HFCS would be to avoid the hyperlipidemia mentioned in the OP's article.

 

[Ysidro]

I was in the grocery store the other day and saw some "real sugar" versions of Pepsi products. My interpretation is that these are sucrose based, or at least moreso (no, they weren't the Mexican products - apparently it is a new product line). The amazing part, I thought, is that it was the same price as the regular stuff. I thought sugar was supposed to cost more?

Or maybe it is an introductory price, or something. I don't know.

Pepsi Throwback and Mountain Dew Throwback, right? It' a nostalgia thing they do once in awhile. It's only for five weeks, though I think this is the third time they've done it.

It's the same price because people would bitch if it were more expensive. It's done for a limited run and is pretty much just a marketing thing. The nostalgia brings good thoughts of their products and keeps the brand in people's minds.

 

[pgwenthold]

In this case, normal sugar (sucrose, fructose and glucose covalently bound) is used instead of HFCS (essentially, fructose and glucose mixed, but not bound) as sweetener. The nutritional and health impact of that should not be changed much. Essentially, for us as consumer it doesn't matter -- they're both equally unhealthy.

The problem is that HFCS is used to 'cheapify' other food processes and ends up in processed products that are not sweet at all. I tried to find articles that explain 'traditional' food processes and how they are changed by introduction of HFCS, and couldn't. Anybody have some references?

One such process I think I read about a few years back was the 'simulation' of Maillard-processed goods (baked bread, fried potatoes, waffles etc.) by addition of HFCS and food coloring, which was a whole lot cheaper and simpler than the real process by reducing the amount of heating, number of heating/cooling cycles etc. The end result was a product that tastes and looks awfully similar than the real thing, but is chemically a great deal simpler, and presents a whole different metabolic problem to the human body.

Boy did you miss the point of my post.

 

[pgwenthold]

Pepsi Throwback and Mountain Dew Throwback, right?

YES! That's what it was. They were big on advertising that it was regular sugar, though.

It's the same price because people would bitch if it were more expensive. It's done for a limited run and is pretty much just a marketing thing. The nostalgia brings good thoughts of their products and keeps the brand in people's minds.

Does it taste any different? I was almost tempted to buy some and do a taste test (although my Mountain Dew days are behind me, for the most part)

 

[drkitten]

1. HFCS contains both glucose and fructose in about the same proportion as table sugar and honey (but it has way less fructose than agave sweetener). There is no reason to substitute any other sugar product for HFCS.

The problem with this argument is that it's misleading.

If I gave you pure sodium and chlorine in about the same proportion and amount that you find them in a can of Pringles, I'd kill you. A mixture of glucose and fructose is not the same thing as sucrose, which is a compound of those two molecules.

And you can tell that they're not the same because the sweetness level is different. The reason people want to use HFCS in the first place is because it's sweeter than table sugar. But that means that the body does not respond to the glucose/fructose mixture the same way it does to sucrose.

And in particular, my understanding is that the satiation response is also different; you don't get "full" or "satisfied" as fast on things sweetened with HFCS. Perhaps not by coincidence, we've been seeing the rise of the "super-size me" culture during the same period we've been seeing the rise of the use of HFCS. I don't know where you would go for 6.5 ounce bottles of cola today; the "standard" sized bottle is now 20 oz, more than three times as much, which means that it's got three times the calories and is three times as unhealthy. Similarly, look at the rise of "king-size" candy bars.

We know that HFCS is less "filling" than sucrose; we also know that people are now consuming HFCS-laden junk food in much larger quantities than sucrose-laden ones. I know that I personally find a single high-quality (sucrose) chocolate from one of the high-end European candy makers to be much more satiating than an entire Hershey bar. I find it difficult to imagine that there is no connection.

 

[elgarak]

The problem with this argument is that it's misleading.

If I gave you pure sodium and chlorine in about the same proportion and amount that you find them in a can of Pringles, I'd kill you. A mixture of glucose and fructose is not the same thing as sucrose, which is a compound of those two molecules.

As has been pointed out in the article posted in the OP, humans generally only absorb monosaccharides, that is, glucose and fructose. Sucrose gets broken down in the digestives tract before the sugars enter the bloodstream. As far as the blood levels are concerned, HFCS and sucrose behave the same.

And you can tell that they're not the same because the sweetness level is different. The reason people want to use HFCS in the first place is because it's sweeter than table sugar. But that means that the body does not respond to the glucose/fructose mixture the same way it does to sucrose.

The thing here is that we're talking about processed food products, not the pure ingredient. Again, as the original article states, products with HFCS can have the same sweetness level as the same product made with sugar, by using less HFCS compared to sugar, reducing the calories, making the production cheaper even if HFCS and sugar would cost the same.

And in particular, my understanding is that the satiation response is also different; you don't get "full" or "satisfied" as fast on things sweetened with HFCS. Perhaps not by coincidence, we've been seeing the rise of the "super-size me" culture during the same period we've been seeing the rise of the use of HFCS. I don't know where you would go for 6.5 ounce bottles of cola today; the "standard" sized bottle is now 20 oz, more than three times as much, which means that it's got three times the calories and is three times as unhealthy. Similarly, look at the rise of "king-size" candy bars.

Do you have references for that? I tried to find some, but lack the time.

We know that HFCS is less "filling" than sucrose; we also know that people are now consuming HFCS-laden junk food in much larger quantities than sucrose-laden ones. I know that I personally find a single high-quality (sucrose) chocolate from one of the high-end European candy makers to be much more satiating than an entire Hershey bar. I find it difficult to imagine that there is no connection.

Comparing Hershey chocolate and good European chocolate is difficult, because they are much more different than just replacing sucrose with HFCS. Hershey's is made with a much simpler and cheaper process, which results in a product of much inferior quality, in my opinion and that of European chocolate makers.

 

[drkitten]

Do you have references for that? I tried to find some, but lack the time.

Here's one I found in a quick google search.

[F]ructose's unique metabolism, mainly through energy balance regulatory hormones, has been suggested as a possible mechanism to explain temporal trends in HFCS consumption and obesity (16). Fructose, unlike glucose, does not stimulate insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells (25). Insulin may be a key element in the chain of events that leads to increased satiety with the ingestion of most carbohydrates (37). As a result of high blood glucose, increased circulating insulin can amplify satiety through actions within the central nervous system (37-41) or by stimulating leptin secretion (42). Whereas insulin is secreted in acute response to meals, leptin stimulation is delayed for several hours (43, 44).

 

[pgwenthold]

Do you have references for that? I tried to find some, but lack the time.

Could that be due to the fact that, in order to get as much sweetness in the product, that you need to use more sugar, and hence you have MORE carbs and, consequently, more calories for the same product?

More carbs = more filling?

If you tried to match the sweetness by using maltose, for example, it would take a lot of sugar, and it'd be pretty filling.

 

[pgwenthold]

Here's one I found in a quick google search.

The problem is that, as has been pointed out, in terms of what gets absorbed, there is little difference between HFCS and sucrose.

Yes, there are different taste receptors on the tongue that are accessed, but in terms of what is digested and absorbed, sucrose is hydrolyzed (whether it is enzymatic or via acid catalysis in the stomach it is not clear to me) to the monosaccharides. Once hydrolyzed, it is basically the equivalent of HFCS50

So finding papers about the problems of fructose miss the point of the SBM article - HFCS is not uniquely fructose. All sweeteners behave like a combination of glucose and fructose.

(your sodium chloride analogy doesn't quite work because NaCl is not matabolized by first converting it to Na and Cl2; even though sucrose is not a mixture of fructose and glucose, it behaves that way, and gets absorbed that way in the body)

 

[elgarak]

Here's one I found in a quick google search.

All true, but does not seem to address the point you're trying to make. Sucrose is 50% fructose, and enters the bloodstream as 50% fructose (as it gets broken down in the stomach and the small intestine, healthy digestive system provided). Most used sugar replacement HFCS, for instance in sodas, is HFCS 55, with 55% fructose. That's not that much different from sucrose, and shouldn't be too much different as far as metabolism is concerned.

As such, your claim that HFCS produces a 'less filling' experience compared to sucrose should involve a process BEFORE the sucrose is broken down. That is, for instance, a study that compares how the taste experience influences the metabolism response. I seem to recall claims that tasting sucrose would stimulate Insulin production, whereas tasting HFCS (or monosaccharides) would not, or less so, changing the metabolic response of the body.

 

[drkitten]

The problem is that, as has been pointed out, in terms of what gets absorbed, there is little difference between HFCS and sucrose.

Not relevant.

We're not concerned about absorption. We're concerned about satiation.

If you eat twice as much, twice as much will be absorbed. This means you will get fatter.

Yes, there are different taste receptors on the tongue that are accessed, but in terms of what is digested and absorbed, sucrose is hydrolyzed (whether it is enzymatic or via acid catalysis in the stomach it is not clear to me) to the monosaccharides. Once hydrolyzed, it is basically the equivalent of HFCS50

Not relevant. We're not discussing absorption.

So finding papers about the problems of fructose miss the point of the SBM article - HFCS is not uniquely fructose. All sweeteners behave like a combination of glucose and fructose.

Except they don't. If they did, all sweeteners would be identically sweet.

 

[pgwenthold]

Except they don't. If they did, all sweeteners would be identically sweet.

Not in the bloody least.

Sweetness is determined by the interaction of the substance with taste receptors on the tongue. While there is some digestion that takes place in the mouth, sucrose is not broken down there.

Nutritional quality, meanwhile, is determined by what is absorbed, and has nothing to do with taste buds.

 

[caniswalensis]

I have heard it said recently that consuming HFCS can lead to drepression. Does anyone have any information on that?

 

[CurtC]

drkitten, the things you're saying are what I was talking about upthread - citing facts about fructose and equating those with HFCS. But the point is that both table sugar and HFCS contain both fructose and glucose, and in approximately the same amounts.

And like elgarak said, since the very first thing your body does with sucrose is to break it down into fructose and glucose, it doesn't really matter that sucrose gets eaten as a disaccharide. It's completely different from your sodium and chlorine example.

 

[drkitten]

Not in the bloody least.

I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong if you labored for days in a Wrong mine.

To quote you:

All sweeteners behave like a combination of glucose and fructose.

Sweetness is determined by the interaction of the substance with taste receptors on the tongue. While there is some digestion that takes place in the mouth, sucrose is not broken down there.

That "interaction" is part of the "behavior" of the sweetener. Sweeteners that aren't sucrose and don't interact the way sucrose does don't behave as sucrose does, even if they're eventually broken down into the same components. For that matter, some sweeteners that interact the way sucrose does with the tongue aren't broken down the same way -- e.g. L-sucrose, which is essentially non-caloric.

Nutritional quality, meanwhile, is determined by what is absorbed, and has nothing to do with taste buds.

But we're not talking about nutritional quality. We're talking about satiation response, which is not solely (or even necessarily mostly) controlled by nutritional quality. Taste is one aspect of satiation -- you can eat yourself sick on L-sucrose (if you can afford it) without gaining weight. Of course, there are other aspects than just taste that contribute to satiation, and it would take much more L-sucrose than D-sucrose to produce satiation because you wouldn't be getting (e.g.) the blood glucose response you normally associate with sugar.

But some of the aspects of satiation happen in the mouth before sucrose is hydrologized, and those aspects are missing with an HFCS-like mixture of sugars.

 

[drkitten]

drkitten, the things you're saying are what I was talking about upthread - citing facts about fructose and equating those with HFCS. But the point is that both table sugar and HFCS contain both fructose and glucose, and in approximately the same amounts.

Exactly. And you were wrong. Because a mixture is different than a compound.

And like elgarak said, since the very first thing your body does with sucrose is to break it down into fructose and glucose,

No. The very first thing your body does with sucrose is to taste it. Which is why sucrose tastes different than a fructose-glucose mix. And taste is a key component in satiation response.