high fructose corn syrup vs "natural" sweet

[pgwenthold]

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.

Since tastebud receptors are chiral, that means that L-sucrose isn't going to interact with the tongue in the same way that D-sucrose does.

L-sucrose is indeed non-caloric and it is also not the same sweetness as D-sucrose

It doesn't interact with the tongue in the same way, and it doesn't break down to the same products (L is not D). So what's the point again?

 

[drkitten]

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.

Further to this.

Sucrose hydrolysis typically happens in the stomach. While saliva contains amlyase (that is used to break down starches), the end result of this is to produce lots and lots of maltose. Monosaccharides are not typically produced until you get to the stomach (not surprising as you need a highly acid reaction environment to do this right).

So if you eat sucrose, you taste sucrose, and your stomach gets a lot of disaccharides delivered to it, which are then broken down into simple monosaccharides and passed to the intestines. If you eat a mixture of monosaccharides, you taste a mixture of monosaccharides which don't need to be broken down before being passed to the intestines.

There are therefore at least two significant differences in biological response between sucrose and its HFCS equivalent -- taste, and timing. Since HFCS doesn't need to be broken down, it is absorbed more quickly, which means that the body has less time to develop an appropriate satiation response. The taste issue has already been discussed -- I just point out that the role of taste in triggering biological responses such as insulin production is well-documented.

So the claim that HFCS is equivalent to sucrose is simply false. Yes, it's nutritively equivalent, but the bioresponse is substantially different. This is an area of active research and we don't yet know all the differences.... but to claim that there are no differences is ludicrous.

 

[elgarak]

So the claim that HFCS is equivalent to sucrose is simply false. Yes, it's nutritively equivalent, but the bioresponse is substantially different. This is an area of active research and we don't yet know all the differences.... but to claim that there are no differences is ludicrous.

This study seems to suggest otherwise, at least for short-term responses. Blood levels were tested over a day for a group of people who either got sucrose sweetened drinks, or HFCS sweetened drinks. The bioresponse were concluded to be identical (as opposed to earlier experiments with pure fructose and pure glucose, which do produce measurable different bioresponses). Which makes sense, really. HFCS sweetener is awfully similar in fructose content to sucrose, and the drinks are composed to taste similar and have similar sweetness. Hence supporting the claim by CurtC that replacing sucrose with HFCS 55 for sweetening purposes does not matter much.

 

[drkitten]

This study seems to suggest otherwise, at least for short-term responses. Blood levels were tested over a day for a group of people who either got sucrose sweetened drinks, or HFCS sweetened drinks. The bioresponse were concluded to be identical (as opposed to earlier experiments with pure fructose and pure glucose, which do produce measurable different bioresponses).

I'm sorry. I think I missed the part of that study that measures satiation instead of biouptake.

In other words, irrelevant study, irrelevant measurements, irrelevant conclusion.

 

[JJM]

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. ...

Your analogy could not be more wrong. I used to teach a course "Chemistry 101" and I am sure the textbooks still exist. An important part of graduate (PhD) education drkitten is not holding forth on topics of which one is ignorant.

 

[drkitten]

Your analogy could not be more wrong.

My analogy, which illustrates the fact that a compound is different than a mixture, "could not be more wrong?"

I'm sorry. If you feel that compounds are identical to mixtures, or that the difference between a mixture of two poisonous elements and the relatively harmless compound that results when you combine the two is a clear way to illustrate how radically they can differ,... well, all I can say is your chemistry class must not have been very well-taught.

An important part of graduate (PhD) education drkitten is not holding forth on topics of which one is ignorant.

Absolutely. So which part of "a mixture of fructose and glucose has different properties from a compound made from fructose and glucose" are you suggesting I'm ignorant of?

I stand by my statements.

1. A mixture is different than a compound.
2. A mixture of elemental sodium and elemental chlorine is different from the compound sodium chloride.
3. A mixture of fructose and glucose is different from a compound of fructose and glucose.
4. The human body is known[i/] to respond differently to a mixture of fructose and glucose than it does to sucrose (the compound). [Not only is taste itself a bioresponse, but taste also contributes to other responses such as insulin levels.]
   [*]GIven that they are known to be different both in composition and in bioresponse, it is ridiculous to claim they're the same.
   [*] A key area where a difference is suspected is in the satiation bioresponse. Nothing posted on this thread or anywhere else I've found controverts this.
   

Nothing in that list above indicates ignorance on my part.

 

[Ysidro]

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

Well, yes. That's the whole point. It's sort of an "original recipe" thing.

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)

Indeed it does. I found it much sweeter than current Pepsi, which I already find rather sweet. Although a good bit of that may be because I've transitioned to the "non-diet" zero calorie versions of Coke and Pepsi and have adjusted my taste buds.

It was interesting, that's for sure. And rather nostalgic. Too bad they weren't glass bottles. I'm just old enough to remember them and taking them to the grocery store with mom where we'd place them on a little conveyer belt in the back of the store.

 

[JJM]

My analogy, which illustrates the fact that a compound is different than a mixture, "could not be more wrong?" ...

Okay, I concede you could have been more wrong. It remains true that sucrose and HFCS are nutritionally equivalent; whereas sodium chloride and its component elements are not.

 

[cwalner]

Well, yes. That's the whole point. It's sort of an "original recipe" thing.

Indeed it does. I found it much sweeter than current Pepsi, which I already find rather sweet. Although a good bit of that may be because I've transitioned to the "non-diet" zero calorie versions of Coke and Pepsi and have adjusted my taste buds.

My understanding from friends is that the Mt Dew Throwback has a very different taste from the current one , due to other changes in the formula besides just the HFCS. They describe it as having a much more distinctive citrus flavoring. Due to diabetes, I have not sampled these myself, unfortunately.

 

[caniswalensis]

I have tried the Mountain Dew Throwback and enjoyed it.

I found the flavor to be about the same, perhaps slightly sweeter. To me, the big difference seemed to be in the texture. The throwback has a "smoother" feel on your tongue, almost like a very thin syrup, if that makes any sense. This as compared to the current formula, which I would describe as "crisp." or feeling more like carbonated water, with a little bite on your tongue.

I do not think this difference comes from an actual difference in viscosity, but that is just a guess.

Regrads, Canis

 

[Resume]

I have tried the Mountain Dew Throwback and enjoyed it.

I found the flavor to be about the same, perhaps slightly sweeter. To me, the big difference seemed to be in the texture. The throwback has a "smoother" feel on your tongue, almost like a very thin syrup, if that makes any sense. This as compared to the current formula, which I would describe as "crisp." or feeling more like carbonated water, with a little bite on your tongue.

I do not think this difference comes from an actual difference in viscosity, but that is just a guess.

Regrads, Canis

I did the Pepsi and found my reaction similar to yours. Of course it could just be in my head.

 

[drkitten]

Okay, I concede you could have been more wrong. It remains true that sucrose and HFCS are nutritionally equivalent;

True but irrelevant, because we're not talking about nutritional equivalence.

It remains true that elemental sodium and elemental chlorine have the same weight as NaCL (a property that sucrose shares with an appropriate fructose/glucose mixture) -- but that's not relevant either, because we're not talking about weight.

I'm talking about bioresponse generally, and a specific bioresponse in particular -- satiation.

Listing all of the other properties that HFCS shares with sucrose -- did you know they both have a "c" but no "j" in their name, too?(*) -- is not relevant.

(*) Also a property shared by sodium chloride as well as a mixture of elemental sodium and elemental chlorine.

 

[Marcus]

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.

Hershey's chocolate is made with sucrose. Higher quality chocolate tends to have more cocoa and less fat, I would expect it to be less filling than Hershey's rather than more.

 

[Augustine]

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/86/6/1586

No differences in satiety or energy intake after high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, or milk preloads (AJCN, Vol 86, No. 6, 1586-1594, Dec 2007)

 

[drkitten]

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/86/6/1586

No differences in satiety or energy intake after high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, or milk preloads (AJCN, Vol 86, No. 6, 1586-1594, Dec 2007)

Unfortunately, your own paper proves there to be a difference in satiation response (although interestingly it appears to be sex-mediated):

Men had a significantly greater reduction in hunger after the preload containing HFCS than after the preload containing sucrose at the 50-min time point (–8 ± 14 compared with –17 ± 15 mm VAS, respectively; P < 0.05), whereas women showed the opposite. Women had a significantly greater reduction in hunger ratings at the 50-, 80-, and 110-min time points, with the maximal difference occurring 50 min (–24 ± 18 compared with –7 ± 19 mm VAS; P < 0.05) after consumption of the preload containing sucrose compared with the preload containing HFCS.

So an hour after drinking an HFCS-sweetened soda (or eating an HFCS-sweetened granola bar, although the study didn't test this directly), you feel (more) hungry, so you're more likely to go get a (nutritionally unnecessary) snack. Increased snacking behavior leads to weight gain.

Game, set, match.

I'm rather surprised the editors didn't catch this one.

 

[Augustine]

So an hour after drinking an HFCS-sweetened soda (or eating an HFCS-sweetened granola bar, although the study didn't test this directly), you feel (more) hungry, so you're more likely to go get a (nutritionally unnecessary) snack. Increased snacking behavior leads to weight gain.

Not if you're a man, apparently.

Also, the change in energy consumption for women between HFCS and sucrose preloads was a whopping 32 calories. So perhaps over 100 or so meals, we might see a one pound difference in fat gain.

Game, set, match.

If more people played tennis rather than posted on the internet, they might not have to worry about whether their obesity was caused by HFCS or sucrose.

 

[drkitten]

Also, the change in energy consumption for women between HFCS and sucrose preloads was a whopping 32 calories. So perhaps over 100 or so meals, we might see a one pound difference in fat gain.

Look again at the structure of the study.

It shows that there's a significant (albeit sex-mediated) difference in how hungry people are after eating HFCS-sweetened vs. sucrose-sweetened snack/pre-loads. It also shows that when forced to consume "real" food (granola), people will consume about the same amount of food irrespective of sweetener in the pre-load, but doesn't say anything about whether they would consume additional food when left to their own devices, or about whether they would consume the same amount of HFCS-sweetened granola as sucrose-sweetened granola.

What this study provides is clear-cut evidence that HFCS-sweetened food doesn't stave off feelings of hunger as well as sucrose-sweetened food (for women, at least). Since snacking behavior -- feeling hungry between meals -- is well-established as a major cause of obesity, and this is clear evidence suggesting a link between HFCS food and snacking, I don't see how you can claim this as anything other than a testimonial to the idea that HFCS can have a very significant impact on making people fat.

If more people played tennis rather than posted on the internet, they might not have to worry about whether their obesity was caused by HFCS or sucrose.

Absolutely. But it's rather difficult to fit a tennis court into my office, and students tend not to like it when I can only answer their questions between serves.

 

[Augustine]

and this is clear evidence suggesting a link between HFCS food and snacking, I don't see how you can claim this as anything other than a testimonial to the idea that HFCS can have a very significant impact on making people fat.

I would advise you to read deeper into the study you already linked. You seem to have stopped reading at the section entitled "Fructose, Energy Intake, and Energy Balance Regulation". Continue and read the sections "High Fructose Corn Syrup, Energy Intake, and Body Weight: Short Term Studies" and "Conclusions".

Very significant impact? Really? 32 calories? "Making" people fat?

 

[drkitten]

I would advise you to read deeper into the study you already linked.

I would advise you to read deeper into the criticisms of the various studies I've already made on this thread. It makes you look less credible when you misrepresent my arguments. And since you're the only HFCS-shill on this thread with any credibility (at least you seem to understand the differences between satiation and nutrition), that's not a step I would advise you to take.


Specifically, from the study I cited that you apparently didn't read: "However, these studies do not determine whether HFCS may be more of a factor in weight gain than other caloric sweeteners, nor do they specifically address the implications of total dietary HFCS from all sources on energy intake and body weight."

And, "insufficient scientific evidence currently exists to indicate that HFCS disrupts short-term energy balance signals or increases short-term appetite and energy intake more than do other tested sweeteners. [This is not entirely true; the article you found is a counterexample. -drk.]The metabolic and endocrine responses that have been measured to date are similar between HFCS and sucrose, the sweetener HFCS has largely replaced in the US diet. Additional work should be performed to see whether these results extend to other metabolic and endocrine responses. In addition, longer-term investigations of the effect of HFCS on energy balance regulatory systems are needed to further understand the role of this sweetener in body weight regulation."

 

[Augustine]

I would advise you to read deeper into the criticisms of the various studies I've already made on this thread. It makes you look less credible when you misrepresent my arguments. And since you're the only HFCS-shill on this thread with any credibility (at least you seem to understand the differences between satiation and nutrition), that's not a step I would advise you to take.


Specifically, from the study I cited that you apparently didn't read: "However, these studies do not determine whether HFCS may be more of a factor in weight gain than other caloric sweeteners, nor do they specifically address the implications of total dietary HFCS from all sources on energy intake and body weight."

And, "insufficient scientific evidence currently exists to indicate that HFCS disrupts short-term energy balance signals or increases short-term appetite and energy intake more than do other tested sweeteners. [This is not entirely true; the article you found is a counterexample. -drk.]The metabolic and endocrine responses that have been measured to date are similar between HFCS and sucrose, the sweetener HFCS has largely replaced in the US diet. Additional work should be performed to see whether these results extend to other metabolic and endocrine responses. In addition, longer-term investigations of the effect of HFCS on energy balance regulatory systems are needed to further understand the role of this sweetener in body weight regulation."

HFCS-shill???

Talk about misrepresenting arguments.

I do not think those quotes support your arguments like you think they do.

Regardless, satiety is irrelevant, at least in the context of sweetened beverages. If you look at the study, the noncaloric-sweetened beverage had the least satiety and the largest ad libitum feeding, but the total caloric consumption (feeding + beverage) was the lowest. In effect, the participants could not overeat enough to compensate for the liquid calories consumed by the other groups. In that regard, it is irrelevant if the sweetened beverage is sweetened with sucrose or HFCS; the larger issue is the volume of consumption of sweetened beverages, whether sucrose or HFCS.

As far as HFCS and sucrose differences with respect to additives to solid food, I would point to several countries with very low consumption of HFCS relative to sucrose (Mexico, for example) that manage to nevertheless achieve remarkable levels of obesity. As well, I would highlight countries with consumption of HFCS relative to sucrose closer to the levels of the US (Japan) that still have lower incidence of obesity.

In the absence of a stronger case, it seems that much of your reasoning is based on your "imagining" or belief of differences between HFCS and sucrose and not actual research.

PS HFCS-55 is identical to sucrose in sweetness.