PDA

View Full Version : Sweet but Not So Innocent?


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Tc
Thu, May-26-05, 17:17
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-2003Mar10?lang-
uage=3Dprinter

Sweet but Not So Innocent? High-Fructose Corn Syrup May Act
More Like Fat Than Sugar in the Body

By Sally Squires Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March
11, 2003; Page HE01

>From fruit-flavored drinks to energy bars, a huge array of
>sweetened
foods and beverages crowds grocery shelves, vending machines,
restaurant menus, school lunches and kitchens. According to
the latest figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), consumption of various sweeteners, often in
calorie-dense foods and drinks, has risen in the United
States from an estimated 113 pounds per person in 1966 to 147
pounds in 2001.

Last week, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended
limiting intake of added sugars found in food and drink to no
more than 10 percent of daily calories, a step the WHO said
could help stop the worldwide rise in obesity that is fueling
the growth of such chronic diseases as type 2 diabetes. The
WHO recommendation is far stricter than any that U.S. groups
have produced.

_____On the Web_____

=B7 Dietary Guidelines for Americans =B7 USDA: Is Intake of
Added Sugars Associated With Dietary Quality?

_____From Our Advertisers_____

=B7 Find health and fitness experts in the Washington area.

Free E-mail Newsletters Lean Plate Club See a Sample |
Sign Up Now

But increasingly, it's not just the growing consumption of
foods with added sugars that concerns some nutrition experts.
What has also changed during the past four decades, the USDA
figures show, is the type of sweeteners consumed -- a trend
that some studies suggest may help to undermine appetite
control and possibly play a role in weight gain.

In 1966, refined sugar, also known as sucrose, held the No.
1 slot, accounting for 86 percent of sweeteners used,
according to the USDA. Today, sweeteners made from corn are
the leader, racking up $4.5 billion in annual sales and
accounting for 55 percent of the sweetener market. That
switch largely reflects the steady growth of high-fructose
corn syrup, which climbed from zero consumption in 1966 to
62.6 pounds per person in 2001.

While soft drinks and fruit beverages such as lemonade are the
leading products containing high-fructose corn syrup, plenty
of other items -- including cookies, gum, jams, jellies and
baked goods -- also contain this syrup. [For more information
about which foods contain these and other added sweeteners,
see the Lean Plate Club column on Page F2.]

Made from corn starch, high-fructose corn syrup is a thick
liquid that contains two basic sugar building blocks, fructose
and glucose, in roughly equal amounts. Sucrose, most familiar
to consumers as table sugar, is a larger sugar molecule that
breaks down into glucose and fructose in the intestine during
metabolism.

An advantage of high-fructose corn syrup is that it "tastes
sweeter than refined sugar," making it a popular ingredient
for food manufacturers because it enables them to use less,
says George A. Bray, former director of Louisiana State
University's Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton
Rouge. As a liquid, the syrup is easier to blend into
beverages than refined sugar, according to the National Soft
Drink Association (NSDA). Industry taste tests suggested that
consumers liked food and drink with high-fructose corn syrup
as much as refined beet or cane sugar.

In the 1980s, manufacturing methods improved, prompting a
boost in production of high-fructose corn syrup and a drop in
price to just pennies below that of refined sugar. "While that
may not sound like much to the average consumer, when you
consider how many pounds [the soft drink industry buys], it
was millions of dollars if not hundreds of millions of dollars
in savings," says Drew Davis, NSDA's vice president for
federal affairs.

The switch made economic sense and, as Davis notes, "back
then, there was no suggestion that high-fructose corn syrup
was metabolized differently" than other sugars. More recent
research suggests, however, that there may be some unexpected
nutritional consequences of using the syrup. "Fructose is
absorbed differently" than other sugars, says Bray. "It
doesn't register in the body metabolically the same way that
glucose does."

For example, consumption of glucose kicks off a cascade of
biochemical reactions. It increases production of insulin by
the pancreas, which enables sugar in the blood to be
transported into cells, where it can be used for energy. It
increases production of leptin, a hormone that helps regulate
appetite and fat storage, and it suppresses production of
another hormone made by the stomach, ghrelin, that helps
regulate food intake. It has been theorized that when ghrelin
levels drop, as they do after eating carbohydrates composed of
glucose, hunger declines.

Fructose is a different story. It "appears to behave more like
fat with respect to the hormones involved in body weight
regulation," explains Peter Havel, associate professor of
nutrition at the University of California, Davis. "Fructose
doesn't stimulate insulin secretion. It doesn't increase
leptin production or suppress production of ghrelin. That
suggests that consuming a lot of fructose, like consuming too
much fat, could contribute to weight gain." Whether it
actually does do this is not known "because the studies have
not been conducted," said Havel.

Another concern is the action of fructose in the liver, where
it is converted into the chemical backbone of trigylcerides
more efficiently than glucose. Like low-density lipoprotein --
the most damaging form of cholesterol -- elevated levels of
trigylcerides are linked to an increased risk of heart
disease. A University of Minnesota study published in the
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2000 found that in
men, but not in women, fructose "produced significantly higher
[blood] levels" than did glucose. The researchers, led by J.P
Bantle, concluded that "diets high in added fructose may be
undesirable, particularly for men."

Other recent research suggests that fructose may alter the
magnesium balance in the body. That could, in turn, accelerate
bone loss, according to a USDA study published in 2000 in the
Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

In November, however, Havel and his colleagues published a
review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that
examined evidence from multiple studies. They concluded that
large quantities of fructose from a variety of sources,
including table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, induce
insulin resistance, impair glucose tolerance, produce high
levels of insulin, boost a dangerous type of fat in the blood
and cause high blood pressure in animals. "The data in humans
are less clear," the team noted.

Others are skeptical that high-fructose corn syrup acts
differently in the body than table sugar. "I don't see it as a
particular evil," says Michael Jacobson, director of the
Center for Science in the Public Interest and a vocal critic
of soft drinks, which he dubs "liquid candy." "It wouldn't
make much difference if soft drinks were sweetened with
sucrose [table sugar] or high-fructose corn syrup."

Until scientists sort out the details, many nutrition experts
say it makes sense to not surpass the 10 percent
recommendation of the WHO. On a 2,000-calorie intake, that
works out to about 200 calories -- roughly the amount found in
a 16.9-ounce bottle of soda or about eight Chunky Chips Ahoy
cookies or about an three ounces of plain M&M's. (Last year,
the National Academy of Sciences suggested that added sugars
should not exceed 25 percent of daily calories -- about 500
calories on a 2,000-calorie intake.)

"Reducing consumption of added sugars seems reasonable to me,"
Havel says, "just as you should not consume too many calories
from fat and you should exercise regularly."

But industry groups urged consumers not to respond by avoiding
any one food ingredient. Audrae Erickson, president of the
Corn Refiners Association, notes that many of the studies used
pure fructose rather than the combination of fructose and
glucose found in corn syrup.

"There are many sources for the obesity epidemic," Erickson
says. "There's no one single source of the obesity epidemic or
the onslaught of diabetes in America. But there are many
contributing factors and no scientific link to suggest that
high-fructose corn syrup is a contributing factor."

Erickson says that research published in a 1993 supplement to
the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggests that there
is no evidence linking the syrup to the obesity epidemic.

What does play a role, she noted, "is the lack of physical
exercise. You can not discontinue the use of any one food or
beverage and expect tomorrow -- or even in 10 years from now
-- to be thin without increased physical activity."

That's a message being delivered not just by the food and
beverage industries, but also by the U.S. Surgeon General, the
National Academy of Sciences and the WHO, which also urged
more physical activity -- an hour a day of moderate-intensity
activity, such as walking -- in its report last week.=B7=20

---

TC

Enrico C
Fri, May-27-05, 06:18
On 26 May 2005 12:00:59 -0700, TC wrote in
<news:1117134059.438011.93590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> on
sci.med.nutrition :

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-2003Mar10?la-
> nguage=printer
>
> Sweet but Not So Innocent? High-Fructose Corn Syrup May Act
> More Like Fat Than Sugar in the Body
>
> By Sally Squires Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March
> 11, 2003; Page HE01

> From fruit-flavored drinks to energy bars, a huge array of
> sweetened foods and beverages crowds grocery shelves,
> vending machines, restaurant menus, school lunches and
> kitchens. According to the latest figures from the U.S.
> Department of Agriculture (USDA), consumption of various
> sweeteners, often in calorie-dense foods and drinks, has
> risen in the United States from an estimated 113 pounds per
> person in 1966 to 147 pounds in 2001.
>
> Last week, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended
> limiting intake of added sugars found in food and drink to
> no more than 10 percent of daily calories,

And 10 percent of calories looks to me quite a lot, anyway.

> a step the WHO said could help stop the worldwide rise in
> obesity that is fueling the growth of such chronic diseases
> as type 2 diabetes. The WHO recommendation is far stricter
> than any that U.S. groups have produced.
>
> _____On the Web_____
>
> · Dietary Guidelines for Americans · USDA: Is Intake of
> Added Sugars Associated With Dietary Quality?
>
>
>
> _____From Our Advertisers_____
>
> · Find health and fitness experts in the Washington area.
>
>
>
>
> Free E-mail Newsletters Lean Plate Club See a Sample |
> Sign Up Now
>
> But increasingly, it's not just the growing consumption of
> foods with added sugars that concerns some nutrition
> experts. What has also changed during the past four decades,
> the USDA figures show, is the type of sweeteners consumed --
> a trend that some studies suggest may help to undermine
> appetite control and possibly play a role in weight gain.
>
> In 1966, refined sugar, also known as sucrose,

By the way, "brown sugar" is sucrose as well, isn't it?

> held the No. 1 slot, accounting for 86 percent of sweeteners
> used, according to the USDA. Today, sweeteners made from
> corn are the leader, racking up $4.5 billion in annual sales
> and accounting for 55 percent of the sweetener market. That
> switch largely reflects the steady growth of high-fructose
> corn syrup, which climbed from zero consumption in 1966 to
> 62.6 pounds per person in 2001.

Wow!

> While soft drinks and fruit beverages such as lemonade
> are the leading products containing high-fructose corn
> syrup, plenty of other items -- including cookies, gum,
> jams, jellies and baked goods -- also contain this syrup.
> [For more information about which foods contain these and
> other added sweeteners, see the Lean Plate Club column on
> Page F2.]
>
> Made from corn starch, high-fructose corn syrup is a thick
> liquid that contains two basic sugar building blocks,
> fructose and glucose, in roughly equal amounts. Sucrose,
> most familiar to consumers as table sugar, is a larger sugar
> molecule that breaks down into glucose and fructose in the
> intestine during metabolism.
>
> An advantage of high-fructose corn syrup is that it "tastes
> sweeter than refined sugar," making it a popular ingredient
> for food manufacturers because it enables them to use less,
> says George A. Bray, former director of Louisiana State
> University's Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton
> Rouge. As a liquid, the syrup is easier to blend into
> beverages than refined sugar, according to the National Soft
> Drink Association (NSDA). Industry taste tests suggested
> that consumers liked food and drink with high-fructose corn
> syrup as much as refined beet or cane sugar.
>
> In the 1980s, manufacturing methods improved, prompting a
> boost in production of high-fructose corn syrup and a drop
> in price to just pennies below that of refined sugar. "While
> that may not sound like much to the average consumer, when
> you consider how many pounds [the soft drink industry buys],
> it was millions of dollars if not hundreds of millions of
> dollars in savings," says Drew Davis, NSDA's vice president
> for federal affairs.
>
> The switch made economic sense and, as Davis notes, "back
> then, there was no suggestion that high-fructose corn syrup
> was metabolized differently" than other sugars. More recent
> research suggests, however, that there may be some
> unexpected nutritional consequences of using the syrup.
> "Fructose is absorbed differently" than other sugars, says
> Bray. "It doesn't register in the body metabolically the
> same way that glucose does."
>
> For example, consumption of glucose kicks off a cascade of
> biochemical reactions. It increases production of insulin by
> the pancreas, which enables sugar in the blood to be
> transported into cells, where it can be used for energy. It
> increases production of leptin, a hormone that helps
> regulate appetite and fat storage, and it suppresses
> production of another hormone made by the stomach, ghrelin,
> that helps regulate food intake. It has been theorized that
> when ghrelin levels drop, as they do after eating
> carbohydrates composed of glucose, hunger declines.
>
> Fructose is a different story. It "appears to behave more
> like fat with respect to the hormones involved in body
> weight regulation," explains Peter Havel, associate
> professor of nutrition at the University of California,
> Davis. "Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin secretion. It
> doesn't increase leptin production or suppress production
> of ghrelin. That suggests that consuming a lot of
> fructose, like consuming too much fat, could contribute to
> weight gain."

Well, not that I love added sugars, but... consuming *a lot*
of *anything* could contribute to weight gain.

And fructose is not just an "added sugar", it is also
naturally found in fruit... I don't drink pops and sweetened
drinks, but I eat fruit. Let's talk of *how much* fructose is
too much, then. More than 40 grams per meal?

> Whether it actually does do this is not known "because the
> studies have not been conducted," said Havel.
>
>
> Another concern is the action of fructose in the liver,
> where it is converted into the chemical backbone of
> trigylcerides more efficiently than glucose. Like
> low-density lipoprotein -- the most damaging form of
> cholesterol -- elevated levels of trigylcerides are linked
> to an increased risk of heart disease. A University of
> Minnesota study published in the American Journal of
> Clinical Nutrition in 2000 found that in men, but not in
> women, fructose "produced significantly higher [blood]
> levels" than did glucose. The researchers, led by J.P
> Bantle, concluded that "diets high in added fructose may be
> undesirable, particularly for men."

That makes sense to me. But I wouldn't want a diet high in
sucrose either.

If I were to add *small amounts* of some sugar [let's say in a
cake, where you actually *need* some sugar], perhaps I'd go
for fructose rather than for sucrose, because 1) you need a
bit less to taste sweet, 2) even small amounts of glucose
increase production of insulin, and we don't want too sharp an
increase of insulin when we eat a slice of cake, do we?...
What do you say?

Then, I believe it's still different if you are a sportsman
and you spend lots of energy, then you need to restore it
quickly... In that case sucrose is best, am I right?

> Other recent research suggests that fructose may alter the
> magnesium balance in the body. That could, in turn,
> accelerate bone loss, according to a USDA study published in
> 2000 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.
>
> In November, however, Havel and his colleagues published a
> review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that
> examined evidence from multiple studies. They concluded that
> large quantities of fructose from a variety of sources,
> including table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, induce
> insulin resistance, impair glucose tolerance, produce high
> levels of insulin, boost a dangerous type of fat in the
> blood and cause high blood pressure in animals. "The data in
> humans are less clear," the team noted.
>
> Others are skeptical that high-fructose corn syrup acts
> differently in the body than table sugar. "I don't see it as
> a particular evil," says Michael Jacobson, director of the
> Center for Science in the Public Interest and a vocal critic
> of soft drinks, which he dubs "liquid candy." "It wouldn't
> make much difference if soft drinks were sweetened with
> sucrose [table sugar] or high-fructose corn syrup."

Well, let's just not drink lots of soft drinks with added
sugar. Unsweetened fresh orange juice is naturally sweet :)

> Until scientists sort out the details, many nutrition
> experts say it makes sense to not surpass the 10 percent
> recommendation of the WHO. On a 2,000-calorie intake, that
> works out to about 200 calories -- roughly the amount found
> in a 16.9-ounce bottle of soda or about eight Chunky Chips
> Ahoy cookies or about an three ounces of plain M&M's. (Last
> year, the National Academy of Sciences suggested that added
> sugars should not exceed 25 percent of daily calories --
> about 500 calories on a 2,000-calorie intake.)

> "Reducing consumption of added sugars seems reasonable to
> me," Havel says, "just as you should not consume too many
> calories from fat and you should exercise regularly."
>
> But industry groups urged consumers not to respond by
> avoiding any one food ingredient. Audrae Erickson, president
> of the Corn Refiners Association, notes that many of the
> studies used pure fructose rather than the combination of
> fructose and glucose found in corn syrup.
>
> "There are many sources for the obesity epidemic," Erickson
> says. "There's no one single source of the obesity epidemic
> or the onslaught of diabetes in America. But there are many
> contributing factors and no scientific link to suggest that
> high-fructose corn syrup is a contributing factor."

> Erickson says that research published in a 1993 supplement
> to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggests that
> there is no evidence linking the syrup to the obesity
> epidemic.
>
> What does play a role, she noted, "is the lack of physical
> exercise. You can not discontinue the use of any one food or
> beverage and expect tomorrow -- or even in 10 years from now
> -- to be thin without increased physical activity."
>
> That's a message being delivered not just by the food and
> beverage industries, but also by the U.S. Surgeon General,
> the National Academy of Sciences and the WHO, which also
> urged more physical activity -- an hour a day of
> moderate-intensity activity, such as walking -- in its
> report last week.·
>
> ---
>
> TC

Montygram
Fri, May-27-05, 06:18
One of the best combinations for energy and health is Rapadura
(which is totally unrefined cane sugar, high in vitamin A,
postassium, etc. - unlike other sugar products) and unrefined
coconut oil. I use these two items, along with spices and
organic pastry flour (and baking soda) to create my own bread
products. I eat it with dark chocolate, strawberry preserves,
and organic butter, as well as a coffee pudding that is my own
invention. Sugar and fat is easy on the body, as long as you
use the unrefined sugar and stay away from highly unsaturated
fat sources, which are used in almost everything these days,
unfortunately. You also need good protein sources - my main
ones are organic, raw cheese, organic eggs (boiled lightly),
and plain, whole milk, organic yogurt. High antioxdiant foods,
like berries, are good and tasty additions. The root cause of
"chronic disease" is free radical mediated, and it's easy to
design a tasty diet that accomplishes this. These
"researchers" and "scientists" are playing the fiddle while
Rome burns, and they are generally unfamiliar with previous
scientific literature. There are so many studies that are just
repetitions of ones done a few years, or even a few months
earlier, and yet they act like they made some sort of
earth-shatter discovery. Notice how you hear about these
things, but nothing ever happens. How many times do you hear
about some "dramatic breakthrough," and yet how many
"diseases" have been "cured" over the last couple of decades?
Fortunately, once you gain an understading of free radical
damage, you can make meaningful distinctions, like realizing
that the browning of a cut apple with not harm you, but
cooking with highly unsaturated oils produces incredibly toxic
substances.

Enrico C
Fri, May-27-05, 06:18
On 26 May 2005 21:50:42 -0700, montygram wrote in
<news:1117169442.113111.42650@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> on
sci.med.nutrition :

> One of the best combinations for energy and health is
> Rapadura (which is totally unrefined cane sugar, high in
> vitamin A, postassium, etc. -

Ok, but that's sucrose anyway... If I look for vit A and
potassium, I can find them in fruits and vegetables, for
instance... who neeeds lots of added sugar?

> unlike other sugar products) and unrefined coconut oil. I
> use these two items, along with spices and organic pastry
> flour (and baking soda) to create my own bread products. I
> eat it with dark chocolate,

Yum! Pure dark chocolate :) What chocolate do you like best?

> strawberry preserves, and organic butter, as well as a
> coffee pudding that is my own invention. Sugar and fat is
> easy on the body, as long as you use the unrefined sugar and
> stay away from highly unsaturated fat sources, which are
> used in almost everything these days, unfortunately.

Well, I use olive oil, that is monounsatured.

> You also need good protein sources - my main ones are
> organic, raw cheese, organic eggs (boiled lightly), and
> plain, whole milk, organic yogurt. High antioxdiant foods,
> like berries, are good and tasty additions. The root cause
> of "chronic disease" is free radical mediated, and it's easy
> to design a tasty diet that accomplishes this. These
> "researchers" and "scientists" are playing the fiddle while
> Rome burns,

Is it? Let me look outside my window. No, it's not burning,
but today it's hot anyway ;)

> and they are generally unfamiliar with previous scientific
> literature. There are so many studies that are just
> repetitions of ones done a few years, or even a few months
> earlier, and yet they act like they made some sort of
> earth-shatter discovery. Notice how you hear about these
> things, but nothing ever happens. How many times do you hear
> about some "dramatic breakthrough," and yet how many
> "diseases" have been "cured" over the last couple of
> decades? Fortunately, once you gain an understading of free
> radical damage, you can make meaningful distinctions, like
> realizing that the browning of a cut apple with not harm
> you, but cooking with highly unsaturated oils produces
> incredibly toxic substances.

Well, I never fry :) But what about browning onions and other
vegetables on low heat, with a tiny bit of oil...?

--
Enrico C
==================================
it-alt.politica.referendum (I si e i no che dividono gli
italiani)

Montygram
Fri, May-27-05, 17:17
One problem is that the simple and inexpensvie experiments
needed to see what is healthy and what isn't haven't been
done. A few months ago, somebody here posted that steamed
salmon had much higher oxidized cholesterol in it than other
common cooking methods. Nobody could ever know that it would
be so much higher without the experiment being done, so I
developmed my own cooking methods to be sure that there would
be very low exposure. I'm currently writing a book that will
include that information. Basically, you can boil your meat or
eggs, then get a sauce together on low heat - I use butter for
the fat source in the sauce, except for Asian dishes, which
contain coconut oil (or you could use no fat if you prefer).
Then you just put the meat or eggs in the sauce and blend them
together until they have the consistency you want.

As for chocolate, I'd recommend the ones that say 70% cocoa
mass (or higher), but if it's close, like 67%, that's okay.

I just use the Rapadura for taste. For example, I make an egg
salad with yogurt, and without the Rapadura I can honestly say
that it tastes lousy.