No link between sugar and obesity - says sugar group

[doreen T]

No link between sugar and obesity - says sugar group

Wed Aug 10, 2:25 PM ET

Reuters Health: There is no link between sugar and obesity because health problems linked to weight gain are caused by increased consumption of calories and a lack of exercise, a U.S. sugar industry group said Wednesday.

"Every major, comprehensive review of the total body of scientific literature continues to exonerate sugars intake as the causative factor in any lifestyle disease, including obesity," Andrew Briscoe, president and chief executive of the Sugar Association, said at the annual meeting of the main U.S. industry group American Sugar Alliance.

The Sugar Association promotes the consumption of sugar as a part of a healthy diet and lifestyle through the use of sound science and research, he said.

The group's main point is that excessive consumption of calories and a lack of exercise would spur weight gain, regardless of sugar consumption.

Briscoe said that U.S. per capita consumption of sugar has declined to an estimated 63 pounds in 2002 from 102 pounds in 1972. Including waste, spoilage and other loss, the actual per capita sugar consumption figure declines to 45 pounds per person.

"We believe in calories in and calories out. Sugar is not a part of obesity issues," he said.

Briscoe said most consumers on average estimate the number of calories in a teaspoon of sugar at 76 calories when the actual number is 15.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050810/hl_nm/food_sugar_obesity_dc

.

[Ayustar]

...if that is true than how come so many of us lost a ton of weight by getting rid of sugar? How does that work?

[ojoj]

no propaganda or financial interests here then!!!??!

Jo

[kaeleen]

"We believe in calories in and calories out. Sugar is not a part of obesity issues," he said.


UH-HUH!!!
And if you believe that, would you perchance be interested in a bridge in Brooklyn (http://www.richard-seaman.com/USA/Cities/NewYork/BrooklynBridge/ForSale.html) that I have for sale??? :agree:

[coolwater]

you've got to be kidding me. they are so pathetic!

[Brennabug]

hahahahahahahhahhahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahaahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhaahahhahahahahahahaha

*rolling on the floor with snot and drool coming out of my face laughing*



ahhahahahahahahahahhahaahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhahahhhahhahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahhahahhahahahahahahahahhaahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahyahahahahashahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhaha

*tries to breathe,,,,,,,,,,,*

ahahahahahahahhahahhahehehehehehehehhehehehehhehehehehhehehehehehehheehhehehehehehehehehehhehehehhehehehehehehehhehehehhehehehehhehehehhehehehhehehehehhehehehehehehhehehehehehehehehehehehehehhehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehhehehehehehehhehehehehhehehehehehehehehehehehhehehehahahahahahahahahhahhehehehehhahahehehahaheheahehahehehaaheehhehehehehehhehhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kevinm]

Now I don't feel so bad about eating those 15 Mars Bars today! :D

[Lisa N]

Briscoe said that U.S. per capita consumption of sugar has declined to an estimated 63 pounds in 2002 from 102 pounds in 1972. Including waste, spoilage and other loss, the actual per capita sugar consumption figure declines to 45 pounds per person.

While this is true, what they don't tell you is that 1972 is about the time that most carbonated beverage producers switched from using sugar in their products to high fructose corn syrup (still a form of sugar) and that the per capita consumption of high fructose corn syrup has skyrocketed since that time.

According to this link (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:zVrJhia4ZIwJ:www.ers.usda.gov/publications/foodreview/sep1998/frsept98a.pdf+per+capita+consumption+of+high+fructose+corn+syrup+since+1972&hl=en) from the USDA database, per capita consumption of caloric sweeteners (table sugar and high fructose corn syrup) increased 34 pounds between 1970 and 1997 and was estimated in 1997 to be an average of 53 teaspoons of added sugars per person per day.
But since the majority of that came from high fructose corn syrup, I guess that exonerates table sugar, right? ;)
Riggghhhhtttt....talk about a 'spin zone'... :daze:

[Skyangel]

Why do I keep remembering the tobacco companies saying that there was no proof that smoking caused lung cancer? ...

[ItsTheWooo]

"Every major, comprehensive review of the total body of scientific literature continues to exonerate sugars intake as the causative factor in any lifestyle disease, including obesity," Andrew Briscoe, president and chief executive of the Sugar Association, said at the annual meeting of the main U.S. industry group American Sugar Alliance.

That's because sugar isn't any worse than other garbage carb fillers (starches and other sweeteners), so studies which try to prove this will fail.

It's like if I said "consuming bleach has not been proven to be a significant contributer to mortality"... but I left out the part about how this was true only when compared to other fatal toxins.


The Sugar Association promotes the consumption of sugar as a part of a healthy diet and lifestyle through the use of sound science and research, he said.

LOL

The group's main point is that excessive consumption of calories and a lack of exercise would spur weight gain, regardless of sugar consumption.

Garbage carbs play a key role in bulking up foods with caloric excess, burdening the body with extremely high glycemic loads.

Garbage carbs contribution to the glycemic load of meals encourages development of diseases that destroy the body's ability to use energy. This contributes to poor well being, hunger, and thus to a desire to consume more food.

Garbage carbs role in the aforementioned diseases, means it is contributing to a physical wasting & low energy state. This results in a disproportionate amount of consumed intake being stored - and retained - as fat.

It sounds so simple when you just stand behind "CALORIES IN CALORIES OUT" like some mindless automaton. Too bad reality isn't like that.

Briscoe said that U.S. per capita consumption of sugar has declined to an estimated 63 pounds in 2002 from 102 pounds in 1972. Including waste, spoilage and other loss, the actual per capita sugar consumption figure declines to 45 pounds per person.

That's still 2 oz of pure sugar a day. That's horrible.

45/356 = .126 (pounds/day) OR 2.02 (oz/day) OR 56.63 (grm/day)
1 tsp sugar (volume) = 4 g (weight) = 15 cal of simple carbohydrate (energy)

SO
Per day people are eating 14 tsp of sugar... that's nearly 5 tablespoons worth (which is a little over a quarter cup of pure sugar).
In energy this translates to 56 grm/carb from sugar daily, over 200 cals. That is a considerable chunk of the average person's TOTAL energy requirements. The average person is eating more sugar energy from sweetener alone, than many of us are eating carbs period.

"We believe in calories in and calories out. Sugar is not a part of obesity issues," he said.

MSG to sugar lobby:
Our bodies do stuff to calories. Calories do stuff to our bodies.
These factors effect energy out, as well as health and well being.

If calorie counting told the whole story, technically I should get the same result with a diet of meat and veggies as I would with a diet exclusively of sugar products, as long as I am careful to count calories. What a joke.

Briscoe said most consumers on average estimate the number of calories in a teaspoon of sugar at 76 calories when the actual number is 15.

That's because consumers have a poor concept of portion size (as well as their energy requirements). Your average person doesn't eat a teaspoon of sugar, they pour on over a tablespoon.
Besides, calorie counting, like carb or fat gram counting, is just a way for consumers to make (what they perceive to be) good choices to manipulate their weight in the way they want to. The objective correctness of calorie intake is far less important than understanding relativity - and accurately assessing metabolic impact - between food consumption choices. Calories and portion sizes are just a way to relatively rank how harmful or helpful a food is for reducing weight (the actual numeric correctness is of less importance, what is of chief importance is that you get the ORDER of things right... meaning, don't think carrots are worse than potatoes, or bread worse than cake).

So, in reality consumers estimations of the metabolic impact of a serving of sugar are much more accurate than the deceptive sugar lobby, who would have us believe sugar is a "low energy impact" food, and therefore a useful part of a health & weight conscious person's diet. Starch and sugar are awful on weight, whether you believe in calorie counters like the bible, or you're a calorie-indifferent strict very low carb dieter. No plan will support these foods in quantity and for good reason.

[kebaldwin]

I guess that settles it. I guess you should shut down this forum and we should all go back to eating high glycemic. :yawn:

[Gretchen_]

LMAO! I'm glad we all know better :lol:

[Samuel]

While this is true, what they don't tell you is that 1972 is about the time that most carbonated beverage producers switched from using sugar in their products to high fructose corn syrup (still a form of sugar) and that the per capita consumption of high fructose corn syrup has skyrocketed since that time.

Thanks Lisa for clarifying this point.

That's because sugar isn't any worse than other garbage carb fillers (starches and other sweeteners), so studies which try to prove this will fail.
I agree. I actually think that starches are worse than sugar. The reason I think so. is that sugar has a sharp distinctive taste which our bodies can only tolerate a limited amount of. On the other hand, starches have a mild taste ( or you may call it no taste) so we can keep eating them with other foods all day long without getting tired of their taste.

[PaulaB]

I have to agree if its true then I have a palace in london you might want to buy.

[harrysgirl]

i saw this 'news article' this morning and about choked......

is this a perfect example of manipulating data to make your case?? i saw no 'hard data' but they make a vague reference to 'all this research'.......<rolling eyes> good grief.
----------------------------------------
SUN VALLEY, Idaho (Reuters) - There is no link between sugar and obesity because health problems linked to weight gain are caused by increased consumption of calories and a lack of exercise, a U.S. sugar industry group said Wednesday.

"Every major, comprehensive review of the total body of scientific literature continues to exonerate sugars intake as the causative factor in any lifestyle disease, including obesity," Andrew Briscoe, president and chief executive of the Sugar Association, said at the annual meeting of the main U.S. industry group American Sugar Alliance.

<this is me talking- i REALLY choked on this statement>
The Sugar Association promotes the consumption of sugar as a part of a healthy diet and lifestyle through the use of sound science and research, he said.

The group's main point is that excessive consumption of calories and a lack of exercise would spur weight gain, regardless of sugar consumption.

Briscoe said that U.S. per capita consumption of sugar has declined to an estimated 63 pounds in 2002 from 102 pounds in 1972. Including waste, spoilage and other loss, the actual per capita sugar consumption figure declines to 45 pounds per person.

"We believe in calories in and calories out. Sugar is not a part of obesity issues," he said.

Briscoe said most consumers on average estimate the number of calories in a teaspoon of sugar at 76 calories when the actual number is 15.
----------------------------------------------

there you have it...... plenty of sugar won't hurt you- it is just a matter of exercise and calories. never mind the teenagers that eat NON-STOP junk and don't get off the couch and don't gain a pound, and never mind the very careful chubby teen that barely eats carrot sticks and exercises every day and still gains weight.

i can't BELIEVE what the sugar lobbiests are getting printed!!!

[Pandora23]

Somebodys been smokin some crack... let em have all the "healthy" sugar they want! :lol: I think I'll stick with my healthy way of eating and the road to weightloss. :D

[Cornick]

Has anyone else read this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050810/hl_nm/food_sugar_obesity_dc

I just don't know what to say!

[ArmyWife]

Look at who did the study, I bet they really need the money to start rolling in again.

[cs_carver]

Note it is the SUGAR association. The real damage comes from High Fructose Corn Syrup. Sugar has a certain amount of "stopping power" that HFCS simply does not have. The obesity numbers run parallel with the increased consumption of HFCS, which is in EVERYTHING.

Sigh.

There are no obese people in Russia. They don't have corn to speak of. Plenty of carbs, no processed food, no HFCS, and walking everywhere because they don't have many cars.

[Hilary M]

The Sugar Association promotes the consumption of sugar as a part of a healthy diet and lifestyle

Are they friggin' kidding? Even if you believe it's as simple as "calories in, calories out" (which I don't), you still have to admit that sugar contains plenty of calories and they are certainly not the nutritious variety.

Edited to add: You should post this over in the LC Media Watch forum. They'd tear it up over there!

[cs_carver]

1. I agree--I don't need sugar.

2. Note their careful language--these people are promoting SUGAR. We would ALL do better with SUGAR. What has caused the tremendous problem in the American food supply is high fructose corn syrup, NOT sugar.

Sugar is expensive. HFCS is dirt cheap. If everything that had HFCS in it went to an equivalent amount of sugar, we'd for sure see the difference in the $$ and maybe our own shopping skills would cut consumption.

Sugar has a certain amount of "stopping power:" you feel full. HFCS has none--you keep on going and going and going.

While I don't like either, I have DISTINCTLY different blood sugar reactions to sugar and HFCS. You note this study was not paid for by the corn council...

[kbfunTH]

I agree that the article my be biased, but they do make a valid point. Excessive calories and lack of exercise will make you gain weight regardless of your diet composition. Sugars are not the cause of obesity, but rather overeating.

A diet that is higher in sugar, but lower in overall calories, can cause you to lose weight. It may not be ideal weight loss, but you can still get skinny.

On the other hand, I do believe lack of exercise and refined sugar diets do play a bigger role in cardiovascular diseases than any other diet composition.

Bottom line, is stay active and moderate your calorie intake. A diet adequate in protein and fat will feed our LBM (muscle, organs, etc) and leave us with a more satisfied appetite. This is one area where diet composition really helps. Not so with a composition that favors carbs/sugars.

[Bat Spit]

Briscoe said that U.S. per capita consumption of sugar has declined to an estimated 63 pounds in 2002 from 102 pounds in 1972.

Then cs_carver said:
Sugar is expensive. HFCS is dirt cheap. If everything that had HFCS in it went to an equivalent amount of sugar, we'd for sure see the difference in the $$ and maybe our own shopping skills would cut consumption.

Which made me remember that I just recently read that the early 70's is when they started putting HFCS is sodas and a lot of foods here in the US.

So, if we assume that the sugar figures don't include HFCS, then that means the US is not only eating 63 lbs of actual sugar, they're also eating some as yet uncalculated amount of HFCS.

And thus we witness the downfall of civilization as we know it.

[SusanKH]

Well of course the Sugar Industry is going to promote sugar. I mean, that's their job. You can bet a whole boatload of lawyers examined those statements before it was released to the public.

[SusanKH]

Of course the Sugar Association would say that. When I took my statistics class in college (a very, very long time ago) we learned that you can skew just about any survery, study, etc, to make the numbers say what you want them to.

And, even if they were right - I still know eating sugar does nothing good for my body - nothing at all - and makes things worse for me.

[mlk18sHuny]

I'm at a loss - I think the sugar ass. knows exactly what it does, they are just trying to sell more so they can keep their pocketbooks padded. Sad.

[medalian1]

LINKIE (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2005-08-10T182530Z_01_N0810002_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-FOOD-SUGAR-OBESITY-DC.XML)

SUN VALLEY, Idaho (Reuters) - There is no link between sugar and obesity because health problems linked to weight gain are caused by increased consumption of calories and a lack of exercise, a U.S. sugar industry group said Wednesday.

"Every major, comprehensive review of the total body of scientific literature continues to exonerate sugars intake as the causative factor in any lifestyle disease, including obesity," Andrew Briscoe, president and chief executive of the Sugar Association, said at the annual meeting of the main U.S. industry group American Sugar Alliance.

The Sugar Association promotes the consumption of sugar as a part of a healthy diet and lifestyle through the use of sound science and research, he said.

The group's main point is that excessive consumption of calories and a lack of exercise would spur weight gain, regardless of sugar consumption.

Briscoe said that U.S. per capita consumption of sugar has declined to an estimated 63 pounds in 2002 from 102 pounds in 1972. Including waste, spoilage and other loss, the actual per capita sugar consumption figure declines to 45 pounds per person.

"We believe in calories in and calories out. Sugar is not a part of obesity issues," he said.

Briscoe said most consumers on average estimate the number of calories in a teaspoon of sugar at 76 calories when the actual number is 15. :lol:

[Moonwalker]

Major BS.. sugar and refined carbs are the sole cause of obesity.

[juelz4u]

"The group's main point is that excessive consumption of calories and a lack of exercise would spur weight gain, regardless of sugar consumption."

Well I believe the first part, but regarless of sugar cosumption??? hummm!

[ItsTheWooo]

Thanks Lisa for clarifying this point.


I agree. I actually think that starches are worse than sugar. The reason I think so. is that sugar has a sharp distinctive taste which our bodies can only tolerate a limited amount of. On the other hand, starches have a mild taste ( or you may call it no taste) so we can keep eating them with other foods all day long without getting tired of their taste.

I agree, starch is worse than sugar (the only exception being sugar in drinks). Starch is flavorless textured filler and the "carrier" of real food. Sugar is sweetener, more like a spice. You can (and people do) eat a tremendous amount of starch but sugar you just need for the sweet taste and thats all. Plus a serving of starch will be a lot of cals... a serving of pasta (and this is a true serving, not an american's portion which is actually more like 2 or more "servings") is over 200 calories and over 40 carbs.

[ItsTheWooo]

While I don't like either, I have DISTINCTLY different blood sugar reactions to sugar and HFCS. You note this study was not paid for by the corn council...
Out of curiosity what is the difference for you between sugar and HFCS? I have eaten sugared products rarely since maintenance but I haven't had a measurable amount of HFCS in years. Curious to know what you perceive the difference as since I would assume both would affect a body in a very similar way.

[mcsblues]

Out of curiosity what is the difference for you between sugar and HFCS? I have eaten sugared products rarely since maintenance but I haven't had a measurable amount of HFCS in years. Curious to know what you perceive the difference as since I would assume both would affect a body in a very similar way.While I wouldn't want to speak for cs carver - in no shape or form is fructose handled in the same way as glucose or for that matter sucrose (glucose and fructose together).

- fructose does not require insulin to enter the cells - and for this reason its GI (if you take notice of that rubbish!) is substantially lower - about 30 from memory. This is on top of the fact that blood sugar measurements look for blood glucose (not fructose).

- but it does have a severe impact on the body's ability to deal with glucose - hence it being implicated in causing insulin resistance.

- it is much more likely to attach to and damage cells fructation) than glucose (glycation) (something like 10 to 15 times worse)

- and it also has a greater tendency to be converted to glycerol by the liver - a substrate for tryglycerides and VLDL.

Cheers,

Malcolm

[Samuel]

I agree, starch is worse than sugar (the only exception being sugar in drinks). Starch is flavorless textured filler and the "carrier" of real food. Sugar is sweetener, more like a spice. You can (and people do) eat a tremendous amount of starch but sugar you just need for the sweet taste and thats all. Plus a serving of starch will be a lot of cals... a serving of pasta (and this is a true serving, not an american's portion which is actually more like 2 or more "servings") is over 200 calories and over 40 carbs.

I'm glad you agree about that. Here are more of my thoughts about this subject:

Before the body determines that a person has eaten enough and should be commanded to stop eating, it checks several items. Some are checked by analyzing blood contents, some by analyzing mechanical stretch of the stomach and some by analyzing the food taste.

Analyzing blood contents is the slowest and least effective since it should wait for the food to be absorbed before it can get the signal. Analyzing the food taste is the fastest since it is done by the tongue while food is still in the mouth.

We are allowed to eat a limited amounts of foods which has a specific sharp taste like sweet, salty, sour, hot or greasy. When those amounts are reached our bodies give us the feeling of disgust which forces us to stop eating.

Starches have no specific taste. When they are added to other foods, they make them taste milder which allows us to eat more. So we get more calories from those foods in addition to the calories we get from the starches.

In order to illustrate this, here is an example: If you are hungry and are allowed to eat sugar only, you may be able to eat a spoon or two then stop. If flour is added to the sugar, so you are given cakes or cookies, you will eat more sugar and end with a lot more calories and carbs from both sugar and starch.

[Kristine]

What kills me is that Reuters actually considers this kind of ad-campaign-disguised-as-a-press-release news.

[Groggy60]

Sugar should go after HFCS, that might bring their numbers back and give a healthier diet. I firmly believe sugar is no where near as bad as HFCS. Sugary products generally don't contain much sugar any more.

[ItsTheWooo]

While I wouldn't want to speak for cs carver - in no shape or form is fructose handled in the same way as glucose or for that matter sucrose (glucose and fructose together).

Oh yes I knew that bit about fructose being preferably processed by the liver and causing IR, and how it can be more problematic than actual glucose...

The reason I would assume sucrose and HFCS would have a similar affect on the body is because both sucrose and HFCS are equal parts glucose and fructose, (60/40 I think) or at least this was my understanding. The difference between the two is that in sucrose the fructose and glucose are bonded to make a disaccharide whereas in HFCS you're just getting the monosaccharides straight.

I could be wrong but I assumed the two sweeteners were very similar in the types of sugar contained.

I always thought the real reason obesity started to climb when HFCS made it on the scene is because of social reasons, not because chemically HFCS is so much worse than real sugar.
1) In the 70s people were eating less home cooked meals. More women were entering the work force, "middle class" could no longer cut it on one income as easily, less two parent homes. There was less time to cook. This increased the demand for processed and packaged convenience foods.
2) Increased demand for processed & convenient foods lead to the food industry becoming more lucrative. Wherever there is profit motive there's research, and new food engineering techniques were being invented that would allow convenient pre-packaged food that tasted reasonably good at a low cost. HFCS was part of that. HFCS is way cheaper than sugar.
Processed food doesn't taste too good of itself so manufacturers load it up with the cheapest flavoring agents they can, usually these are salt and HFCS (sugar) among others.

SO people were eating more processed foods, convenience food was becoming a real big industry, and HFCS was being used in these foods to make them palatable. As a result our consumption of sugar (and other cheap garbage carbs) climbed, slowly but steadily rates of metabolic disease climbed as well. I think the trend would have been exactly the same if sugar was as cheap and profitable as our domestic corn sugar product, and industry never switched from sugar to HFCS.

[ItsTheWooo]

From wikipedia:

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a modified form of corn syrup that has an increased level of fructose. Ordinary corn syrup is treated with the enzyme glucose isomerase which converts glucose to fructose. This process, developed by Japanese researchers in the 1970s, can increase the fructose content of corn syrup to 42%. Because fructose is much sweeter than glucose, the overall sweetness of the syrup is increased and it becomes a more useful substitute in food processing for sugar or invert sugar syrups. Fructose is also more desirable than glucose as it increases in solubility at low temperatures (so more can be concentrated per unit weight).

Through further processing, the fructose content [of HFCS] can be increased to 55% (yielding a product that has the same sweetness as sucrose) or higher. Common commercial grades of high fructose corn syrup include fructose contents of 42%, 55% (equivalent to caster sugar), or 90%.


Comparison to other sugars
Sucrose (table sugar) is a disaccharide composed of one unit each of fructose and glucose linked together. Sucrose is broken down during digestion into fructose and glucose through hydrolysis. Sucrose is 50% fructose, so HFCS may have a higher or lower fructose content than sucrose, with a corresponding change in sweetness.

Honey is another product that is a mixture of different types of sugars, water, and small amounts of other compounds. Honey typically has a fructose/glucose ratio similar to HFCS, as well as containing some sucrose and other sugars.



So it seems that fructose content depends on the type of HFCS. I know the taste of fructose (it is sickeningly sweet, hard to describe, almost like a fake sweetener). I imagine products where HFCS was replacing sucrose have a glucose/fructose concentration almost equal to sucrose if the taste of the product is to be preserved (since fructose tastes awful and isn't a substitute for the sugar blend of real sucrose). I would likewise imagine products where HFCS percentage of fructose is outrageously high aren't many in number for the same reasons (preservation of taste). You'll likely see them mainly in specialty diet products being advertised as low carb or low glycemic or for diabetics, ironically enough :D.

Also from wikipedia...
Health
High fructose corn syrup is often cited by some nutritionists as one of the leading causes of obesity and is linked to diabetes.[1] The average American consumed 62.6 pounds of high fructose corn syrup in 2001, most of which came from soft drinks. Since HFCS is used as a substitute for other sugars (particularly sucrose) in processed foods, it is not clear whether it is the chemical differences between sugars or a general increase in consumption of sugars of all types that might be linked with obesity.

Some nutritionists and natural food advocates believe that consumption of high fructose corn syrup should be avoided due to its possible links with obesity and diabetes. Also cited as reasons to avoid HFCS are that it is highly refined, that it might be produced from genetically modified corn, that various molds found on corn might leave harmful byproducts in the final product, or that corn products in general should be avoided. [2], [3] Other nutritionists say that HFCS is no more or less harmful than other forms of sugar and that all sugars should be consumed sparingly. It may be the case that confusion has arisen between the effects of consuming pure fructose as compared to pure glucose, versus the effects of consuming mixtures of the two sugars from different sources.

People associate HFCS with "fructose" because of it's name so they extrapolate studies which show negative effects from a high consumption of fructose specificially straight to HFCS. Likewise they associate high blood sugar and the problems of glucose with table sugar. This is not appropriate because HFCS is often manipulated to replace sugar, therefore it's composition of glucose/fructose ratio is going to be very similar if product quality is to be retained. Both HFCS and sucrose have a very similar GI (60, where glucose =100... which is to be expected considering both are almost half glucose, and fructose itself has almost no GI). Both HFCS (at least your typical substitute for sugar version) and sucrose have similar fructose concentrations.

[ItsTheWooo]

I'm glad you agree about that. Here are more of my thoughts about this subject:

Before the body determines that a person has eaten enough and should be commanded to stop eating, it checks several items. Some are checked by analyzing blood contents, some by analyzing mechanical stretch of the stomach and some by analyzing the food taste.

Analyzing blood contents is the slowest and least effective since it should wait for the food to be absorbed before it can get the signal. Analyzing the food taste is the fastest since it is done by the tongue while food is still in the mouth.

We are allowed to eat a limited amounts of foods which has a specific sharp taste like sweet, salty, sour, hot or greasy. When those amounts are reached our bodies give us the feeling of disgust which forces us to stop eating.

Starches have no specific taste. When they are added to other foods, they make them taste milder which allows us to eat more. So we get more calories from those foods in addition to the calories we get from the starches.

In order to illustrate this, here is an example: If you are hungry and are allowed to eat sugar only, you may be able to eat a spoon or two then stop. If flour is added to the sugar, so you are given cakes or cookies, you will eat more sugar and end with a lot more calories and carbs from both sugar and starch.

I totally agree. Potent tasting food is self limiting. Bland food encourages over eating. Satiety is complex and part of it is perceiving - and being satisfied - in the tastes you're experiencing. I think that is one oft uncited reason LC diets are successful. On regular diets people are encouraged to stick to flavorless foods to discourage eating. People are told NO SALT or NO SWEETENER, BOIL everything, don't use tasty fat only flavorless fats (like oils), etc. Really the goal of all these LF rules is to make food intentionally taste awful so people don't want to eat it.

Don't get me wrong... there's a truth that eating lots of different tastes in a meal will encourage over eating. The body tires of one taste, but if you give it another it will want that taste. This is why you can really consume a heck of a lot of food at an all you can eat buffet with a wide selection of different food types because when you get satisfied with one food then you go to another if it's available to you.
But it's also a truth that eating NO taste sensations or eating very mild foods will make you feel like you want to eat more of it to feel satisfied. So low fat spartan diets aren't effective for naturally reducing intake because you always feel like you're not satisfied in what you're eating no matter how much you consume.
The best approach is limiting the sensations you experience at any given meal, but making sure the food is very flavorful WITH the selected sensation. This is LC, and a big reason why people feel so much more satisfied with the foods they eat on these plans.


I also agree that stomach volume is an IMMEDIATE "off" switch. If you want to limit the damage you are going to do at a restaurant, the best way to do that is load up on drinks and salads :). There's a bit of a time lapse for the body to figure out the stomach was full of non-food (it will figure it out eventually), but by then the meal is over and you're off doing something else, hopefully with fat-burning mechanisms in tact 'cuz you didn't load up on garbage carb fillers :).



Starches have a leg up over intense flavored foods like fat & starches here, I must admit, since starches offer more volume per cal than both. However, starches still have a very crappy volume/cal ratio compared to water and veggies. So even though starches are more "immediately filling", a LC diet is still superior if one is following it properly by combining fat, protein with tons and tons of veggies and water. It's important to structure your meals to have veggies & water replace the bulk of starch if you want that "immediate off" thing that starches used to give. Heck even if you drink no water and eat no veggies, if you're replacing protein with starch you're STILL better off. Even though you're taking in more cals (as with the starch), the protein won't shut off fat burning after a meal like starch will so you're still a leg up over the pasta eaters.


So as I see it, there is no benefit to starch. IMO, a starch based diet is the absolute worst thing for a weight conscious person.
High impact, low flavor, high carb... it's awful.
The one possible conceivable weight-control benefit of starch consumption (high volume = immediate off) is still grossly inferior to other common foods (proteins, or veggies, or water...). Just eat a big salad instead. It's healthier and more effective.

[hramsey76]

Are they trying to redeem themselves to put money in their pockets?

[RDW]

So, sugar in moderation is more harmful to the body than Equal, Sweet and Low and Splenda?

[Saintor]

They are basically right and at the same time overlooking the point; often, eating sugar makes you feel hungry quicker. IMO, they are saying the truth, but not the whole truth. Which is another way to lie.

[littlejohn]

RDW

I think so. Now if I start eating Splenda in the amounts that I ate sugar in the past there might be a problem, but my thinking goes: I know sugar is bad - way bad. The Splenda and artificial sweeteners could also have some problems but even at the worst I can't imagine them being any worse than processed sugar and HFCS.

[Lessara]

They aren't even mentioning on how different people have different reactions to sugar. I have problems with carbohydrates, sugar, or flour. I get cravings and it goes through me, oh and the headaches!! Its the reason I never was into cookies, cakes, and candy even as a child.

[jedswife]

there is absolutely no nutritive value to sugar.