Michael Pollan: High-Fructose Corn Syrup Not Necessarily Worse Than Sugar
 

There's two ways to look at that statement:

The way the corn refiners association would like you to:
"Sugar isn't bad, therefore corn syrup isn't bad. They both contain around 50% fructose, a sugar found naturally in fruit."

Or the way you probably should look at it:
"Sugar is bad stuff and HFCS is too! They're both made up of lots of fructose which is processed by the liver and probably responsible for NAFLD, diabetes and many other ills."

Yes. I can say that I'm against HFCS, but no more than I'm against sugar.

Wait a minute....doesn't HFCS have a more direct path to the liver and supposedly get converted to fat more readily than sugar?

I'm against HFCS because it's cheaper that sugar so it is used more. I don't think that there is any significant difference in how the body processes it. Sugar is quickly turned into glucose and fructose by the digestive system.

There has been so much bad press on HFCS, that people have started associating HFCS with fructose. But it's far from the only source of fructose in our diet, only the most common. Table sugar, another source of fructose, is just as bad for you as HFCS.

HFCS can be anywhere from 42 - 90% fructose while sugar is 50% fructose. They're both bad. The article didn't change my opinion. I've always felt that way. :)

I chose I guess he's right that sugar's just as bad...but that makes it sound like I thought differently before.

I believe actually that HFCS ranges from 55-90% fructose. Fructose can only be digested in the liver (which can lead to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease). Sucrose (table sugar) is 50% glucose, 50% fructose. The greater the fructose content, the worse it is, so yes, HFCS is worse than table sugar..but neither are good.

Also, from the cases I've seen, when real sugar is used in products, it's normally accompanied by fewer other harmful ingredients. When HFCS is used, there's always a ton of other ingredients used.

I think Dr. Eades has always argued that the real problem with HFCS is that is so cheap and therefore used in almost everything. The stuff is everywhere.

I think they are both bad. HFCS is more artificial and who knows what other crap is in it? Wasn't there some allegations that HFCS has mercury? I would say that sugar is less worse, but not by much.

I think Michael Pollan is saying that people are starting think that sugar is healthy and HFCS is not. And that's the wrong message.

Marketers always find some way of twisting things. They are very much like politicians, except not as popular.

The difference between HFCS and sugar, is the difference between regular cigarettes and light cigarettes.

Someone needs to educate him on gluten-free--it's not a fad, at least not for the people who need to be gluten-free. I agree that no one really needs to replace a bunch of gluten-y foods with processed gluten-free foods, but I'm not sure if that's the point he's making or not.

--Melissa

Yes, that is really my biggest issue with HFCS. It's hard to find *anything* that doesn't contain it.

I was at the supermarket the other day. My sister and BiL were visting me, and I had thrown some avocados into the cart to make guacamole. Guacamole is super easy to make and only take a couple minutes, but in the produce section they had tubs of guacamole pre-made that proclaimed, "guacamole - 95% avocado" so I picked one up to look at the ingredient list.

And ingredient number two was HFCS! Really, in guacamole! WTF. Guacamole shouldn't have sweeteners in it. When I make it at home all I add it chopped tomato, onion, garlic, and some salt and pepper.

I'm not really sure how to answer the poll since I think sugar and HFCS are both not good, but HFCS is LESS good just because it's cheaper and appears in more products. I guess I'll vote that HFCS is bad, just because it's so ubiquitous.

From Robb Wolf's The Paleo Solution

"Fructose preferentially fills liver glycogen...eating fructose increases the amount of glucose the liver absorbs. Fructose up-regulates the glucose transport molecule in the liver, making the liver 'hungry' for sugar."

I always assumed HFCS got the moniker "high fructose" because it had more fructose than regular sugar. No matter how you slice it, it's all bad for you. More fructose means more bad (pardon my English), but pick your poison.

I guess if the fructose isn't necessarily higher in HFCS than it is in sugar than, well sure, HFCS isn't necessarily worse for you than sugar. 42% - 90% sure is a big spread, though.

Bingo. Want some of my leftover Halloween candy?!?!? :)