Study Blames Corn Syrup for Rise of Diabetes in US

Thu Apr 22, 3:21 PM ET

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Corn syrup and other refined foods may be much to blame for the huge increase in type-2 diabetes in the United States over the past few decades, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.

A study of nearly 100 years of data on what Americans eat show a huge increase in processed carbohydrates, especially corn syrup, and a large drop in the amount of fiber from whole grains, fruits and vegetables.

It parallels a spike in the number of cases of type-2 diabetes, caused by the body's increasing inability to properly metabolize sugars.

"We are seeing this big jump in the number of calories," that people are eating, Dr. Lee Gross, a family physician at the Inter-Medic Medical Group in North Port, Florida, who led the study, said in a telephone interview.

"We tried to break down where are these calories coming from? We have heard everyone debating is it because of fat, is it because of carbohydrate and it is not really clear," Gross added.

"This shows the increase in the past 20 years is almost exclusively carbohydrates and certainly corn syrup consumption has increased dramatically."

Gross said he was not "picking on the corn syrup industry," but added, "It is hard to ignore the fact that 20 percent of our carbohydrates are coming from corn syrup -- 10 percent of our total calories."

An estimated 16 million Americans have type-2 diabetes, the sixth leading cause of death overall. And many studies have linked a high intake of refined carbohydrates and other foods with a high "glycemic index" with the development of diabetes.

SPIKES IN INSULIN

Foods with a high glycemic index cause a spike in insulin production. Many experts agree that, over time, repeatedly eating foods in this pattern can cause insulin resistance, which in turn leads to diabetes.

Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (news - web sites), Gross and colleagues said they used data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (news - web sites) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (news - web sites) to show that people have eaten about the same amount of carbohydrates a day on average -- 500 grams -- since 1909.


But instead of whole grains and vegetables, people are getting more and more of those carbs in the form of processed grains and sugars -- most of all, in corn syrup, they said.

Gross, with colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health and the CDC, found that starting in 1980, people started consuming steadily more calories, with an average increase in total calories of 500 calories a day.

"Specifically, 428 calories (nearly 80 percent of the increase in total energy) came from carbohydrates," they wrote.

Gross said people are probably not eating all those 500 calories. Some could be wasted. "It's an estimate. It's hard to interpret," he said.


But the trend was clear.


"During the same period, the prevalence of type-2 diabetes increased by 47 percent and the prevalence of obesity increased by 80 percent," they wrote.


Audrae Erickson, President of the Corn Refiners Association, called the report misleading.


"Diabetes rates are rising in many countries around the world that use little or no high fructose corn syrup in foods and beverages, which supports findings by the Centers for Disease Control and the American Diabetes Association that the primary causes of diabetes are obesity, advancing age and heredity," she said in a statement.

Dr. Atkins has said it over and over again. Nice to see it come from another source.

Only problem is it sounds like their stats are coming from disappearance data. The problem with disappearance is it fails to account for food that is not used for food. It shows that in 1909, we ate 3x as much Grain as we do now. But, that is outright wrong. All you have to do to understand why is look back at your Grand and Great-Grandparents. How many of them kept animals ? How many of them fed them Grain ? Because disappearance data only accounts for how much Grain went into the food supply, it fails to account for how much of it was used to feed animals. In addition, since it fails to account for meat obtained by Hunting, Fishing, or Privately kept livestock, it would also significantly underestimate meat consumption at the turn of the century.

Based on disappearance data it would appear our diet was very high in Grains and lower in Fat back in 1909. But, because persons like my Great-Grandmother kept livestock, slaughtered their own meat, rendered their own Lard, and churned their own Butter...many High-Fat foods were never counted into the disappearance data. But, at the same time if she went down to the General store and bought 50 pounds of Corn to give to her animals, disappearance data would indicate that she ate 50 pounds of Corn, even if she gave it all to her animals and then ate the animals and/or their rendered fat. BTW, she lived well into her 90s, cooking everything with Lard, Butter, Fatback, Eggs, etc...and eating lots of Meat. It always perplexed me as a kid to see this woman in her 90s, still in relatively good shape, and alive and kicking when she'd eaten all that Fat and Saturated Fat for her entire life. After all, wasn't eating exactly how she did supposed to give you an Early Heart Attack, or at least that's what they claimed.

Interestingly, she was 1 of only 2 family members that did NOT die from a Heart Attack, Diabetes, Hypertension, or Smoking [Lung Cancer.] 1 other died from Lung Cancer [from Smoking] before Heart Disease could take him. But, he did have Diabetes. By comparison, I've lost at least 4-5 family members to Heart Attacks, 1 to Hypertension/Diabetes, and 1 to Lung Cancer [caused by smoking,] most of whom ate alot of Carbs [especially Sugar.] I've looked back at my family tree and before about 1950/1960, they all lived well beyond their life expectancies. But, around the middle of this century, they started dying early from Heart Disease.

What changed ? While I can't say how my Dad's Dad's side ate [other than those who were alive when I was a kid,] my Dad's Mother's family [before the middle of this century -- my Great-Grandmother continuing to eat that way into the 1980s] ate lots of Fat, Protein, and Greens, and some Corn [in the form of Grits and Cornbread]...with very little added Sugar. By comparison, those who died early were fond of Carbonated Beverages and Sugar. My Uncle and Grandfather loved Soda [used to drink it by the Bottle, just like I did,] and its probably one of the reasons they died from Heart Disease at ages 50 and 64 respectively.

Last year, before the tidal wave of low-carb participation had become apparent, these same researchers would have concluded from "A study of nearly 99 years of data" that saturated fat was the culprit.

Hey, if you want to keep being quoted as a 'leading figure' or 'expert', figure out the group's direction and get in front of them...

At least they are starting to figure it out :^)

This article has other inconsistencies too. The USDA reports 388 grams of carbohydrate consumption per person in 1970, moving to 500 grams by 1995.

Also, HF corn syrup may wear down body organs, but it doesn't stimulate insulin production. I don't think it would be considered highly glycemic. It's different than sugar.

HFCS is Half Fructose, Half Glucose...or more accurately 45:55 or vice versa depending on the refiner. Fructose is Low Glycemic, about 20. Glucose is high Glycemic, about 100. HFCS is moderate to high Glycemic, about 56-65, or slightly less than White Sugar, which is about 68. The Fructose component doesn't need insulin, but the Glucose component does. The Fructose does not affect hunger, positively or negatively. The Glucose component offers temporary satiation. So, you get less than half of the temporary satiation of White Sugar, yet still get the same crash a couple hours later. Net effect is you eat more Calories with HFCS than if you'd eaten Sucrose instead.

I think the point of this article here is that the increased consumption of carbs that is documented appears to be the empty calories that are coming from a type of carbohydrate which provides essentially no nutritive value other than an effect on the insulin + body fat meter.

For example, soda uses corn syrup as the primary sweetner. Dr. A has written a lot about corn syrup and his thoughts about it seriously contributing to the trend in obesity in this country.

I found this study to echo essentially what Dr. A said a while back, with the same sorts of conclusions.

Even if we are cynical about the details of the study (journalists are often not very good on reporting things with the accuracy and attention to detail that should be there), what is reassuring from the big picture is that the same general information/conclusions are coming from different unrelated sources which tends to make the info a bit more interesting and valid in my book. So many studies contradict each other, but this is exactly what Dr. A has spoken about before.

http://www.menshealth.com/features/...docs/doc31.html

There's been a quiet revolution going on in America since 1970: The overthrow of sugar and honey by corn syrups. And little wonder. Corn syrup, particularly high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), is cheap to produce, sweet to the tongue, and easy to store safely. According to the USDA, the average American consumed 1/2 pound of high fructose corn syrup in 1970. By the mid-1990s, that figure has jumped to 55.3 pounds of HFCS per person. And just because you stay away from soda and sweets doesn't count you out as a corn syrup consumer: HFCS finds its way into everything from bread to pasta sauces to bacon to beer. And, despite the FDA's assurances to the contrary, a growing number of researchers are beginning to think HFCS is a constant dietary companion we'd be better off without.
The trouble may lie with the particular form fructose assumes in corn syrup. While naturally occurring sugars, as well as the sucrose we spoon into our coffee, contain fructose bound to other sugars, high-fructose corn syrup contains a good deal of "free" or unbound fructose. And it may be this free fructose that interferes with the heart's use of key minerals, like magnesium, copper and chromium.

The most striking evidence comes from recent animal studies. When rats fed a low-copper, high fructose diet were compared with rats fed a low-copper diet high in complex carbohydrates, the difference in longevity was enormous. "Rats normally live for a good two years," explains Meira Fields, Ph.D., research chemist at the USDA in Beltsville, Maryland. "But the rats in my study fed a high-fructose, low copper diets are dying after 5 weeks." One of the few human studies of low-copper, high-fructose diets was abruptly stopped when 4 of the 24 subjects developed heart-related abnormalities, according to Fields. High fructose diets have also been implicated in the development of adult-onset diabetes. Fructose, especially when combined with other sugars, reduces stores of chromium, a mineral essential for maintaining balanced insulin levels, according to Richard Anderson, Ph.D., lead scientist at the Human Nutrition Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland.

And low chromium levels can cause everything from high cholesterol levels to hyperglycemia to the kind of impaired glucose tolerance that can lead to adult-onset diabetes. But reversing the chromium deficiency can quickly bring about positive change. "In addition to bringing down high blood sugar, chromium can also bring up low blood sugar. Bringing a man's chromium levels into the safe range can have a profound effect on his feeling of well-being," says Anderson.

Since you need both high fructose and low mineral levels to suffer ill effects, you've got two avenues of positive action. Here's some ways to keep minerals high and fructose levels low:


Eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables. While canned produce and jams and jellies frequently contain high-fructose corn syrup, fresh produce packs in minerals without processed sugars, providing a double benefit. Look to potatoes for extra copper, spinach and other leafy greens for a wallop of magnesium, and broccoli for chromium.

Limit sodas and processed fruit juices. A man who takes in 2,000 calories and drinks three and a half cans of soda would be getting 15 percent of his calories as fructose, according to Anderson. And not a smidgen of copper, magnesium or chromium.

Consider supplements. "It's nearly impossible to get all of your chromium from food," explains Anderson. He recommends getting between 50 and 200 mcg. of chromium a day via a balanced nutrient supplement like Centrum Silver. That should take care of your copper and magnesium requirements, too.

Keep sweets discrete. If you do indulge in a donut or cookie, try to eat it in combination with non-sweetened food or drinks like milk or nuts. "Combinations of sugars, like fructose plus sucrose, really increase your chromium losses," explains Anderson.

Corn syrup linked to diabetes

Epidemic reflects rise in refined sugars.

Nature, 12 May 2004, HELEN PEARSON

http://www.nature.com/nsu/040510/040510-5.html

The startling rise in diabetes is perfectly mirrored by our mounting consumption of refined carbohydrates, a new analysis reveals. The study adds to evidence that sugary foods should be eschewed and that public health advice to cut back on fat may have backfired.

Levels of obesity and late onset diabetes have risen slowly over the last century and accelerated in the last 40 years. While the problem is most acute in developed countries, there is evidence that rates are starting to increase in developing countries too. Most experts agree that worsening diets and increasingly inactive lifestyles are responsible, but the exact cause is hard to pin down.

Simin Liu of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and his co-workers collected information on consumption and food composition for the period between 1909 and 1997. They compared this with data on disease incidence rates from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The climb in diabetes goes hand in hand with the rise in total calorie intake, the team reports in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition1. This fits the idea that obesity places people at risk of diabetes.

But when Liu broke down the figures into proteins, fats and carbohydrates, a different picture emerged. Neither fat consumption nor protein seem to be the root cause of the problem.

Instead, the diabetes rise best matches dropping fibre consumption and escalating consumption of corn syrup, a ubiquitous sweetener in today's processed foods. "It is quite striking," says nutritional scientist Cyril Kendall of the University of Toronto, Canada.

Foods high in refined carbohydrate, the argument goes, send blood sugar soaring, requiring the pancreas to pump out insulin. Over time, the body's tissues become resistant to the excess insulin and pancreatic cells wear out, resulting in diabetes.

Liu’s analysis does not prove that corn syrup caused the increase in diabetes, experts are careful to point out. But the finding bolsters the idea that this and other highly refined carbohydrates such as white flour, white rice and sugar put people at risk of obesity and diabetes.

Refined row

That refined carbs are the culprits might seem obvious, but the idea is at the centre of much controversy. In January this year, for example, the World Health Organization released a draft road map for tackling obesity, which among other targets pinpoints reductions in sugary foods. The US government attempted to undermine these recommendations, some claim, because of pressure from the food industry.

Studies by Liu and others now make it harder to deny that excess sugar is bad for our health. Epidemiological studies, which track people's health over time, have also shown that those who eat more refined carbohydrates are at greater risk of developing diabetes "Together they make a compelling case," says David Ludwig, a researcher also at the Harvard School of Public Health.

Public health

Liu's analysis also backs the argument that, since the 60s and 70s, advice to the public to cut back on fat has misfired. Some experts say such advice led food manufacturers simply to replace fats with carbohydrates, which ultimately fuelled obesity rather than combating it.

The study shows that the amount of corn syrup people ate started rocketing at roughly the time the low-fat health message was being broadcast. "Never before have people eaten so much highly refined carbohydrates and led such a sedentary lifestyle," says Ludwig.

Many nutritionists now advocate a diet that avoids refined carbohydrates in favour of wholegrain alternatives. They also promote the choice of healthy fats, such as vegetable oils rather than animal fats, as well as fruits, vegetables and frequent exercise.

But this message has yet to be accepted or incorporated into many public health guidelines, says nutritionist Kendall. On top of this, many people are confused by conflicting health messages, such as the Atkins diet's recommendation to spurn all carbohydrates. "We need to rethink our approach to diet," Kendall says.

References

Gross, L.S., Li, L., Ford, E.A. & Ford, S. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79, 774 - 779, (2004). |Article| http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abs...ournalcode=ajcn

I keep telling my mom that when we went on WW in the early 70s it was low-fat, and she keeps saying it was low-carb. But I remember having to eat low-fat margarine and very little of that and we made tuna "salad" with mustard instead of mayonnaise. Sure we were allowed more protein than they later allowed, but as a kid I also got 4 to 6 pieces of bread a day. Way more than I needed.

I have no doubt corn syrup is a problem and probably is associated with diabetes, but I'd like to see a better analysis since it does NOT raise blood sugar levels. Does anyone have any knowledge of this?

Did I miss something in the book? I can't remember where it says in DANDR that low carbers are to "spurn ALL carbohydrates".

Actually high-fructose corn syrup is about HALF fructose and HALF glucose (depending on exactly how it's processed.) Which is pretty close to regular table sugar. (I believe it's called high-fructose corn syrup because they treat it with some enzymes to boost the fructose content. REGULAR corn syrup has less fructose in it.)

The fructose part of corn syrup doesn't raise blood sugar. (Although it apparently makes fat like crazy.) The glucose part of it raises blood glucose just fine.

Didn't you know? It was in the same section that said it was a high protein diet (You know. Because 65% of our calories come from fat).

That page was missing in my copy, too.