Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


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!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


View Poll Results: Does Pollan's statement on high-fructose corn syrup make you rethink your position?
Yes! I'm going to buy a Coke right away. 1 2.27%
I guess he's right that sugar's just as bad... 8 18.18%
I don't really pay attention to him. 8 18.18%
Not at all -- I'm firm in my belief that HFCS is bad. 27 61.36%
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sun, Oct-30-11, 03:54
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 22,042
 
Plan: LCHF/IF
Stats: 217/192/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 44%
Location: UK
Default Michael Pollan: High-Fructose Corn Syrup Not Necessarily Worse Than Sugar

Quote:
From The Huffington Post
October 28, 2011


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

When Michael Pollan talks about the food industry, people listen. As the author of best-selling books like In Defense of Food and The Omnivore's Dilemma, he wields huge influence among those who care about mindful eating, both in terms of health and sustainability. So his repeated condemnation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as particularly harmful has helped damage the sweetener's reputation over the past few years.

Things have gotten so bad for HFCS that the corn industry is trying to change the name of the syrup to "corn sugar," provoking a lawsuit from the sugar industry.

But now Pollan is refining his stance. He was asked about the dangers of HFCS in a recent interview with the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, and clarified his current thinking:

"I've done a lot to demonize it," he says. "And people took away the message that there was something intrinsically wrong with it. A lot of research says this isn't the case. But there is a problem with how much total sugar we consume." High-fructose corn syrup is cheaper than sugar, so it traditionally was pumped into a lot of foods, including savory items.

"It shows the brilliance of the industry, which is always a couple of steps ahead of me," Pollan says. "They started giving products made of real sugar health claims and [are] trying to make sugar look good." And that is a problem.


In the same interview, he cites both the demonization of high-fructose corn syrup and the craze for gluten-free products as examples of the fadishness of nutritional thinking. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of high-fructose corn syrup. It's not like Pollan's encouraging people to run out and buy a case of Mountain Dew. But it does strike a blow to the argument that "real sugar" is vastly preferable to corn syrup.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/..._n_1064246.html
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sun, Oct-30-11, 09:08
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,309
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

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."
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sun, Oct-30-11, 10:21
KarenJ's Avatar
KarenJ KarenJ is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,564
 
Plan: tasty animals with butter
Stats: 170/115/110 Female 60"
BF:maintaining
Progress: 92%
Location: Northeastern Illinois
Default

Yes. I can say that I'm against HFCS, but no more than I'm against sugar.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sun, Oct-30-11, 10:55
CMCM's Avatar
CMCM CMCM is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,869
 
Plan: LCHF / Atkins '72
Stats: 173/150/130 Female 5'7"
BF:28.3%
Progress: 53%
Location: Northern Calif. mountains
Default

Wait a minute....doesn't HFCS have a more direct path to the liver and supposedly get converted to fat more readily than sugar?
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sun, Oct-30-11, 11:58
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is online now
Posts: 8,284
 
Plan: Paleoish
Stats: 225/175/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 100%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sun, Oct-30-11, 12:18
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

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



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.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sun, Oct-30-11, 13:24
RawNut's Avatar
RawNut RawNut is offline
Lipivore
Posts: 1,205
 
Plan: Very Low Carb Paleo
Stats: 270/185/180 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 94%
Location: Florida
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sun, Oct-30-11, 16:41
BigBenny BigBenny is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 234
 
Plan: Zero Carb
Stats: 420/275.6/189 Male 6'1"
BF:
Progress: 63%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Mon, Oct-31-11, 06:11
mrfreddy's Avatar
mrfreddy mrfreddy is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 761
 
Plan: common sense low carb
Stats: 221/190/175 Male 6 feet
BF:27/13/10??
Progress: 67%
Location: New York City
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Mon, Oct-31-11, 07:33
renegadiab renegadiab is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 475
 
Plan: Schwarzbein/Bernstein
Stats: 355/240/200 Male 69 inches
BF:
Progress: 74%
Default

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.

Quote:
"It shows the brilliance of the industry, which is always a couple of steps ahead of me," Pollan says. "They started giving products made of real sugar health claims and [are] trying to make sugar look good." And that is a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Mon, Oct-31-11, 14:20
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Mon, Oct-31-11, 14:22
melibsmile's Avatar
melibsmile melibsmile is offline
Absurdtive
Posts: 11,313
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 272.5/174.4/165 Female 5'4
BF:44?/32.6/20
Progress: 91%
Location: SF Bay Area
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Mon, Oct-31-11, 14:31
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,163
 
Plan: IF/Fung IDM/Potato Hack?
Stats: 375/272.6/175 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: NE Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrfreddy
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Mon, Oct-31-11, 14:43
*bookish*'s Avatar
*bookish* *bookish* is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 153
 
Plan: <50g a day, gluten-free
Stats: 202.8/180.6/145 Female 5'7
BF:
Progress: 38%
Location: Toronto
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Mon, Oct-31-11, 19:50
KarenJ's Avatar
KarenJ KarenJ is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,564
 
Plan: tasty animals with butter
Stats: 170/115/110 Female 60"
BF:maintaining
Progress: 92%
Location: Northeastern Illinois
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by *bookish*
No matter how you slice it, it's all bad for you.


Bingo. Want some of my leftover Halloween candy?!?!?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:49.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.