Subscription Center
Apr 20, 2009 07:25 PM | 15
Sugar overload of any type does not bode well for your waistline or your health, but a new study suggests that certain sugars trigger more health problems than others. Consuming large quantities of fructose, a sugar found in high fructose corn syrup used to sweeten soft drinks and processed foods, may induce metabolic changes that lead to increased risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease, according to a study published today in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.
"The bottom line is that we've shown important biological and metabolic differences between the two major sugars [fructose and glucose] in the diet," says study co-author Peter Havel, a nutrition researcher at the University of California, Davis. But, he adds, more research is needed to justify any recommendations promoting or discouraging the consumption of certain sweeteners.
Fructose (which imparts sweetness to fruits) and glucose (which makes up carbohydrates found in bread and pasta) are the most important simple sugars in our diet, Havel says. The growing consumption of fructose from high fructose corn syrup (which contains about 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose) found in soda, juices, and sweet snacks has led some to suspect it is a key culprit in the obesity epidemic.
To find out whether the sugars have different effects on human physiology, Havel and his colleagues studied the consumption of fructose- and glucose-sweetened beverages among 32 overweight men and women ages 40 to 72. Every day for 10 weeks, 17 study participants drank three bottles of fructose-sweetened drinks and 15 of them drank bevs sweetened with glucose. By the end of the study, the fructose and glucose-chugging groups had gained about the same amount of weight – an average of about 3.3 pounds (1.5 kilograms) -- but those in the fructose group accumulated about twice as much visceral fat, the kind that builds up around organs (rather than under the skin) and increases one's risk for developing type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
In addition, low-density lipoprotein (LDL or "bad" cholesterol) levels shot up by about 14 percent and insulin sensitivity dropped by about 17 percent in the fructose guzzlers; there were no such changes in the glucose group.
"Over the long term, [these changes seen in the fructose group] would be expected to increase the risk for diabetes and cardiovascular disease," Havel says, but he cautions that the beverages used in the study are not representative of the drinks people typically consume. Havel says he recently launched a five-year study to try to determine the health effects of fructose and glucose on normal-weight people ages 18 to 40.
Image © iStockphoto/Floortje
Tags:
heart disease,
diabetes,
fructose,
gluctose
More News Blog:
Next: Stephen Hawking still hospitalized, but "comfortable"
Previous: Resuscitation at birth might indicate higher risk for lower IQ
See what we're tweeting about
BecCrew RT @screen_info Congratulations to @BadenPailthorpe! http://t.co/4gc6DfL1gN
BoraZ Fasting: The New Fad Diet? http://t.co/AzNQ2HlXno
sciammind #SciAmBlogs Wednesday - niche construction, cicadas, ageing, Moon, pirates' dodo, sick caecilians, hurricane f... http://t.co/sVtkJrmrg2
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
15 Comments
Add CommentOne should mention, although HFCS is 55% fructose, 45% glucose, sucrose is a disaccharide containing 50% fructose, 50% glucose. Seeing as these are the two most common sweeteners, it seems unfair to single out one (High Fructose Corn Syrup) without pointing out table sugar is not inherently better (at least, not according to this study).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's useful to know that glucose may be less problematic than fructose. But only as a lesser evil. None of these refined products do us any favors, except to add great taste and boost mood. Meanwhile, they reduce fat burning, disregulate blood sugar, acidify the blood, contribute to bone loss and muscle wasting, oxidize blood protein and lipids, leading to cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, cognitive decline and premature aging. Showing that fructose contributes more to this mess is sobering, considering all the processed foods that contain it. But, it does not justify substituting with other sugars, as the industries involved would have you believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople are not going to give up processed and packaged foods until it is less expensive to do so. The fact that is is extremely expensive to eat right is an issue that is never discussed. Fast food and packaged foods are cheaper in the long run, my monthly food bill almost doubled when I started trying to eat more fruits and vegetables and cooking all my meals instead of buying packaged foods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI could spend less on a daily basis at the local fast food dollar menu.
And I firmly believe that high fructose corn syrup, which is now used in almost all foods is the main culprit to the obesity problem.
Since this country decided that no fat-low fat is preferable, corn syrup has been used as a replacement for fat in foods, and obesity has sky rocketed.
that difference between 50/50 and 55/45 may not seem like much, but it ads up quickly with the amounts that are consumed by americans today
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe long term evolution of a people prone to eating garbage is fun to consider.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps, while people who opt for a more balanced life thrive, trash-eating, sedentary people will continue to die off at a faster and faster rate, until it starts to happen before they have a chance to reproduce, effectively removing these negative traits from the gene pool over time.
But, perhaps in the worsening food and water shortage & inevitable ecological collapse, the people who are more fit for survival are those capable of living on cellophane and battery acid just long enough to reproduce offspring capable of producing offspring. In a post-apocalyptic scenario, the role of a scavenger that carries huge energy reserves around in blubber, and can go longer between feeding is more fit for survival...
Oh yes, what was the question again....
It looks like we're all taken down in the current scenario. The Darwinian perspective is interesting, but applies less in a culture that supports and profits from weakness, and replaces body parts as they wither. The cost of these failures comes out of my pocket, though I am not part of the unhealthy, or a burden on the system. For the most part, we live and die together. Granted, I may live 10-20 more years than the average person, but it will have little effect on the gene pool. Se la vie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne way of looking at the discrepancy in the cost of healthy food vs. convenience fast foods is this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFast food is cheaper but erodes your health. You save money on food now but you become obese, and develop a host of chronic illnesses raising your expenses down the road on things like costly medication & medical treatments and are at the mercy of medical insurance and reduced quality of life.
Healthy, organic, and sustainable foods are more expensive. You spend more now and retain your health and vitality and live at a higher quality of life into your old age without bearing the burden of costly medications and procedures and mounting medical bills.
Personally, I'd rather spend my money on nurturing myself now when it matters than trying to fix everything that's broken in the body from neglect someday down the road.
Some might say they won't care about health problems when they are old but I meet far to many people who live with regret for the poor care they provided themselves thru the years. Unfortunately regret and hindsight will not fix it at that point.
Manaya makes an interesting comment but fails to take he arguement to it's logical conclusion. If you are living longer you will need to up your pension contribution and therefore have less to spend on the 'healthy' foods thus making the overall financial gain at very best neutral
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was obese when I was an over the road route driver. Dr said I would have a stroke before lunch, well I did start to clean up my diet that very day and exercise the next week. I had a mild heart attack 10 years later. Coronary Dr said that I would have had a massive heart attack if I had not cleaned up my act when I did.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI started by cutting way back on processed foods. Anything especially soft drinks I weaned off of over the next 6-8 months. Being on the road from 5 am to 6 pm 6 days, being married to a chef who like to make huge fattening (but very tasty) meals that we were eating at 10 at night. My diet lead to divorce and even stricter diet as my dad had a heart attack and was diagnosed as diabetic at age 48. We keep few processed foods around, I have corn syrup in the cabinet for the occasional candy making binge..does that spoil after 4 years? I look at packages if I cannot pronounce a chemical in it I don't buy it. We have made major life style changes, moved from the city to a rural farmstead and started making it into an organic farm. We are not perfect , but mostly buy local, honey and free range eggs from next door neighbor (can't get any more local than that) and grassfed, no hormone drugs beef from a nearby farmer. I stick to mostly whole grain breads and pastas etc, it took a bit of getting used to. I could not change all overnight.
My question is, Does this mean that eating fruits which are naturally rich in fructose also be dangerous?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissimplify x3 said thoreau, and add sensify x3 to it. animal meats fats milks eggs are a burden on the vegetarian gut of humans. extracted solids sugars of molasses, corns were they meant for us? coffee tea cocoa are fancy items. tobacco and narcotics are poisons. al-kuhl is a lazy tribes invention. trans fats are why we know not. so what are we left with? simple 30 kinds of food seeds and roots and leaves packed with sugars macro and micro nutrients and proteins that give all the work for the digestive juices and build the human and make him work for his food and family. now the theory deals with our food habits that were not meant for us in the first place. but our cravings for certain items could be kept under reasonable control. 90% of us are made normal, of whom 70% make ourselves abnormal. I AM SURE WE ALL KNOW THIS and yet we ignore all this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think it's a matter of chemical similarity per se - the 55%/45% vs. 50%/50% between sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup - but what is very interesting is our response and feeling satisfied and full. You ever drink a soda made with cane sugar vs. a regular soda with HFCS? halfway through the second soda, you want to quit or throw up it's so sweet. Regular soda, though - you can easily be into the 3rd or 4th before you realize it. Anyone else have this same experience?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was amazed when I visited Italy for a month long course and I can tell you that we "American's" are doing it wrong. In Italy the common choice is to eat basic foods but eat the best quality foods available. The more ingredients you put in the food the harder it is for your body to process. So instead of eating cheap food and putting crap on it to make it taste better, eat lower quantities of better tasting basic foods. We have become experts at making crap taste really good! I believe that the closer you get to the food your latest ancestors ate the better off your health will be, and yeah unfortunately you'll live longer but think about actually creating enjoyment by the challenge of finding basic foods that taste fantastic!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost diabetics agree that we build up a tollerance to sweetness. For those of you who don't add sugar to your coffee and get one with sugar by mistake, you wont drink it! High Fructose corn syrup is in my group of products that my ancestor didn't eat.
The reason HFCS is used so much is that the Department of Agriculture spends a ridiculous amount of taxpayer money to encourage farmers to grow corn, much of which is not fit for human consumption, and then pays subsidies to support the price, which should be next to nothing considering the glut of corn. All of this corn is then used to feed cattle and make HFCS, which is why hamburgers and sweeteners are so cheap, and fruits and vegetables are so expensive. The obesity epidemic won't end until we stop paying to support it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point of my post was not about financial savings but the quality of life factor. The outcome of spending more money on better quality food now versus spending more money on medical care later was actually financially neutral as you state but far richer in quality of life results. You may need to contribute more $ to your pension plan if you are going to live longer but I cannot imagine anyone deciding that this is a reason to go the cheaper route of buying processed and unhealthy foods and ruin one's health. Living longer and stronger and spending one's retirement enjoying a vital thriving, healthy life seems the preferred choice to me rather than occupying oneself with countless doctors visits, lab tests & medicine bottles for hypertension, diabetes, elevated cholesterol and blood lipids, coronary heart & cardiovascular disease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this