Study Shows High Fructose Corn Syrup May Cause Obesity, Diabetes, Heart Disease

A University of California study on human subjects seems to indicate what food activists have long believed: high fructose corn syrup has special qualities which cause humans to pork up like animals in a feed lot. Oh, and it also may help cause life-threatening chronic diseases. The study was small, but frightening.

Over 10 weeks, 16 volunteers on a strictly controlled diet, including high levels of fructose, produced new fat cells around their heart, liver and other digestive organs. They also showed signs of food-processing abnormalities linked to diabetes and heart disease. Another group of volunteers on the same diet, but with glucose sugar replacing fructose, did not have these problems.

People in both groups put on a similar amount of weight. However, researchers at the University of California who conducted the trial, said the levels of weight gain among the fructose consumers would be greater over the long term.

High fructose corn syrup is in nearly everything Americans eat, from fruit juices to bread to ketchup. It’s cheap, but is such cheap sweetness worth it in the long run, when it may actually be killing us?

Child diabetes blamed on food sweetener [Times Online] (Thanks, Nadine!)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    The answer, is NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

  2. morganlh85 says:

    Awwww shit, corn association! Isn’t that what they’ve been trying to tell us WOULDN’T happen, since HFCS is “exactly the same” as regular sugar?

    • sirwired says:

      HFCS more-or-less IS the same as table sugar. Sucrose (table sugar) metabolizes into 50/50 glucose/fructose prior to full digestion. HFCS is 55% fructose. This experiment replaced all the fructose with glucose; it did NOT replace the HFCS with table sugar, as that would have produced zero results with such a small sample size.

      • consumerfan says:

        Just because something has a similar chemical composition does not mean it has the same physical properties. Diamond and graphite are pure carbon and are obviously different.

        The body is complex. It doesn’t necessarily process one sugar the same way as another.

        In short, those percentages are irrelevant.

        • Short_Circuit_City says:

          Thank you. So many people think the world is black or white. We are complex beings.

        • OletheaEurystheus says:

          thank you. People seem to forget that how the bonds are formed and linked is JUST as important as the elements involved in it.

          IF it was JUST the same as regular sugar, it wouldnt be noticeably sweeter, yet it is.

          • bwcbwc says:

            Well, once the supermarkets start selling glucose rather than sucrose, then we can actually do something about this. Until then you’re probably screwed either way. This study is interesting since it uncovers a difference, but it’s useless to the layperson, since cane sugar was not included in the study. As a result, we don’t know whether there IS a difference in the digestion of table sugar vs. HFCS, and even if there was, there’s nothing we can do about it, since pure glucose isn’t one of our shopping choices.

            • thisistobehelpful says:

              Karo syrup. It’s pretty much pure glucose corn syrup as opposed to high fructose corn syrup. It’s used for baking and especially useful for making fondants. So they do.

            • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

              look in the pharmacy aisle at your grocery store, warehouse club, target, walmart, etc. you can get glucose in its purest form. it comes in chalky tablets, liquids, gels, powders.
              i wouldn’t use it for cooking though. it’s part of my diabetes supplies.

          • Naame says:

            More importantly though, excessive and regular intake of either white sugar or HFCS results in very similar health issues so much to the point where no one really knows for sure if HFCS is really more dangerous or not. Different? Yeah to some degree. More dangerous? Well…

            My opinion is that both should be treated with the same solution. Moderation.

        • sirwired says:

          Wait a minute: You are saying that I cannot state that the two are virtually the same because they are formed using different processes, but YOU can state that the percentages ARE irrelevant? The scientists were comparing fructose to glucose, so me pointing out that from that perspective, sugar and table sugar are pretty much equal makes sense. You bringing up that the two are processed differently is an interesting point, but one which has nothing whatsoever to do with the study.

          What makes you so sure of the fact that the percentages are irrelevant? They may be irrelevant to the point you are trying to make, but that does not make them irrelevant overall.

          The study compared pure fructose with pure glucose. It had nothing whatsoever to do with HFCS vs. sucrose at all. In fact, I would be so bold as to state that it is highly likely that both the Fructose and Glucose used in the study came from corn syrup. (Corn syrup is pretty much pure glucose prior to processing, while it is 90% fructose after processing. (It is blended to form a 45/55 mix prior to use.)

          We can chat again when you find a well-done study comparing table-sugar to HFCS. (For extra points, the study might could use 50/50 corn syrup, if the study wants to see if it is the processing makes a difference.) Oh, and table sugar is also a highly-refined product. Notice that evaporated cane juice and table sugar do not look or act the same.

          • OletheaEurystheus says:

            “Wait a minute: You are saying that I cannot state that the two are virtually the same because they are formed using different processes. “

            Yep because that simple fact alone is why they are NOT the same, the bonds are not the same it doesnt look the same in a microscope.

            “but YOU can state that the percentages ARE irrelevant?”

            Again yes, because they are in fact irrelevant as the previous fact applies, you look in a microscope its not the same chemical bond EVEN IF it results in a similar sweetness. The end product might taste the same or similar, but your body KNOWS its not the same and posses it differently. And it doesnt matter the percentages (As there are different percentages of HFCS, they all have a similar bond structure which the body knows is NOT sugar.

    • thisistobehelpful says:

      It also comes in a few different types. Look in the baking aisle it’s like hidden on a top shelf at my stop and shop.

    • Kevin Teague says:

      Table sugar and HFCS are nearly the same. The first is 50%/50% and later is 45%/55% glucose to fructose. We have an enzyme in the intestine which can trivially break the bond between these two sugars. The devil with HFCS is that it’s six times sweeter than table sugar, and it costs 1/2 as much to produce – so econmically it makes sense to replace it in foods wherever possible. It is interesting to see a study confirming that fructose causes damage well above and beyond glucose. The mechanisms of metabolism of fructose in the liver is now understood in endocrinology, watch this recent YouTube video by Dr. Robert Lustig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

      It *is* the fructose which causes hypertension, heart disease, gout, and a whole host of other probems caused by high levels of bad cholesterol. It’s not the god-damned egg yolks which clogs your arteries, it’s the fructose!

  3. ubermex says:

    I still say it needs more study, but this one seems clearer than previous studies on the subject. I’d like to see much larger sample sizes and much longer studies, personally.

    There’s so much money flying around on both sides of this debate that I really need some HUGE and SERIOUSLY CONCLUSIVE stuff before I believe either one.

    • subtlefrog says:

      At the very least, most journals will now require disclosure of funding sources. So, to allay that part of your concern, from the publication, edited slightly for some tiny bit of brevity, but not removing any funding sources or presentation information:

      “Published in a supplement to The Journal of Nutrition. Presented at the
      conference “The State-of-the-Science on Dietary Sweeteners Containing
      Fructose,” held in Beltsville, MD, March 18–19, 2008. The conference was
      cosponsored by the Technical Committee on Carbohydrates of the International
      Life Sciences Institute North America and the USDA, Agricultural Research
      Service. The views expressed in these papers are not necessarily those of the
      USDA, the Agricultural Research Service, or the supplement coordinators.
      …Supplement coordinator disclosure: D. Klurfeld and M. Kretsch: no
      relationships to disclose….Author disclosures: …funding to support travel to the18–19 March, 2008 workshop “The State of the Science on Dietary Sweeteners
      Containing Fructose” and the writing of this resulting manuscript was provided
      by the International Life Sciences Institute, North American Branch.”

    • redskull says:

      I hear what you’re saying about more study, but if you happen to wander into any Walmart in the country, it’s hard not to believe that HFCS has transformed us as a nation.

    • mmmsoap says:

      I hear you, but there are rarely SERIOUSLY CONCLUSIVE studies in any fashion relating to food. Everyone metabolizes things differently, and findings usually say things like “you have an X% greater chance of developing $dread_disease than $other_person” rather than anything more specific. Does this mean you get $dread_disease? Not necessarily.

      But yes, I hear you. This study seems both more conclusive and more specific than most, which is very helpful. But not so much so that HFCS is going to disappear of the shelves any time soon.

  4. dohtem says:

    Remember those commercials that aired earlier this year trying to convince us that “it’s made from corn,” therefore it’s good…

    • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

      Like I’m going to trust a high school students opinion on behalf of the corn industry with my health. That commercial was a piece of shit. If they wanted to convince us, couldn’t they find an actual doctor to make those claims (not that I just trust doctors out of hand)?

      • Shadowfax says:

        doctors used to shill for cigarette brands on the radio, so why couldn’t they find a doctor to hawk HFCS?

    • Bill610 says:

      Yep! And you know what else is made from corn? Cow dung. Anybody wanna put THAT in their snack cakes?

    • halothane says:

      Hah. So is MSG, but that doesn’t stop it from making my head feel all explodey.

      • JulesNoctambule says:

        I’m always amused by the whole ‘comes from plants = totally harmless!!!’ line of thinking. I suppose some people would think ricin is safe since it comes from the castor bean.

        • floraposte says:

          I’m scared even to plant that shit, beautiful though it is.

        • sarahq says:

          I love that plant=healthy line of thought, too. Tobacco’s a plant. Marijuana’s a plant. Opium is directly from a plant. Alcohol is made from plants.

          Really, all the best things in life are directly derived from plants.

        • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

          right? technically the horse nettle variety of deadly nightshade i found growing in my yard is related to the tomato, and is chock full of vitamin C. and being the horse nettle variety, it’s not going to KILL me if i eat it. but it’s sure as hell not good for eating regardless of the vitamin contect

    • demitasse says:

      My favorite exchange went as follows:

      Announcer: It’s all natural and made from corn!
      My dad: Yeah, so’s Ethanol fuel, but I don’t think I want to drink that!

  5. Etoiles says:

    The thing that really annoys me about HFCS is the part where it’s in everything.

    I can take it being in my Coke. I don’t drink Coke often; if I’m choosing to have one, it’s an indulgence that I know will have adverse effects on me if I do it too often.

    I can’t take it being in my spaghetti sauce. Sugar in spaghetti sauce is lazy (my mom and grandma make terrific, amazing, could-eat-it-like-soup sauces that don’t have sugar in them, as did several favorite restaurants I grew up eating at) and HFCS in spaghetti sauce is lazy, unnecessary, *and* harmful. I don’t see why it has to be in my whole-wheat bread, or in a host of other things I (used to — now I screen for it) buy.

    And for me, that’s been the real problem. Not so much the ingredient itself, but sheer proliferation of it into everything. I’d be just as displeased if, say, all of my food suddenly started being made with alcohol. I can choose to have a drink or two, and then walk away, but if it was in 50% or more of my groceries, we’d have a problem.

    • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

      Mmmm, spaghetti sauce as soup…

      The ONLY sweetener you need in spaghetti sauce is sweet basil (in moderation) to cut the acidity, and only if your making the sauce in 30 minutes or less.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      Just remember that there are different blends of HFCS. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157

      The kind used in foods is HFCS 42, which is LOWER in fructose, at 42% than HFCS, which is used in drinks, which is 55% fructose.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      I agree with you on spaghetti sauce. It’s ridiculous to use sugar to balance the tartness of the tomatoes. I don’t get it with bread, either, but the amount shouldn’t be as high as in the grocery store loaves. When I make my own bread, I will add a tiny amount of sugar, or if it has cranberries or raisins, I just let that do the talking. But I don’t add anywhere as much as in the store-bought loaves.

      • thisistobehelpful says:

        I use a bit of cream. Kinda like cheese and berries balance each other out. Or cheese and tannins in wine and milk with tea tannins.

      • greeneyedguru says:

        Also, you don’t need sugar unless your sauce has seeds in it.

    • TouchMyMonkey says:

      Let me second that on spaghetti sauce. I made some sauce with tomatoes grown in our own garden. It’s the most delicious sauce you have ever tasted. You don’t need to sweeten it. In fact, sugar would probably detract from the taste. Of course, if you’re using mass-produced tomatoes picked green from 4000 miles away, and artificially ripened with ethylene gas, you probably do need to sweeten it, or it will probably taste like nothing.

      In general, though, the FDA should require quantities for certain things like HFCS, chemical preservatives, or anything containing trans fats, be shown on those Nutrition Facts labels.

      • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

        You can toss a couple baby carrots (or a couple pieces of big carrot) in your tomato sauce while it cooks and they sweeten the sauce and cut the acidity of it without having to add sugar. It even works if you’re pretty much just doing tomatoes and olive oil and no seasoning at all.

        You fish the carrots out before serving, although finding a piece of tomato-covered carrot in your spaghetti is tastier than you’d think.

        • Kuchen says:

          I love carrots in tomato sauce and would put them in there for their carroty-ness and not just for sweetening.

          • MrEvil says:

            Yeah, I’d just chop up the carrots and put them in the sauce.

          • greeneyedguru says:

            I start my tomato sauce with a mirepoix sweat, so it always has carrots in it.

            I also blend about half of it with an immersion blender at the end, so the sauce gets a great sweetness and orange-red color from the carrots.

            Definitely thumbs up on carrots. Just don’t use too many.

        • pecan 3.14159265 says:

          Mmmm carrots in spaghetti sauce…Mr. Pi would not go for it though. Likewise, you can blend some roasted red peppers into the sauce and it would be sweet and smoky.

    • KyleOrton says:

      The reason I hate it is one of the same reasons it’s in everything, it’s subsidized. Why not subsidize something that’s good and good for us too. Or nothing, I’m ok with that.

      • Skankingmike says:

        you mean corn is subsidized but most of it is used for feed, that’s why. You remove that and you cause hyper inflated meat. Corn is also healthy for you in moderation.

        • lchen says:

          The meat that is raised on the corn is also not the healthiest for you. It’s higher in fats that are harmful to the heart, like conventional beef compared to grass fed beef. The price of meat is artificially deflated because of the corn subsidies. People should eat less meat in general for personal health and the environmental impact.

        • mmmsoap says:

          It’s used for feed, but it’s so heavily subsidized and low priced that many a farmer saturate their fields with fertilizers to increase production, which leads to runoff and other disasters. Corn on the cob? Sure, decent for you. Corn as a (subsidized) commodity, terrible overall.

        • friday3 says:

          Meat should be more expensive. If people would start eating a healthy diet with less meat it would help the obesity epidemic as well

    • teamplur says:

      We’ve had this same issue. We’ve been looking at labels alot more now. WHY is HFCS in BREAD?!? So hard to stay away from it. Any time the store or Sam’s Club is selling Mexican Coke, i pick up a few cases if I can. It has real sugar and tastes great, especially when they are in glass bottles.

      • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

        The healthy, whole grain, high fiber bread usually has HFCS in it! MADDENING!

      • Peter Nincompoop says:

        It’s in bread because it acts as a preservative. You’ll notice that bread made with HFCS tends to stay shelf-stable much longer than all-natural breads and tends to be much lighter in weight than its natural counterparts. Thus, you tend to eat more of the HFCS bread per sitting to satisfy your appetite.

    • Fred E. says:

      I’m the same way, I’m okay with it in my coke, but yesterday I looked at a loaf of 100% whole wheat bread in the grocery store and the second ingredient on the label was HFCS. I bake my own bread sometimes, I never even heard of putting any kind of sugar in a regular loaf of bread.

      • sqlrob says:

        I’ve got some recipes that use sugar. It’s food for the yeast, makes it rise faster.

        • sarahq says:

          I do as well, but they call for a couple tablespoons, or perhaps a bit of honey. It’s not the second ingredient by volume, though.

        • ChuckECheese says:

          A reason (like it or not) that corn syrup is used in bread making is because it is hygroscopic and helps retain moisture in the bread, and retards staling. When I was a kid, they kept bread fresh with chemicals; now they use HFCS. You can get similar effects with honey, but honey browns rapidly when baked, so you better enjoy a dark brown loaf.

        • Jbondkicks says:

          True…but faster rising isn’t always better. A lengthy fermentation process develops flavor. All you really need to make a decent loaf of bread is five parts flour, three parts water, a bit of yeast and a pinch of salt — I promise.

          As mentioned with sauce, you CAN add a pinch of sugar to tomato sauce to cut the acidity and add a bit of sweetness, but you can also do something like carmelize the sugars in some tomato paste before you add in the bulk of your pureed tomatoes and then cook it all low and slow. I wouldn’t call adding sugar to bread or tomato sauce lazy or cheating, but it’s not the ONLY way or the one that always yields the best results.

          Personally, I’ve never put a lick of sugar in my bread, and never had any trouble with it rising.

      • OletheaEurystheus says:

        i stopped buying bread and started baking it with a breadmaker for this very reason.

      • baquwards says:

        Many many bread recipes call for sugar, it feeds the yeast. There is usually a couple tablespoons of sugar in a recipe, this can also be substituted with honey, molasses, etc..

        Artisan style breads usually don’t need sugar in them, because of a different process. Most American style breads have some sugar in them, but not to the point of making them sweet.

    • jmurphy42 says:

      If you live in an area where you can get Newman’s Own tomato sauce, it’s the only brand we’ve been able to find that’s HFCS-free.

      • Peter Nincompoop says:

        Muir Glen, Cucina Antica, Paesano, 365 Brand @ Whole Foods, Mario Batali, most canned tomatoes, and many local companies also produce all-natural, HFCS-free pasta sauces.

    • veronykah says:

      Trader Joe’s and Fresh and Easy seem to not carry products with HFCS in them. Bread has BREAD ingredients, not a bunch of chemicals and the spaghetti sauce I got at F&E recently had something like 5 ingredients.

    • Paladin_11 says:

      No one has yet mentioned the real reason why it’s in everything. That reason is an outrageous tariff on sugar.

      Sugar tariffs exist pretty much to prop up corn producers in the this country. The US produces very little cane sugar, with most of our sugar production coming from beets. The government guarantees a fixed price for the producers of sweeteners that is purely artificial. If the tariff were removed imported sugar would cause the price to plummet. Enough to rival the cost of HFCS. And it would put most beet sugar producers out of business.

      In short, we’re paying a health penalty due to our poor agricultural policies.

      The good news is that food manufacturers are starting to notice that consumers are rejecting products with HFCS. Keep it up! Read the lable and refuse to buy products that use it. Those products don’t have to cost more either–even Costco sells whole grain bread without the stuff.

      • Emperor Norton I says:

        Actually sugar tariffs historically exist to prop up sugar beet farmers in North Dakota & sugar cane farmers & the Fanjul family which controls much of the sugar refining industry in Florida.
        If we started importing sugar from Cuba again, it would probably finish off the communists there.
        There would be a lot of money going in there & there would be a lot of Americans visiting which is something that neither of the Castros really want. They love the embargo, it lets them control their own people better.

    • The_Red_Monkey says:

      They have tripled the amount of sugar in bread in less than a decade. In bread? Really. Talk about proliferation.

      • cowboyesfan says:

        My brother made pizzas at Domino’s and he said they would mix in a lot of regular table sugar into the dough to improve the taste.

  6. gqcarrick says:

    I really liked when Pepsi had the Pepsi without the HFCS, it was great, they need to bring it back.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      It’s on it’s way back, starting this month, actually, according to something I read on http://www.fizzledout.com/ . I also heard they are changing the Mountain Dew Throwback formula since it SUCKED before when they took out the OJ.

      • MyLifeROI says:

        Pepsi Throwback and Dew Throwback (made with real sugar) are coming back in January. They are using the old school logos, too… so it should be very noticeable.

        The Dew is a white 12pk wrap with “Yahoo Mountain Dew!” on it, pretty cool!

      • baquwards says:

        Interesting, I knew that there wasn’t something quite right with the Mtn Dew throwback, just couldn’t put my finger on it.

      • Sian says:

        Dew throwback was awesome. they’re changing it? =(

    • TouchMyMonkey says:

      I got the last three 12-packs of Pepsi Throwback from my local grocery store this past fall. Have you ever had a rum and cola (or bourbon and cola) made with this stuff? It’s awesome. It pops. You won’t ever want to go back. I’d pay an extra buck a 12-pack if I could get it on a regular basis. I’m totally serious about this.

    • CapitalC says:

      Move to Canada, virtually none of our beverages have it because we don’t tolerate that kind of crap!

  7. parkj238 says:

    It creates new fat cells around your vital organs in a few weeks?!? Ohh greeeattt.

  8. MJ Dick says:

    I wouldn’t be too sorry to see the HFCS go, as it’s just a cheaper crutch for the manufacturers to use. I’m just happy that being a diabetic, I live in the age of Splenda.
    Next time you go to KFC, read the ingredients of what used to be honey to put on your biscuit. It’s now “honey Sauce”. HFCS, color, honey flavor. When everything that was good growing up has moved to cheap alternatives, what may the future hold.

    Just curious, how long till HFCS has to have the warning on the label, “Warning, in the state of California, this product may cause cancer” Sorry, had to get a laugh in.

  9. el-brazo-onofre says:

    That’s one too many “show”s in the headline.

  10. the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

    I’ve hated corn since I was in the Boy Scouts and we picked and sold sweet corn (which was donated by a friend of the troop) for fundraising. When you’re baking, I ask you, do you reach for a bottle of corn syrup, or sugar. When you make cool aid, do you reach for corn syrup, or sugar. Do you put corn syrup in your coffee? We don’t use it when we cook foods at home, so why the hell should everything else be made with it?

    • Lord Faust says:

      I take it you’ve never made a pecan pie, or butter tarts.

      • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

        No. No I haven’t. Pie and I have never gotten along in the kitchen.

      • AlfredaCosta says:

        to be fair, that’s regular corn syrup, not the HFCS…

      • JulesNoctambule says:

        I make pecan pie, and never use corn syrup. Instead, I use either cane syrup or honey; people always say how delicious it is and how they like that it isn’t sickeningly sweet.

    • OletheaEurystheus says:

      wait a second here. Dont confuse hfcs with corn syrup. Corn syrup is NOT HFCS. They are two different things though you need the one to make the other
      In fact you have to watch out cause often corn syrups these days actually CONTAIN HFCS to up the sweetness.

    • stuporglue says:

      Great Chocolate sauce for icecream:

      1 part cocoa powder
      1 part powdered sugar
      add corn syrup till desired consistency/viscosity is reached

      I use 1/2 cup of the powders, and about 1/4 cup corn syrup. It’s thick and it hardens on your ice cream and it’s really good. AND, it doesn’t have HFCS (but I like HFCS chocolate syrup too…just not the really cheap stuff).

  11. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

    Small sample base over a small time? I’d like to see a longer study with more participants. I mean, some people put on weight at certain times of the years. Seems like this is one of those studies that is out for headlines, not science journals.

    • Fuzz says:

      Ok then. There is a study going on. America is the test group, the rest of the world a control group. Not to overly generalize, but Americans are more obese and unhealthy than most other countries. They are also the only country where HFCS are in most things, whereas in other countries sugar is used.

      Sure, its not scientific.

    • subtlefrog says:

      Actually, a lot of the epidemiology studies are very small sample sizes, unless they are retrospective analyses. The lead author has had several pubs on the topic of HFCS in several journals – and they are frequently cited, which suggests she’s not a total moron (this is the currency of the scientific literature).

  12. woogychuck says:

    This is a bit frightening, but in the end keep 2 things in mind:

    #1. This was a study of 16 people, which is hardly a large enough sample size to show real data.

    #2. Any diet high in any sugar, in high in calories overall, causes Obesity, Diabetes and Heart Disease.

    I know that I’m clinically obese (about 40lbs overweight) and the only thing I have to blame is eating to much and not getting off my ass. Chances are a person who has a healthy lifestyle will be perfectly fine no matter what chemical variant of sugar they ocassionally consume. My fellow fatties just need to quit blaming carbs/HFCS/Glycemic Index/Etc.

    • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

      Don’t be too quick to believe that you’re obese based on your weight or BMI. Check out Penn and Tellers Bullshit! episode on being fat in America. According to the nearly 2 century old calculation of BMI, 95% of us are overweight.

      • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

        Yeah, BMI says I’m Obese and I know that I have about 30 pounds to lose to be more healthy. But I’m active, and that alone helps… I just eat too much and I know it. I WANT to lose 50 pounds and that would put me in the “normal” category. But being called obese is discouraging, especially considering I’m not a size 25 or anything and I look fairly normal.

        • That's Consumer007 to you says:

          Define “healthy” and “normal”. That’s part of the problem. Those two are moving targets and subjective.

    • pittstonjoma says:

      Cutting out sugar, whether made from corn or not, is a smart idea. I’ve cut out sugar almost entirely, and I don’t miss it at all! I also lost about 50 pounds.

      • Sunflower1970 says:

        Same here. Sugar, HFCS, even artificial sweeteners are not in my diet. I use stevia or xylitol both natural sweeteners if I want something with a bit of sweetness in it.

        Recently, my husband cut out anything with HFCS. Hasn’t cut out sugar completely though, and he has lost about 15 lbs so far. Hasn’t started exercising more, either. I’m quite proud of him :)

    • That's Consumer007 to you says:

      Yes any REAL “study” will be bought and paid for by the food industry and crafted to show there is no risk and therefore (more importantly) no panic and no drop in sales.

    • yasth says:

      16 people is enough to get real data, assuming the results are strong. Sorry it just bugs me when people say things like this. Obviously a larger study would be better, but whether or not there is a statistical difference is an issue for math to decide not sweeping statements.

      • Kitamura says:

        The problem I see is that the control is only diet. What if the control group is full of people who are exercise fanatics and the test group are a bunch of slobs? I know it’s unlikely, but there just seems to be way too many uncontrolled variables.

        Besides, it seems like this is a study of Fructose vs Glucose rather than HFCS vs Sugar, which are not the same thing.

    • johnmc says:

      Hm, strange. I’m in a similar position (started at 5’7 ~230lb) and have lost somewhere in the range of 30lb by just cutting out the carbs (apart from what l get from almonds) and actually increasing the amount of saturated fat I eat. I am doing no exercise.

  13. Ashbin says:

    This is an old story from April 2009. For some reason, it has just hit the British newspapers, and has been picked up by the Consumerist as new.

    The original story is here, dated April 22, 2009:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/health/23sugar.html

  14. ceez says:

    no it’s not worth it but that’s how food has been processed for years for a cheap cost to the manufacturers and they’re not gonna stop now.

    and it must suck to be in the group of volunteers that had fat cells growing around their heart. hopefully they followed up with a good healthy diet.

    in regards to the pic, I only eat candy corn during halloween….so i guess I might live just a little longer.

    • That's Consumer007 to you says:

      and we all know, it’s worth it to kill millions of Americans (over time) and make all of them fat just so one can save money putting crap in our food.

  15. malackey says:

    This study isn’t big enough, or conducted long enough to prove anything. Sure, the results are scary, but are they representative of real risk, or even repeatable?

  16. Oranges w/ Cheese says:

    This is why I purchase 100% juice and then cut it half with water. Makes it last longer, and you really really can’t tell the difference.

    God. I think I’m going to become a raw-foods omnivore. O_o Or move to europe. At least they have real food.

    • Laura Northrup says:

      I lived on pastries, Orangina, and liquid yogurt when I lived in Europe, yet I was the thinnest I’ve ever been in my adult life. Funny how that works.

      • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

        Yogurt is really good for you though, and I’d imagine over there it doesn’t have NEAR the sugar content (HFCS?) that it does in america.

      • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

        It’s the walking! I ate nothing but carbs when I lived in London because pasta was the only thing I knew how to cook, and I was skinny skinny skinny from all the walking!

      • JulesNoctambule says:

        Throw in a daily baguette and a lot of things in cream sauces, and you have my average daily food intake when I lived in France. Skinny as a rail then, too. I miss the food and the walking, but do appreciate having a figure again!

    • iceeblue says:

      It’s only 16 people. This is not a conclusive study. The biochemistry of how HFCS and glucose are processed differently just does not add up. Your body does not know the difference.

      Having said that I avoid it like the plague it. It does not taste as sweet so you have to add more to a product for the desired effect. Its adding calories. Using real sugar would involve less calories.

      • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

        I know I’ve seen some research that it is processed faster then regular sugar because of the higher fructose vs. sucrose which in turn makes your body crave more because it uses it so fast. That alone leads to people overeating and snacking too much. It may not physically lead to more fat, but the chemistry can affect how your brain perceives food and nutrition which can lead to bad habits.

    • Tim says:

      Raw foods omnivore? You mean you’d eat raw meat?

    • PencilSharp says:

      Meh. Move to Australia and live on Vegemite. It’s chock full o’ Aussie goodness and nary a drop of HFCS.

      Vegemite (and gin!) makes a man mean.

      • HogwartsProfessor says:

        Heh, I like that on toast; also Marmite, the English version, which my aunt who lives in London introduced me to. It’s definitely an acquired taste. It’s also got lots of B vitamins in it.

  17. ConsumerWolf says:

    Where was the study published?

  18. maximomore says:

    When you start messing with nature the result changes nature. Our body’s physiological build is not suited for HFCS. That’s why so many kids in this country are depressed without reason and have attention deficit disorders. And for what? For a select few to make billions at the cost of billions of citizens.

  19. Ophelia says:

    How, when the two groups put on similar amounts of weight during the trial, did the reasearchers conclude that it would lead the fructose consumers to gain more weight long term?

    • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

      I agree, more testing is in order. I didn’t see in the snippet if the sugar dieters also gained the fat cells around their organs as did the HFCS dieters though.

    • Kelly Thomas says:

      Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is naturally occurring in high fructose corn syrup and because it occurs “naturally”, it need not be listed in the list of ingredients. MSG is given to rats to fatten them up for obesity studies. It is an appetite stimulant and is hidden under a variety of names, like “maltodextrin” and “natural flavors”. The ingestion of MSG would lead both groups to gain weight, but the high fructose group would have a double whammy.

      I own a coffeeshop and use only syrups with pure cane sugar. My customers with Starbucks habits are much more satisfied with our regular serving, slightly smaller than what Starbucks considers “Tall.” There is no MSG to make one crave sugary carbohydrates, so 10 oz (or the occasional double) satisfies the sugar craving without stimulating the appetite further.

  20. That's Consumer007 to you says:

    So…where’s the civil suit? :)

  21. Oranges w/ Cheese says:

    I was watching an episode of this american life last night, and they were talking about pig farming.

    In the 70’s they decided to start genetically modifying pigs (funny how they complain about GMO veggies, but not GMO animals). Your average pork is only 6 months old because its been genetically modified to put on 300 pounds of muscle in its very short life. They have to live indoors because they have no fat on them to survive the winter, and because they’ve never been outside they have no immune systems anymore. You quite literally have to take a shower to go see the piggies.

    They live in 10×10 pens with other pigs over a vat of their own shit. They no longer have sex, but are artificially inseminated with genetically engineered sire’s sperm. Funny how farming has turned into a factory.

    • That's Consumer007 to you says:

      Sounds like the makings for the next great video game / reality show.

      Factory Farm SLAUGHTER!!!!! Dump some hungry rabid trailer trash people (invite former guests of Jerry Springer show first) and pit bulls in with 100 pigs and see what happens!

      Film in Louisiana to avoid local law enforcement interference.

    • MrEvil says:

      Oh, the pigs have immune systems. You should see what becomes of the Escapees from the hog farms that go feral. My dad has one around his farm and judging by the depth of his tracks, he’s probably bigger than I am.

    • BytheSea says:

      The cows slog around knee deep in their poo. That’s how you get the e. coli outbreaks. How can you keep poo out of the slaughter house when it clings to every surface of the cow?

    • raydee wandered off on a tangent and got lost says:

      The Turkey industry is much the same way–the average store-bought turkey, Large Breasted White, cannot naturally breed. Mature adults tend to be crushed or suffocated by their own weight. They tend to be slaughtered just before they reach that point.

  22. sirwired says:

    Just as a reminder, HFCS is not actually markedly higher in fuctose than ordinary sugar. Sucrose (table sugar) breaks down into about equal portions of fructose and glucose. HFCS is about 55 percent fructose; not a dramatic difference.

    Fructose may or may not be harmful, but the outcry should be against added sugar, period, not just HFCS.

    • Kuchen says:

      Amen to that.

    • consumerfan says:

      No. Both.

      Added sugar is one thing but sometimes adding sugar is the best option.
      When it comes to soda, it has to be sweet. So the whole “added sugar” argument is moot.

      As I’ve said already, the percentage of fructose in HFCS is irrelevant. How the body processes HFCS relative to sugar is the issue.

      • Shadowfax says:

        that and, when you sweeten something with sugar, you generally don’t use as much of it as food manufacturers use of the HFCS. Any substance can be harmful if you ingest too much of it. Even water. Even assuming that sugar and HFCS had the same effect on the body, HFCS being used as a cheap food filler means that we’re eating tons of it, in foods that we don’t even know have it, and most certainly should not have it, like bread, tomato soup, potato chips, etc.

        Some people still think that cutting overindulgence of sugar out of their diet means not eating cake and cookies. They don’t realize that almost every processed food item they buy has buckets of sweeteners.

        That’s one reason that, unless your income is sufficiently high, it’s pretty much impossible to eat healthily in this country. Unless you can afford to only buy the items on the edges of the grocery store (fruits, vegetables) and you can afford to go to a butcher who doesn’t play chemical mind games with the meat to make it look more appealing than it is, you are going to be forced by dint of economics to ingest crap for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

      • ShadowFalls says:

        Well some things where they add sugar just bothers me completely. I have seen things like apple juice have added sugar. I am like, “Are you crazy?” Why do you really need to add sugar to fruit? There are few exceptions to the rule for things like grapefruit and lemon which are naturally sour.

        I think any products with additives that are unnecessary for a product should be banned. Drinks that don’t need sugar added should not have it, nor should one put coloring in it. An example is soda with its “caramel color”. There is no need for that in the product and all it does is stains one’s teeth.

        Some companies have at least stepped up and made sure to go back to sugar entirely, not just create a special variety. Snapple is one, Arnold is enough with its bread products. I don’t know about anyone else, but sugar tastes better and leaves me fulfilled and less likely to consume more. Doesn’t have a nasty aftertaste either.

        This study is a good as a sample, but could use more expansion and test information. Better to apply groups with exercise and without. Also, there needs to be data on all available sweeteners and blood tests and information regarding blood sugar levels and insulin count. Also a better overview of all organs. For all we know, HFCS could just be poisoning a person’s pancreas and in some cases causing it shut down or overwork itself. An organ that important in its role in diabetes, can certainly not be overlooked.

    • Coelacanth says:

      I wonder if the breakdown of sucrose to its constituent fructose and glucose is enzymatically regulated. If so, it may be possible that natural sugar is broken down in a controlled, time-released manner without causing as much metabolic overload as simply bypassing the step and only introducing the breakdown products.

      Biology can be funny that way.

  23. TouchMyMonkey says:

    HFCS should be banned. It probably won’t be, though. It would still be interesting to see which Democratic members of Congress have been bought off by the corn lobby, though. Maybe somebody could get their blue-state congresscritter to introduce a bill. Rep. Kucinich? You are being paged.

  24. mykie says:

    To be fair, I don’t see anywhere where the study says they used actual HFCS, just that one group used Fructose, one group used Glucose.

    Glucose has been proven to cause hypoglycemia. Fructose is naturally occurring in fruit, and can cause diabetes. Sucrose causes tooth decay.

    Sugar in any form can be hazardous to your health above certain quantities, I’m not sure that this article really proves any one form is worse than the other.

    I’m certainly not an HFCS sympathizer, and avoid it whenever I can, but as far as I can tell this study seems slanted and speculative, and the article as well.

    • AlfredaCosta says:

      There are several errors in this statement…

      Glucose does not “cause” hypoglycemia. In fact, Glucose tablets are what diabetics use to TREAT a hypo.

      Fructose “can cause diabetes” — again, wrong. Fructose is a sugar, but sugar doesn’t “cause” diabetes.

    • Sunflower1970 says:

      They are talking about HFCS throughout the article. Early on, it says “Fructose, a sweetener derived from corn…”. When they’re talking about fructose naturally occurring, they are calling it ‘Natural fructose.’ They also refer to it as ‘glucose-fructose syrup’

      I’m guessing the Brits call HFCS just ‘fructose’ or ‘glucose-fructose syrup’

  25. ifriit says:

    I’d note that generalizing the study’s results to HFCS is somewhat unwarranted–HFCS is (usually) only about half fructose, very close to the amount present within cane/beet sugar (sucrose). Also, having done a little (only a little) research, I could find no evidence HFCS is six times sweeter than sucrose as claimed–the corn lobby’s official propaganda site says it’s false, and all the claims I was able to source came back to a book, “Fat Land” by Greg Critser. If it really *were* as sweet as claimed, I’d actually expect to see us eating less sugars (HFCS + sucrose) by mass, but we eat more today than 30 years ago.

    All that said, there is definitely a difference between sucrose and HFCS, in that with sucrose the glucose and fructose molecules are bound to each other, requiring steps in metabolizing that HFCS does not, and consuming HFCS may expose us to unbound fructose at a particularly vulnerable stage in our digestive process, but I’ve yet to see a study on it.

  26. ElizabethD says:

    Who’s with me on the class action lawsuit??

    I’m only half kidding. >:-(

  27. sirwired says:

    Hmmm… I wonder if this is all a plot by the corn industry. If HFCS is outlawed, that doesn’t eliminate corn syrup. After processing, corn starch is pretty much pure glucose; it is only further processing that renders it into the high-fructose product. Switching from fructose-based sweeteners such as sugar or HFCS to glucose just means they’ll need to add even more for the same sweetness (fructose is far sweeter than glucose… this is why the processing is done to begin with.)

    Using pure fructose would actually result in a lower-calorie product than HFCS or sugar. I wonder if this study replaced 100% of the fructose calories with twice as many glucose calories, since that is about what would be required for the same sweetness.

  28. Yentaleh says:

    My son was diagnosed 3 years ago with autism and he’s borderline diabetic. Our pediatrician suggested to us that the problem could be HFCS. We took him completely off “the stuff” and everything changed with him. His behaviour is calmer, he’s more lean and he’s not craving sweets as much as he used to. In my opinion I do believe the problem was HFCS and other over processed sweetners. (Including Splenda, and Asparatame) that were causing not only his behaviour issues but his sugar levels shooting through the roof. He is a different boy now and doing excellent on a organic and low sugar, (we use cane juice, pure cane sugar, molasses for our cooking/backing needs.) diet. These researchers are correct, and HFCS (and any other over processed sweetners) need to have stricter regulations or be banned outright.

    Btw here in Seattle we have an excellent chain of organic grocery stores called PCC. Instead of offering cookies and bread sticks to kids they have the “Free Fruit Club.” They can choose any type of fruit that they want. (and if you bring in a group of kids they can walk out of the store with a free, melon, bag of grapes, or a flat of berries.) PCC would rather see kids get started eating right. Its a program that works well and kids around our neighbourhood have even convinced the local ice cream man to carry healthier alternatives as well. (I love the trickle down effect. :) )

    • sirwired says:

      You do realize that “pure cane sugar” is still a highly processed product. Evaporated cane juice is not, but granulated sugar is quite refined.

  29. jeffjohnvol says:

    I wish someone would print up a bunch of yellow “Contains HFCS” warning stickers that we could buy. Then, when we are in the stores, put it on a few bottles of stuff that contain it. Also, there could be green stickers that say “No HFCS!” that we could put on stuff that doesn’t have it.

    The HFCS industry would crap their pants we all started doing that.

  30. jeffjohnvol says:

    I wish someone would print up a bunch of yellow “Contains HFCS” warning stickers that we could buy. Then, when we are in the stores, put it on a few bottles of stuff that contain it. Also, there could be green stickers that say “No HFCS!” that we could put on stuff that doesn’t have it.

    The HFCS industry would crap their pants we all started doing that.

  31. jeffjohnvol says:

    I wish someone would print up a bunch of yellow “Contains HFCS” warning stickers that we could buy. Then, when we are in the stores, put it on a few bottles of stuff that contain it. Also, there could be green stickers that say “No HFCS!” that we could put on stuff that doesn’t have it.

    The HFCS industry would crap their pants we all started doing that. (sorry if this is a repeat).

  32. Alexander says:

    Not that I care either way, but can’t regular sugar cause all those things as well? Diabetes, obesity, heart disease?

  33. Amaras says:

    Seems like Captain Obvious is posting today… People like bacon, Processed liquid sugar is just as bad as sugar.

  34. Zowzers says:

    Wait… The test has only concluded that Fructose is bad. The only correlation back to High Fructose Corn Syrup is that it happens to have fructose in it.

    Ya know what else has fructose? Fruits, vegetables & honey. Better cut them out of your diet too.

    Example, HFCS used in soda is ~55% fructose…. the % of Fructose in an average apple… 56%

    Trying to find one Boogieman to blame all of our health woes on is silly, when the real problem is lack of moderation.

    • Sunflower1970 says:

      Fructose and HIGH fructose corn syrup are two very different beasts. And they do get confused quite often.

      Here’s a wiki entry on fructose which explains some of differences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose

      • Zowzers says:

        Pardon my squirrely ignorance, but are you actually trying to tell me that the sugar known as fructose, by its self, is not the same Monosaccharide as the fructose found in High fructose corn syrup? A syrup made of fructose and glucose?

        So… just Fructose isn’t Fructose if you suspend it in a solution with glucose? Wow,I think you just broke chemistry.

    • Gtmac says:

      Except that HFCS has so permeated the food supply (not mine, but on average) that moderation of food portions doesn’t necessarily equate to moderation of Fructose. One can have moderate portions of common foods and still over-consume Fructose.

  35. Outrun1986 says:

    It seems to be common sense if you jack up someone on sugar or HFCS that they will gain weight, I think we need a bigger study and what were their diets like before they started the study? If you have someone who ate mostly organic foods and fruits and vegetables and then started jacking them up with sugar and HFCS of course they are going to gain weight.

    HFCS is in everything but there are a lot of things its not in, the fact that it is in most kinds of bread unless you scrutinize heavily is the most disturbing as pretty much every American reaches for a loaf of bread and some like me eat a lot of bread. You don’t expect HFCS to be in whole grain bread that is labeled as healthy either. I have found a source of bread that doesn’t contain HFCS but bread as I stated is a staple item.

    Surprisingly most chocolate does not actually contain HFCS but you find more HFCS in the bread on the grocery store shelves… go figure. Its easier for me to find a non-HFCS chocolate bar than it is a non HFCS loaf of bread. I have found a source of non HFCS bread but it was not easy.

    • AlfredaCosta says:

      There’s an explanation for that…liquid sugars, like honey, agave nectar, and HFCS have properties that keep baked goods moist and they taste fresher longer. You don’t want that moisture in a chocolate bar. Thus, HFCS in baked goods, not in chocolate…

  36. sybann says:

    Read your labels and cook your own food. I’ve turned into a weekend chef so I can eat breakfast lunch and dinner prepared by someone I know (me) so I know exactly (pretty much) what I am consuming.

  37. Mr-Mr says:

    That has been my arguments for years. I love corn. But, unless the word “corn” is part of the name of the meal, I don’t want it in it. “Corn dog” fine. “Corn Flakes” fine. However, don’t call it “sugary” snack and drinks when it’s sweetened by corn. We already have enough corn in our foods in the form of starch in order to add volume and texture. Corn has been fed to animals for centuries for a reason, because it fattens them pretty well.

    Also, did we really need to switch to corn and convert it into ethanol to fuel our cars?

  38. axiomatic says:

    Speaking as a Type 2 diabetic whose doctor lays the blame squarely at the feet of HFCS and a desire as a kid to drink anything other than water, I can believe in this recent analysis.

  39. CaptZ says:

    No shit……

  40. ConsumerWolf says:

    Ok, just read the study. Not very worried now. Participants were all obese, so already predisposed to heart problems and diabetes, AND participants’ diets were 25% high fructose corn syrup. This seems unreasonably high. If the same results are obtained with a normal sample and a level of HFCS consumption that is realistic, then I’ll begin to worry.

    • majortom1981 says:

      The study also says fructose not high fructose corn syrup. Since sugar has fructose in it also that would be bad also. Even other derivatibes with fructose in it are bad also.

    • Danj3ris says:

      This doesn’t seem unreasonably high to me. Take a look at the ingredients in many of your typical household food items. Unless you’re actively trying to watch your high fructose corn syrup intake, expect it to be in far more than you would have thought.

      My newest discovery: Ketchup.

  41. Red_Eye says:

    its cheap cause the corn lobby got imports of other sugar products cut and tarrifed to hell

  42. Ubernostrom says:

    The fact is it is the same as regular sugar, it’s just highly concentrated. Eating a ton of regular sugar will make you fat too. HFCS isn’t bad for you in moderation, the same as anything else.

  43. AlfredaCosta says:

    One final note–the “child diabetes blamed on food sweetener”–I’m not sure if it needs to be pointed out to the fine readers here at Consumerist or not, but the diabetes they are referring to is Type 2 diabetes appearing in children.

    This is not Type 1 diabetes, commonly known as “juvenile” diabetes. (But note that Type 1 can occur in either adults or children.) Type 1- pancreas stops working. Type 2 – insulin resistance. Very different.

  44. Brazell says:

    The lulz in these two stories side by side are two epic to pass up:

    http://aviary.com/creation?fguid=1f38479c-3c9c-102d-80b9-0030488e168c

    Story 1: “High fructose corn syrup may cause obesity, diabetes, heart disease.”
    Story 2: “People love Bacon.”

  45. obfusciatrist says:

    Here’s the full study if you’re interested in reading it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/

    While it does provide an argument against fructose over sucrose it says nothing at all about HFCS over regular sugar. In fact, to the extent it comments at all on such a comparison it is to note that regular sugar and HFCS have been equally bad in other studies they’ve done.

    From the “Fructose and public health” section of the published study:

    “While this study was designed to compare the biological effects of glucose and fructose consumption on lipid and carbohydrate metabolism, the potential implications of the results on public health is of interest. Foods and beverages in the US are typically sweetened with sucrose (50% glucose and 50% fructose) or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is usually 45%–58% glucose and 42%–55% fructose, rather than pure glucose or fructose. We have reported in a short-term study that the 23-hour postprandial TG profiles in male subjects consuming 25% energy as HFCS (55% fructose) or sucrose were elevated to a degree similar to that observed when pure fructose–sweetened beverages were consumed.”

  46. HIcycles says:

    I guess the question is, what is a high level of fructose? Is it within what people normally eat, way above, what? And remember, HFCS is not all fructose. it’s only about half (i think between 45 and 55%). Anyhow, whatever. I don’t eat much processed stuff to begin with.

  47. Beth@IDblog says:

    This has just been hashed over on Grist. One of the study authors commented extensively on the flaws in the media piece:

    http://www.grist.org/article/draft-new-research-links-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-diabetes-heart-diseas#c279652

    Another good point re the economics of fructose can be found on the Daily Bread:

    http://scribe.thebigmoney.com/blogs/daily-bread/2009/12/17/media-gets-stuck-high-fructose-corn-syrup

  48. Daily Prandium says:

    Citation! I need it!

  49. ehrgeiz says:

    Yeah the stuff is crazy, I quit drinking soda and dropped 10 pounds in a week.

  50. Naame says:

    You know…Consumerreports also posted two articles contains details of studies which more or less chalked up high fructose corn syrup to being very similar to white sugar where instake of the substance in excess leads to bad health conditions over time but when taken in moderation the risks are either negligible or unclear

    Here are links to those articles for those who are interested:

    http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2008/10/high-fructose-c.html

    http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2009/11/high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-liver-damage-risks-of-high-fructose-corn-syrup-obesity-epidemic.html?EXTKEY=I91ECON&CMP=OTC-ConsumeristLinks

    I am personally siding with the idea that moderation is key, but the I believe the truth is that no one has come close to proving that HFCR is nearly as bad as many activists claim that it is.

    • Outrun1986 says:

      Its probably ok in MODERATION, but in the US its in everything, including a lot of places where you don’t expect to find it so its very difficult to moderate. Much of the population is probably consuming a lot more HFCS than they think they are since its in everything. The only way to moderate it is to intentionally moderate it by reading the labels on everything you are consuming. Things that are labeled as good for you and healthy often still contain HFCS, I remember someone here saying once that they found HFCS in baby carrots.

      I am suspecting a lot of foods contain just a little HFCS especially when its listed on the bottom of the ingredients list, some even say contains less than 2% of ingredient x. This is a lot different than something like regular soda, pancake syrup or ketchup where HFCS would be the first ingredient on the list which means the product is mostly HFCS.

  51. Daily Prandium says:

    the citations for folks who have access to journals:

    Am J Clin Nutr 2008 88 suppl 1733S–7S
    J Clin Endocrinol Metab May 2009 94 5 1562–1569
    J Clin Invest 119 1322–1334 2009 doi 10 1172 JCI37385
    J Nutr 139 1236S–1241S 2009

  52. majortom1981 says:

    This article states fructose. Sugar has fructose in it too . So the post is wrong when states just high fructose corn syrup.

  53. NewsMuncher says:

    “Barry Popkin, professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina, and a US government adviser on health policy,… “
    spelled with an ‘i’ instead of an ‘e’…

  54. BytheSea says:

    Obv more testing and replication of results needs to be done, but I hope these results will out. It all depends on how they picked their very small sample size.

  55. brendolonius says:

    I understand that high fructose corn syrup is bad for you, my question is, is it any worse for you than a similar amount of sugar?
    I think that’s my main question is that I know it’s slightly different than sugar, but aren’t they both pretty equally bad for you? the amount of glucose your body processes from both is pretty similar, so I’ve always wondered that

  56. krownd says:

    HAHAHA, why does this even matter? Apparently everything around us can kill us. Cell phone signals, microwave radiation, hand sanitizer causes cancer, every type of food we put in our mouth causes some kind of negative effect. We’re all doomed to die, we might as well enjoy our favorite food.

  57. G00MAN says:

    OMG!!! 16 people?!! My, how scientific.

  58. Danj3ris says:

    Well.. Duh!

    Now try your best to avoid this stuff in your diet as if it were the plague. THAT is where the fun TRULY begins!

  59. satoru says:

    I wish they would actually link to the study. The problem is the fact they say one group used ‘glucose sugar’. This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Regular table sugar, is one fructose molecule and one glucose molecule bonded together. HFCS has different blends but it generally ranges from 40-60 to 50-50 blends, where the only difference is that the molecules of fructose and glucose are unbonded. ‘high fructose’ is more of a relative term, instead of it being like 90% or 100% fructose like most people seem to think.

    It would be interesting if they tested table sugar vs HFCS and found this link, since from a purely molecular level they’re basically identical, other than having to break the bond between the molecules in table sugar. It’s a great ‘scary’ headline, but without the study it’s not clear if this ‘glucose sugar’ is even something most people come into contact with.

  60. Ben says:

    Really odd to see this entry right above the “Bacon’s so great” story… Bacon’s much worse than corn syrup, you know.

  61. wkm001 says:

    I don’t need anymore proof. As a white male at 31 statistically I had a very low chance of getting diabetes. And yes, I was very overweight. But just after a few weeks of changing how I eat and losing weight my diabetes went away. Meaning, no longer on medication to control my blood sugar. In total I lost 115 pounds and stopped eating HFCS and hydrogenated oils.

    While two factors are involved, change in my diet and weight loss. My diet changed much faster than I lost the weight. I was only on medication for 14 days after my diabetes diagnosis. My A1C was over 10 at the time of diagnosis, now it is 4.7 – 4.8, 1.5 years later.

  62. fxsoap says:

    Why even exchange SUGAR for a synthesized crap version? Stupid.

  63. CapitalC says:

    Why wasn’t this one filed under “ORLY”?

  64. SphinxRB says:

    Ketchup, buy Heinz Reduced Sugar. No HFCS, and low regular sugar. I think it tastes better than regular Heinz, and it’s thicker too.
    Always read labels. I wanted to try some new Ritz Crisps that just came out, they too had HFCS, so I put it back and will not ever buy.
    Don’t buy anything with HFCS, or anthing with the word Hydrogenated. If you didn’t know, a prodcuct can say Trans Fat Free, and label it as Zero Trans Fats, even though it has .5 per serving. Eat 4 Oreos and you may have eaten 2 Grams of Trans Fat.