High Fructose Corn Syrup vs. Good 'Ole Sugar

Posted July 12th, 2007 by Brian Zehetner

A study just came out looking at HFCS and sugar and their effects on hunger, satiety (fullness) and short-term energy intake....

The study was partly sponsored by the Corn Refiner's Association and had 37 folks consume cola beverages sweetened with sucrose (table sugar), 42% HFCS, or 55% HFCS. These were compared to 3 controls: 1% milk, diet cola and no beverage. No differences were found in hunger, satiety, perceived sweetness and subsequent energy intake at lunch. All of the caloric drinks partially suppressed appetite at lunch, and the authors concluded that a calorie from HFCS is no different than a calorie from sugar or milk.

HFCS has been under the gun with the rising obesity epidemic, with some research indicating that it might enhance fat gain because of how the body handles it (possibly as a result of its fructose content). In addition, epidemiologic studies have linked sweetened beverages with obesity. Truth be told, HFCS is incredibly similar to sugar...a statement that is strengthened by the study above.

I think the debate will continue on this one, though the study is interesting!!

Brian

Bookmark/Search this post with:

great post!

On July 12th, 2007 will_i_am says:

In my opinion, a study of 37 people, isnt' much of a study to prove or disprove anything.
I dont know what the Corn Refiner's Association is in fact, but to me it kinda sounds like people involved and perhaps biased towards the HFCS since it's made from Corn and if the study proved false, they would help boost profits..

What do you think brian? Am i way off ;) lol.

then again. just my $.2

~WiLL~
"Chest up, shoulders back. Head in line with your body."

I agree

On July 13th, 2007 Dan says:

I agree with Will, this study is not much of a study.

#1 the size of the test group is statistically insignificant
#2 satiety response is highly subjective
#3 the amount of sugar in pop is already so ridiculously high, it would be difficult to measure the perceived differences (although these are again, subjective qualities)

Also note that these studies were funded by the the American Beverage Institute AND the Corn Refiners Association.

Notwithstanding though, I don't think the blame for obesity can be laid at the feet of HFCS. As the old adage goes: If you drink 150 calories of sugar (one can of pop) every day and you don't burn it off, you're going to gain approximately 10lbs a year.

What do you think though Brian? Is there enough significant, scientifically gathered evidence to support the case against HFCS?

HFCS vs. Sugar

On July 14th, 2007 Brian Zehetner says:

Hey Guys,

A couple issues regarding your comments...

The N or "sample size" of a study is primarily determined by the number of subjects used in previous studies that have tested the same investigative problem. Thus, 37 subjects doesn't make this study invalid, unreliable or inaccurate. Don't forget...most studies looking at sports supplements and performance variables use anywhere from 10-30 subjects on average...many use about half the number used in this particular study. Go to Pubmed and look for protein studies or glutamine studies or any supplement ingredient and you'll see what I'm talking about. When studies on leucine kinetics or arginine pathways are done, muscle biopsies are often used...and they aren't doing this invasive work on hundreds of subjects!!!

Also, just because something is funded by an agency that may have a vested interest in the product, it doesn't mean that the research is questionable. Now do we like to see other independent agencies duplicate this research...of course. But remember, most studies on the drugs all of us take when we're sick are generally funded by the companies themselves. It takes about 800 million dollars to get a drug to market--the government is not paying that, that's for sure!!
Gatorade does research on their products, Bayer does research on their products and the Beef Council does research on beef, but as long as the funding sources are disclosed...I'm fine with it!! Plus, because this was on the newswire, a number of well-repsected researchers have access to this study. Plus, it goes through peer-review before being published.

In terms of HFCS itself...
Apparently a Dr. Lustig of UCSF is going to be publishing evidence that HFCS plays a significant role in insulin resistance, but I don't know yet if it is more pronounced than the effect of sugar. I guess we'll have to wait and see...
I do know that HFCS and sugar are very similar chemically, so that's why the study above makes sense from a theoretical standpoint. Ultimately, you find people on both sides of the fence. I do get irritated though when I see someone avoid HFCS like the plague, but they don't have a problem eating the french fries at the local fast food joint. I've actually seen this!!!

I'll probably do a comprehensive article on this issue, highlighting some of the research showing more adverse lab concerns (cholesterol, triglycerides) as a result of HFCS intake, along with other research as above (which shows it in a less negative light)...

Brian

Brian Zehetner MS,RD,CSSD,CSCS