NY Times: Fructose Consumption linked to Visceral Fat

AnninStPaul

Risks: Fructose Intake Is Linked to Visceral Fat
By NICHOLAS BAKALAR
The health effects of fructose consumption, largely from high-fructose corn syrup, have been the subject of considerable controversy among scientists and consumers alike. Now a study in the February issue of The Journal of Nutrition reports that fructose consumption may increase cardiovascular risk factors because it increases visceral fat, the kind that accumulates around internal organs.

Researchers examined 559 14- to 18-year-olds in Georgia, recording body mass index, exercise habits and fat mass. They also asked what the students had consumed in the past 24 hours and measured their body fat.

After controlling for other factors, the researchers found that higher fructose consumption was associated with increased systolic blood pressure, C-reactive protein (a sign of systemic inflammation) and visceral fat, and reduced HDL (good) cholesterol — all known risks for cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes.

But when they controlled for visceral fat, the effect of fructose alone was weakened. It was apparently not fructose itself, but its tendency to increase visceral fat that led to a rise in risk factors.

“To just say ‘fructose is bad’ is incorrect,” said Norman K. Pollock, the lead author and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Georgia Health Sciences University. “But when calorie intake from fructose is greater than 16 percent of total intake, we’re seeing these risk factors appear.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/health/research/fructose-consumption-increases-visceral-fat-study-reports.html?ref=health


(Note that a 12oz can of Coca Cola, sweetened with HFCS, has 140 calories. For me, that would be ~10% of my daily intake.)

tequila09

Does this include fructose from fruit?

AnninStPaul

Does this include fructose from fruit?

I would think so...it looks like the dried and canned varieties are the worst offenders (which matches their calorie density).

http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-000011000000000000000.html

At this site, grapes are the highest fresh fruit on the list, at 23g fructose per 150g serving. For me, assuming all of the calories in the grapes are from fructose, eating one cup would result in 7.5% of my daily caloric intake coming from fructose.

So perhaps there is such a thing as eating too much fruit.

badgerbadger1

I'd like to see a longitudinal study done. Also, it's still a correlation, not causation. There's no way they could control for every other factor involved. I think this study serves as an opener to further research.

Not that I have any doubt that HFCS is of the devil.

AnninStPaul

I'd like to see a longitudinal study done. Also, it's still a correlation, not causation. There's no way they could control for every other factor involved. I think this study serves as an opener to further research.

Not that I have any doubt that HFCS is of the devil.

Agreed!

loseweightjames

“To just say ‘fructose is bad’ is incorrect,” said Norman K. Pollock, the lead author and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Georgia Health Sciences University. “But when calorie intake from fructose is greater than 16 percent of total intake, we’re seeing these risk factors appear.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/health/research/fructose-consumption-increases-visceral-fat-study-reports.html?ref=health


(Note that a 12oz can of Coca Cola, sweetened with HFCS, has 140 calories. For me, that would be ~10% of my daily intake.)

If a can of coke is 10% of your daily HFCS amount and they said greater than 16% is bad then I'd say ANY amount is bad. It's very hard not to each HFCS now days.

Reminds me of that Saturday Night Live Sketch:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/corn-syrup-commercial/1313759

pinuplove

Not surprised. Of course anyone can find anything supporting their point if view on the interwebz these days. However, I have seen enough consensus about HFCS (or are they calling it 'corn sugar' now ) to convince me to work on cutting it out of my diet. Dr Pepper was a huge contributer for me. I've had an average of one a week this month, but I'm ready to ditch it altogether. I usually do limit my fruit to one or two a day, not because I think fruit is evil, but because I feel a lot better when I keep my sugar lower.

tameko2

HFCS is a mixture of fructose and glucose actually.

The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in beverages, processed foods, cereals and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose.[5][6] HFCS-90, approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose, is used in small quantities for specialty applications, but primarily is used to blend with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55.[7]

So a can of coke is not 10% of your caloric intake in high fructose but 2 cans would be.

tameko2

errr that middle paragraph was a copy-paste from wikipedia. Credit where credit is due.

AnninStPaul

It is hard to avoid -- I gave up all artificial sweeteners, including HFCS, about five years ago. HFCS is at the top of the ingredient list for Campbell's tomato soup, most ketchup, many salad dressings and sauces, "juices" (cranberry cocktail? no thanks...), cough syrup, ice cream....

HCFS is evil.

Acg67

HCFS is evil.

Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain't
http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/6/1716S.full

CONCLUSIONS

The hypothesis that HFCS is a unique cause of obesity is not supportable in the United States or elsewhere, and the reasons are clear:

HFCS has the same sugars composition as other "benign" fructose-glucose sweeteners such as sucrose, honey, and fruit juice concentrates and dietary sources such as fruits and juices;
Increased caloric intake since 1970 was not due to added sugars (including HFCS) but rather was due to increased consumption of all caloric nutrients, especially fats and flour and cereals;
HFCS is consumed in equal amounts with sucrose in the United States, but at <10% of the amount of sucrose worldwide;
Fructose-glucose sweeteners are metabolized through the same pathways regardless of dietary source;
Although pure fructose can cause metabolic upsets at high concentrations and in the absence of glucose, such experiments are irrelevant for HFCS, which is not consumed at extreme high levels and contains both fructose and glucose;
There is no longer an association between HFCS and obesity in the United States: per capita consumption of HFCS has declined in recent years, whereas obesity rates continue to rise; and
There is absolutely no association between HFCS use and worldwide obesity; HFCS is really a minor sweetener in the global perspective.

No one would disagree that HFCS as a caloric ingredient can lead to weight gain if products sweetened with it are consumed to excess. After all, the same may be said for all caloric ingredients, such as fats, protein, alcohol, and other carbohydrates. But there is absolutely no proof that HFCS acts in any exclusive manner to promote obesity. It is time to retire the hypothesis that HFCS is uniquely responsible for obesity. (Other articles in this supplement to the Journal include references 34-37.)

GigiBee824

Thanks for the article, Acg67.