Cutting out High-Fructose Corn Syrup--has anyone?

http://uctv.tv/shows/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth-16717

If you're worried about how it affects your weight, satiety, and health, then you should cut down on all added sugar, not just HFCS. Fruit gets a pass from Dr. Lustig (famous for the above video). But fruit juice is a no according to him.

Many people think he's an alarmist, but he's a pediatric endocrinologist with credentials in diabetes research reviews (he and another author tied up causation between increased consumption of sugar in populations with increased rates of diabetes in those populations). I'll listen to him before some random internet poster who will come tell you sugar is fine in all forms and quantities. Your opinion may vary. Do your own reading and lecture watching, make up your own mind.

Alan Aragon debated him.....judge for yourselves....


http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/


http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

The man knows his stuff. But he trains elite athletes. Look around you, how many people qualify and therefore probably don't have to worry about excess sugar consumption?

Ad hominem.

Judge the data and the arguments, not the source. Lustig is a moron, and Aragon ate him for lunch.

Not an ad hominem at all. He simply works with people who are far from the typical American.

I don't know if you can out exercise a bad diet, but I can't, and believe me, I tried!

LOL. So we're adding strawmen too, I see.

I see you don't want to consider the issue, you just want to attempt to run me around in pointless circles. You wont' succeed.

If you can out exercise a bad diet (i.e. a lot of added sugar in this case) and if you're convinced added sugar isn't a problem for you despite it causing a rise in diabetes in populations, fine. Eat up.

Strawman. Nobody said you could out exercise a bad diet.

But if you're convinced it doesn't cause that rise in diabetes at all, I'd like to see some evidence. Even if I could out exercise a bad diet (and this is after all in large part a weight loss forum so it's relevant to our interests) the diabetes link would give me pause.



http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/02/13591/quantity-sugar-food-supply-linked-diabetes-rates

The rise in diabetes is linked to an excess of CALORIES, not just sugar. Please show me any evidence of a link to diabetes in a caloric balance (or deficit).

In addition, the food industry seems to want us to continue to consume excess calories largely coming from sugars they add to their foods, then get home from work and burn them off so we don't suffer from obesity related disease and/or sugar consumption related disease.

Even if we could out exercise a bad diet and remain healthy with high added sugar consumption, I find it presumptuous of them to assume none of us has anything better to do than work out for two hours every day if that is not our natural enjoyable inclination.

Another strawman. Nobody is recommending this.

Yes, that is exactly what food companies are attempting to push on us. Don't worry about added sugar and exercise more.


And the study shows added sugar calories is the cause, not just added calories.

Another article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0057873

Abstract

While experimental and observational studies suggest that sugar intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, independent of its role in obesity, it is unclear whether alterations in sugar intake can account for differences in diabetes prevalence among overall populations. Using econometric models of repeated cross-sectional data on diabetes and nutritional components of food from 175 countries, we found that every 150 kcal/person/day increase in sugar availability (about one can of soda/day) was associated with increased diabetes prevalence by 1.1% (p <0.001) after testing for potential selection biases and controlling for other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. No other food types yielded significant individual associations with diabetes prevalence after controlling for obesity and other confounders. The impact of sugar on diabetes was independent of sedentary behavior and alcohol use, and the effect was modified but not confounded by obesity or overweight. Duration and degree of sugar exposure correlated significantly with diabetes prevalence in a dose-dependent manner, while declines in sugar exposure correlated with significant subsequent declines in diabetes rates independently of other socioeconomic, dietary and obesity prevalence changes. Differences in sugar availability statistically explain variations in diabetes prevalence rates at a population level that are not explained by physical activity, overweight or obesity.

http://uctv.tv/shows/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth-16717

If you're worried about how it affects your weight, satiety, and health, then you should cut down on all added sugar, not just HFCS. Fruit gets a pass from Dr. Lustig (famous for the above video). But fruit juice is a no according to him.

Many people think he's an alarmist, but he's a pediatric endocrinologist with credentials in diabetes research reviews (he and another author tied up causation between increased consumption of sugar in populations with increased rates of diabetes in those populations). I'll listen to him before some random internet poster who will come tell you sugar is fine in all forms and quantities. Your opinion may vary. Do your own reading and lecture watching, make up your own mind.

Alan Aragon debated him.....judge for yourselves....


http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/


http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

The man knows his stuff. But he trains elite athletes. Look around you, how many people qualify and therefore probably don't have to worry about excess sugar consumption?

Ad hominem.

Judge the data and the arguments, not the source. Lustig is a moron, and Aragon ate him for lunch.

Not an ad hominem at all. He simply works with people who are far from the typical American.

I don't know if you can out exercise a bad diet, but I can't, and believe me, I tried!

LOL. So we're adding strawmen too, I see.

I see you don't want to consider the issue, you just want to attempt to run me around in pointless circles. You wont' succeed.

If you can out exercise a bad diet (i.e. a lot of added sugar in this case) and if you're convinced added sugar isn't a problem for you despite it causing a rise in diabetes in populations, fine. Eat up.

Strawman. Nobody said you could out exercise a bad diet.

But if you're convinced it doesn't cause that rise in diabetes at all, I'd like to see some evidence. Even if I could out exercise a bad diet (and this is after all in large part a weight loss forum so it's relevant to our interests) the diabetes link would give me pause.



http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/02/13591/quantity-sugar-food-supply-linked-diabetes-rates

The rise in diabetes is linked to an excess of CALORIES, not just sugar. Please show me any evidence of a link to diabetes in a caloric balance (or deficit).

In addition, the food industry seems to want us to continue to consume excess calories largely coming from sugars they add to their foods, then get home from work and burn them off so we don't suffer from obesity related disease and/or sugar consumption related disease.

Even if we could out exercise a bad diet and remain healthy with high added sugar consumption, I find it presumptuous of them to assume none of us has anything better to do than work out for two hours every day if that is not our natural enjoyable inclination.

Another strawman. Nobody is recommending this.

Yes, that is exactly what food companies are attempting to push on us. Don't worry about added sugar and exercise more.


And the study shows added sugar calories is the cause, not just added calories.

Another article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0057873

Abstract

While experimental and observational studies suggest that sugar intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, independent of its role in obesity, it is unclear whether alterations in sugar intake can account for differences in diabetes prevalence among overall populations. Using econometric models of repeated cross-sectional data on diabetes and nutritional components of food from 175 countries, we found that every 150 kcal/person/day increase in sugar availability (about one can of soda/day) was associated with increased diabetes prevalence by 1.1% (p <0.001) after testing for potential selection biases and controlling for other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. No other food types yielded significant individual associations with diabetes prevalence after controlling for obesity and other confounders. The impact of sugar on diabetes was independent of sedentary behavior and alcohol use, and the effect was modified but not confounded by obesity or overweight. Duration and degree of sugar exposure correlated significantly with diabetes prevalence in a dose-dependent manner, while declines in sugar exposure correlated with significant subsequent declines in diabetes rates independently of other socioeconomic, dietary and obesity prevalence changes. Differences in sugar availability statistically explain variations in diabetes prevalence rates at a population level that are not explained by physical activity, overweight or obesity.

Hilarious.

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0057873.g002&representation=PNG_I

Did the authors even understand basic statistics. That looks like r=.2 or less (very weak correlation). Do you have any supporting evidence that WASN'T authored by LOLstig?

Dr. Lustig and his colleague who did this research have the credentials and experience to do that research. What are yours again? Sorry if I can't take you as seriously as I do medical experts while you dismiss this with no counter evidence.

His critics (posted above) have credentials as well.

The vast majority of obesity researchers do not agree with Lustig's conclusions. Why do you insist on believing him and not them?


Putting this here again so you might actually address the actual arguments.



http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf

FTA

The major problem with this
book is that the story is incomplete and misleading. It also demonstrates the
author’s lack of understanding of many of the concepts that are presented.
Outlined below are several issues that call into question the veracity of
the information provided within the book. First, however, it is important
to consider the apparent author bias, conflicts of interest and inaccurate
conclusions that are evident throughout the book.

Source for your 'vast majority' claim please? I haven't read one single abstract countering the research review showing calories from sugar is causation for a rise in diabetes in populations.

Of course you haven't. It's a poorly designed study in a low-impact journal. Most researchers wouldn't be bothered with it.
Read the literature on diabetes causes, and Lustig is the sole voice demonizing sugar.

And we can add "shifting the burden of proof" to your list of logical fallacies. YOU made the claim, it's up to YOU to support it.

Got anyone other than LOLstig?

He is far from the sole person warning about excess sugar consumption. I watch lectures from nutritionists, researchers, and doctors almost daily discussing added sugar and diabetes, dementia, and satiety. Is it just sugar? Hell no. No one is saying it's just sugar. But it's a key component according to the people with the education and training to discuss it.

You remind me of the tobacco industry's attempts to divorce smoking from cancer. Oh, there's no absolute proof (when they know full well there almost never is in science), oh it's a witch hunt, oh it's a choice. Oh personal responsibility (while they targeted children, just as snack food companies do today).

Care to address any of the actual criticisms? Or are you going to just keep dancing around?

And please cite the "other researchers" who are pointing to sugar as a cause independent of caloric intake and/or obesity. I'm waiting.

I don't have the degree and training, I didn't do the research, I'm not dancing with you. Neither of us has the credentials.

Nor am I doing your research for you. Not when it's so easy for anyone to do. Just go to google and type in almost any combination of sugar processed food obesity dementia satiety metabolic lectures abstracts and if you want to just watch videos of lectures narrow the search to videos. You'll hit gold.

Edit: Also google scholar desperately needs a university sponsored lecture search. If it exists, I can't find it, but it would sure help with narrowing it down.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-fructose-corn-syrup/

"What does all this mean?:

So, what are the take-home messages from all of this?

HFCS 42 and HFCS 55 have essentially the same amount of fructose, as a fraction of their total sugar, as honey, sucrose (cane or beet sugar) or maple syrup/sugar (to be agonizingly precise, HFCS has slightly less, and HCFS 55 has slightly more).
HFCS 42 and HFCS 55 have an equal or smaller amount of fructose, as a fraction of their total sugar, as many commonly consumed fruits.
Agave syrup has higher fructose content than any type of HFCS except HFCS 90.

For people who are worried about their health or their children’s health — and who isn’t, these days — the data suggest that the best choice is to reduce intake of all sweeteners containing fructose. That includes not only the evil HFCS, but also natural cane sugar, molasses (which is just impure cane sugar), brown sugar (ditto) and honey. Even “unsweetened” (no added sugar) fruit juices need to be considered when limiting your family’s fructose intake.

Finally, the best nutritional advice is to eat everything in moderation — and that includes sweets. While a diet high in fructose may increase your risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease — maybe — a fructose-free diet is not guaranteed to prevent those diseases. Eat a variety of foods, including a small amount of sweets, get enough exercise, watch your (and your children’s) weight and see your doctor for regular health check-ups.

And stop worrying that HFCS is poisoning you and your children. "

Care to address any of the actual criticisms? Or are you going to just keep dancing around?

And please cite the "other researchers" who are pointing to sugar as a cause independent of caloric intake and/or obesity. I'm waiting.

I don't have the degree and training, I didn't do the research, I'm not dancing with you. Neither of us has the credentials.

Nor am I doing your research for you. Not when it's so easy for anyone to do. Just go to google and type in almost any combination of sugar processed food obesity dementia satiety metabolic lectures abstracts and if you want to just watch videos of lectures narrow the search to videos. You'll hit gold.

Yes. That's the beauty of the internet. Anyone can write a blog featuring their opinions.

Indeed. But not everyone can lecture at universities and colleges and get their work peer reviewed. Plenty of which exists. For anyone who wants to know more.

Care to address any of the actual criticisms? Or are you going to just keep dancing around?

And please cite the "other researchers" who are pointing to sugar as a cause independent of caloric intake and/or obesity. I'm waiting.

I don't have the degree and training, I didn't do the research, I'm not dancing with you. Neither of us has the credentials.

Nor am I doing your research for you. Not when it's so easy for anyone to do. Just go to google and type in almost any combination of sugar processed food obesity dementia satiety metabolic lectures abstracts and if you want to just watch videos of lectures narrow the search to videos. You'll hit gold.

Yes. That's the beauty of the internet. Anyone can write a blog featuring their opinions.

Indeed. But not everyone can lecture at universities and colleges and get their work peer reviewed. Plenty of which exists. For anyone who wants to know more.

Well, I know how bodies work. I know that sugar and carbs refill glycogen stores which are depleted by exercise. I know that sedentary people who consume sugar in excess are at risk for diabetes because their bodies simply have no use for the sugar. For optimal health everyone should be at a healthy weight for their height, moderately active and eating a balanced diet. None of this translates to "sugar is bad for you."

Do you consider stuff like bread, ketchup and tomato soup to be "processed foods"? I think they're pretty basic and natural, but the only way to get them without HFCS apparently is to buy an organic brand.

Technically, they are processed but that's a pretty broad term. Corn is heavily subsidized in this country (US) so high fructose corn syrup is very cheap for manufacturers to add to food to improve flavor. As others have said, I avoid it but am not a freak about it.

Let's talk about bread for a minute. Bread at its simplest is only flour, water, salt and yeast. The other things added to supermarket white bread are to make it fluffier, to cover up the bland flavor of cheap flour, and to give it a longer shelf life.

Bread is shockingly easy to make, especially if you already have a scale to measure the ingredients. You don't need to knead it. You don't need to "proof the yeast." You don't even need to know how to tell if it's done if you have a $4 instant thermometer.

Give me a holler if you want to know more about making bread.

I don't understand the point of cutting something from your diet when others who have freely admit, "I saw no benefits." But to each their own. Good luck to you.

well maybe, just maybe, we make decisions for ourselves? I made my decisions LONG before MFP.

I didn't try to cut it out… It just happened naturally based on my eating habits. No noticeable effects.

x2 (and it's not out completely, just minimized)

I also have fructose malabsorption, and I'm guessing a lot of the individuals that have replied and said cutting it out really improved their digestive system and energy levels probably have it too. It was diagnosed for me with a hydrogen breath test. Essentially what happens is the small intestines have trouble absorbing fructose (not sure if it's a transporter binding issue due to the stoichiometry of the molecule) and it travels on to the large intestine, also "dragging" some other nutrients with it. Gut flora then feed on the sugar, causing discomfort, bloating and gas. Glucose can aid the absorption of fructose, so foods the have these monomers in equal amounts might not be a problem, although it varies from person to person exactly how sensitive they are. ANYWAY, it seems like these arguments are very similar to those about gluten; some people will find that eliminating a food makes them feel better, and as long as they understand that there is a massive amount of variations about how individuals react to food, it'll be fine.