HFCS, Sugar, and the Princeton Study

determined_14
determined_14 Posts: 258 Member
edited November 17 in Food and Nutrition
Apparently today is sugar day on MFP! Bouncing around the forums and reading some of the fascinating links, I came across this summary of a study done at Princeton:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
I don't know how to access the actual study, and I thought this piece was a little light on the details (caloric intake, etc.), but it still made me scratch my head. I believe in CICO, and I know that rats are not people. But does anyone have an explanation for why a group of rats consuming HFCS would gain so much more weight than those consuming sugar, on identical caloric intakes?
Thanks in advance! :)

Replies

  • lynndot1
    lynndot1 Posts: 114 Member
    edited April 2015
    It certainly caused a lot of debate/stir when it came out. I haven't read it myself, but I do know a lot of the major criticism is the inconsistency with the rat's diets, timing of feed, study design, etc.

    It doesn't seem like much, but if they were over or underestimating calories consumed by even a little, it starts to belittle the results of their study.

    Anyway, someone wrote a long critique about the study here, if you want to read another side of it: http://where-is-the-beef.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-high-fructose-corn-syrup-hfcs-eviler_22.html he focuses pretty heavily on the problems of the design of the study itself. If you aren't familiar with statistics or study design in general I'm not sure how much you'll get out of all of it haha, but it's a good read. If you have any questions about the stats he mentions I can answer what I can (tomorrow, going to bed haha), biostatistics is about the only thing I can explain very well haha.

    Edit: Here is the full study if you want it http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/HFCS_Rats_10.pdf
  • determined_14
    determined_14 Posts: 258 Member
    Thanks, I'll check these out! I felt sure there must be some other factors at play, rather than "HFCS makes you pack on fat!" But I like to keep an open mind and really explore different angles. :)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Articles worth looking at:

    http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/03/hfcs-makes-rats-fat/

    http://where-is-the-beef.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-high-fructose-corn-syrup-hfcs-eviler_22.html
  • TahoeSki
    TahoeSki Posts: 69 Member
    The body doesn't register HFCS as sugar and thus it can't be processed by insulin-- instead it has to be cleaned up by the liver like other toxins. In order to process it, the liver actually has to produce fat and triglycerides. Not sure if all that makes you gain weight but it certainly is not good for you.
  • LoupGarouTFTs
    LoupGarouTFTs Posts: 916 Member
    TahoeSki wrote: »
    The body doesn't register HFCS as sugar and thus it can't be processed by insulin-- instead it has to be cleaned up by the liver like other toxins. In order to process it, the liver actually has to produce fat and triglycerides. Not sure if all that makes you gain weight but it certainly is not good for you.

    Peer-reviewed articles, please.
  • lynndot1
    lynndot1 Posts: 114 Member
    TahoeSki wrote: »
    The body doesn't register HFCS as sugar and thus it can't be processed by insulin-- instead it has to be cleaned up by the liver like other toxins. In order to process it, the liver actually has to produce fat and triglycerides. Not sure if all that makes you gain weight but it certainly is not good for you.
    yikes. Sounds scary if it were true...

    http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/236.full

    "Research studies since the 2004 AJCN article have also refuted the idea that HFCS is metabolically different from sucrose (15, 34–36). Studies published from our research group demonstrated that acute responses to HFCS and sucrose are virtually identical with regard to glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and appetite in both normal weight (34) and obese (37) women. Studies by Stanhope et al. (36) showed findings similar to those that we reported in both men and women and also demonstrated no difference in postprandial triglycerides after consumption of either HFCS or sucrose at 25% of energy (36). Studies by Soenen and Westerterp-Plantenga (35) showed no differences in satiety or energy intake after HFCS, sucrose, or milk preloads."
  • determined_14
    determined_14 Posts: 258 Member
    I read all the links posted here. Thanks everyone-- good stuff! (I love how nerdy this community is! ;) ) It sounds like someone needs to run this study again, a bit more carefully.
  • spoonyspork
    spoonyspork Posts: 238 Member
    lynndot1 wrote: »
    TahoeSki wrote: »
    The body doesn't register HFCS as sugar and thus it can't be processed by insulin-- instead it has to be cleaned up by the liver like other toxins. In order to process it, the liver actually has to produce fat and triglycerides. Not sure if all that makes you gain weight but it certainly is not good for you.
    yikes. Sounds scary if it were true...

    http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/236.full

    "Research studies since the 2004 AJCN article have also refuted the idea that HFCS is metabolically different from sucrose (15, 34–36). Studies published from our research group demonstrated that acute responses to HFCS and sucrose are virtually identical with regard to glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and appetite in both normal weight (34) and obese (37) women. Studies by Stanhope et al. (36) showed findings similar to those that we reported in both men and women and also demonstrated no difference in postprandial triglycerides after consumption of either HFCS or sucrose at 25% of energy (36). Studies by Soenen and Westerterp-Plantenga (35) showed no differences in satiety or energy intake after HFCS, sucrose, or milk preloads."

    The only real 'problem' I've seen since HFCS has started being used a lot more: it seems either a lot MORE ends up being added vs other sugars, or sucralose and/or stevia has started being added on top. Not sure why this is happening, but it drives me batty cause most sweetened things I already find too sweet, and sucralose and stevia are *gross* and have no business being added to already sweet things not specifically for people trying to avoid sugars...

    (also for the person being quoted by you: both fructose and glucose are processed in the liver. Fructose just goes through an additional step(s) of being converted partially to glucose and partially to other things that are also needed by the body to function. So saying HFCS is bad because it's processed in the liver is kind of moot. The liver does a LOT more than just filter 'toxins' and something being processed in the liver doesn't automatically make it a toxin XD)
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,024 Member
    TahoeSki wrote: »
    The body doesn't register HFCS as sugar and thus it can't be processed by insulin-- instead it has to be cleaned up by the liver like other toxins. In order to process it, the liver actually has to produce fat and triglycerides. Not sure if all that makes you gain weight but it certainly is not good for you.
    Unfortunately this is inaccurate information. Please link a peer reviewed clinical study supporting this if you have it. If you just heard it, then the source you heard it from is incorrect.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • dieselbyte
    dieselbyte Posts: 733 Member
    TahoeSki wrote: »
    The body doesn't register HFCS as sugar and thus it can't be processed by insulin-- instead it has to be cleaned up by the liver like other toxins. In order to process it, the liver actually has to produce fat and triglycerides. Not sure if all that makes you gain weight but it certainly is not good for you.

    Um, no...
This discussion has been closed.

Categories