| |

High fructose corn syrup makes you fat

Byoliveridley

This well designed and well executed study provides rather conclusive proof that High Fructose Corn Syrup, the sweetener most commonly used in North America, makes you gain weight in a way not explained by calories alone. These rats gained more weight on HFCS compared to a sucrose (regular sugar) diet even though they were fed the same calories. The effect was seen in the short term and in the long term, and abdominal fat increased the most. Gut fat, if you did not know is related to the infamous metabolic syndrome, causing diabetes, hypertension, coronary disease, etc.

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) accounts for as much as 40% of caloric sweeteners used in the United States. Some studies have shown that short-term access to HFCS can cause increased body weight, but the findings are mixed. The current study examined both short- and long-term effects of HFCS on body weight, body fat, and circulating triglycerides. In Experiment 1, male Sprague–Dawley rats were maintained for short term (8 weeks) on (1) 12 h/day of 8% HFCS, (2) 12 h/day 10% sucrose, (3) 24 h/day HFCS, all with ad libitum rodent chow, or (4) ad libitum chow alone. Rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than animals given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same number of total calories, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose. In Experiment 2, the long-term effects of HFCS on body weight and obesogenic parameters, as well as gender differences, were explored. Over the course of 6 or 7 months, both male and female rats with access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than control groups. This increase in body weight with HFCS was accompanied by an increase in adipose fat, notably in the abdominal region, and elevated circulating triglyceride levels. Translated to humans, these results suggest that excessive consumption of HFCS may contribute to the incidence of obesity.

Miriam E. Bocarsly, Elyse S. Powell, Nicole M. Avena, Bartley G. Hoebel. High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristic of obesity in rats: Increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride levels. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 2010; DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2010.02.012

For a more layman friendly summary of the article, read the sciencedaily release.

Do reconsider your food habits to avoid HFCS. Note that this whole corn syrup boondongle is made possible by the US government’s insistence on providing billion dollar subsidies to its farmers to grow corn while imposing tariffs on cane sugar from the tropics to make it less attractive. Free trade, my A$$.

Thanks to Tom Laskawy at grist for the blog post.

Similar Posts

  • |

    Gaping Reminders of Aging and Crumbling Pipes – New York Times

    Byoliveridley

    Gaping Reminders of Aging and Crumbling Pipes – New York Times

    Local and state officials across the country say thousands of miles of century-old underground water and sewer lines are springing leaks, eroding and — in extreme cases — causing the ground above them to collapse. Though there is no master tally of sinkholes, there is consensus among civil engineers and water experts that things are getting worse.

    The Environmental Protection Agency has projected that unless cities invest more to repair and replace their water and sewer systems, nearly half of the water system pipes in the United States will be in poor, very poor or “life elapsed” status by 2020.

    Yes, sewers are unsexy, there’s no new fancy science involved. But water and sewer systems are the very basis of public health, and the biggest reason why Americans don’t die of sleeping sickness and dengue fever (or their subtropical equivalents) in large numbers evey year. People who want to cut taxes and limit government need to keep this in mind. There’s no money to be made out of building and maintaining sewers, it’s a dirty job and government has to do it, or else nobody will, and money is required. We produce the waste, we need to be taxed appropriately for it. It’s that simple.

  • American feed makers used melamine as well

    Byoliveridley

    Well, turns out all that China baiting was for naught, because right in America’s heartland, Ohio, some feed manufacturer was using melamine as a binding agent.

    Melamine From U.S. Put in Feed – New York Times

    Ever since pet food contaminated with an industrial chemical was traced to shipments of wheat flour from China, American officials have concentrated on cracking down on imports.

    It turns out the problem was closer to home, too.

    Yesterday, federal officials announced that a manufacturing plant in Ohio was using the same banned substance, melamine, to make binding agents that ended up in feed for farmed fish, shrimp and livestock.

    Apparently, it is Tembec, a Canadian company with a plant in Ohio. I am sure the effects to humans are not significant, but where’s the control? Where’s the list of things you can’t put in food. More importantly, where’s the list of things you’re allowed to put in? Food being a very easy mode of pollutant ingestion, the ingredients list must be exclusionary, that is, only approved ingredients are allowed. If something is not approved, it is not allowed…

  • |

    Sugar Pills, now more effective!

    Byoliveridley

    Well, all sugar is not bad for you. Apparently, when given to you in pill form by someone wearing a white coat with a pleasant demeanour, it can cure all kinds of ills.

    It’s not that the old meds are getting weaker, drug developers say. It's as if the placebo effect is somehow getting stronger.The fact that an increasing number of medications are unable to beat sugar pills has thrown the industry into crisis. The stakes could hardly be higher. In today's economy, the fate of a long-established company can hang on the outcome of a handful of tests.

    Via Wired

    An interesting article that takes the reader through a recent history of placebos, why they seem to work better now than they used to, and tangentially, why the competitive research paradigm of the pharmaceutical industry delayed recognition, and continues to delay possible fixes and therapies.

    A few things about the placebo effect:

    1. There appears to be a physiological and neurological basis to the effect, something that can actually be turned off by deactivating the body’s natural production of opioids.
    2. This effect is triggered by various patient stimuli, including exposure to advertising, faith in the medicine, doctor bedside manner, etc. It appears that for minor ailments, these effects could be as strong as the medication prescribed.
    3. It is not short lived, the effects can linger well after consumption of sugar pills.
    4. Despite all this, the article states that we are no closer to finding the most appropriate way to administer placebos (Hmm, or are we? Read on!).

    Pharmaceutical companies conduct hundreds of clinical trials every year. They are not required to publish them in most countries, so negative results, failures, etc. which reflect badly on the company’s stock price are routinely hushed up. This means that the mounds of data that show tested drugs as no better than placebo are not accessible for research. This is one of the greatest drawbacks of competitive research paradigms, the lack of cooperation, the inefficiency that comes from duplication of negative results, and the lack of statistical power that comes from inability to use all the data available. In a milieu where knowledge = stock price, this is the logical approach, but something to note next time an Ayn Rand acolyte comes bleating to you about the beauty and perfection of the market. You might ask “What are some options to the current patent exclusivity driven regime”? My favourite economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economics and Policy Research has written extensively about the drug development process and alternatives in his excellent (and free to download) book The Conservative Nanny State, I suggest reading at least the chapter on drug development and patents!

    Anyway, back to placebos, what to do? How to administer sugar pills in a quasi-official setting for minor ailments. It’s almost like you need a parallel paradigm of medicine that dispenses sugar pills that did not have to go through double blind randomised clinical trials. it would help if this paradigm uses vaguely scientific terminology while doing very little harm. It would work in conjunction with the conventional approach, not in competition so there is little danger of people taking sugar pills for malaria!

    I give you, Homeopathy!!! This blog(ger) is no stranger to this wonderful form of medicine, involving concepts such as the memory of water, similars, dilution, etc. When I wrote about homeopathy last year, it was more in relation to the psychological aspects of my experience with it. I (and I assume you did not click through to read!) wrote about my parents’ great and enduring relationship with their homeopath, and the benefits it brought them. Back in India this time around, it was suggested that I take some homeopathy for a cold I was developing, which I did (yum, sugar!). The cold went away in a few days 🙂 There was some swine flu medicine being passed around as well (I did not partake), which worked too, nobody at home got swine flu 🙂

    So, how to make it work? It already works in India because belief in the efficacy of homeopathy is well established. As long as the homeopath is well qualified in basic diagnosis, and crucially, knows when to punt the patient into conventional therapy, the system works to a certain extent. But what about a society with no such foundation? Do you go to a clinic with both an allopath and a homeopath, and if your ailment is one where placebo works about as well, let the homeopath make some well diluted similars for you to consume? How to settle turf wars? Would it be better for the allopath to feign develop an expertise in homeopathy and make that work for her in treating the patient? Would they apply the most important lessons in homeopathic treatment, Listen, Empathise, Soothe?

    I don’t know. It is not my nature to believe in sugar pills, faith, or advertising. So it is hard for me to say what would work. But given that sugar pills work well, it is vital for society to find a way.

  • |

    Bisphenol A – Getting More Powerful Everyday

    Byoliveridley

    So is it Mondays with Bisphenol?? You know what, the scary thing about this chemical is that its acute (short term, immediate) toxicity at high doses, which is the only safety testing that is ever done, does not correlate with all the subtle effects that are seen at low doses (chronic). Here’s another study where ambient level exposure to bisphenol A interferes with prostate cancer treatment by making the tumor cells androgen independent, so the standard testosterone deprivation therapy will not work any more.

    Environmental Health News: New Science

    A common plastic molecule to which virtually all Americans are exposed may interfere with the standard medical treatment for prostate cancer, according to new experiments with human prostate tumors implanted into mice. The doses of the plastic molecule, bisphenol A, were chosen specifically to be within the range of common human exposures. Tumor size and PSA levels were significantly greater in exposed animals just one month after treatment.

    One of the principal known sources of exposure to bisphenol A in the U.S. is through its use to make a resin that lines the majority of food cans sold in markets. These new results by Wetherill et al. suggest men concerned about prostate cancer may want to reduce their consumption of canned goods and their use of polycarbonate water bottles, another common source of exposure

    This is one powerful (if not actually more dangerous) chemical. it is so ubiquitous that finding a substitute is not going to be easy.

  • |

    Flame Retardants and Hyperthyroidism in Cats

    Byoliveridley

    Caveat Emptor: They found a correlation, not a causative mechanism. But Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs, yum!) have structures that can mimic endocrine hormones. Because hormones signal at very low doses and continuously, our whole toxicological risk testing structure of looking for acute effects at high doses and trying to extrapolate those effects to low doses is flawed for endocrine disrupting compounds. We are finally beginning to see some new research, especially with other toxics such as Bisphenol A, which test for chronic conditions and subtle gene and hormonal signalling effects at low doses. After all, small changes in hormone regulation especially at childbirth and a young age can have very serious effects later on in life.

    Inside Bay Area – NEW: Flame retardants linked to thyroid disease in cats

    A mysterious epidemic of thyroid disease in cats may be linked to flame retardants common in carpets, foam furniture and mattresses, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency researchers, who suggest that scientists have underestimated the damaging health risk the chemicals pose to humans.

    The research, published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, does not prove these compounds, known as PBDEs, caused the rash of hyperthyroidism in the nation’s household cats over the past 30 years.

    Rather, it lays out a hypothesis, showing that cats are heavily contaminated by these compounds, which leach from household products and are found everywhere, particularly household dust. Cats, meticulous cleaners, ingest PBDE-contaminated dust daily.

    The case of fire retardants is especially difficult because they save many lives, so manufacturers can always point to that fact and resist change. The logical fallacy, however is as follows:

    1. Fire retardants save lives (therefore good)
    2. PBDEs are fire retardants
    3. Therefore, PBDEs are good!!

    The search for a safer fire retardant needs to continue, and will not happen unless the old ones are under pressure of being phased out.

  • How Safe Is The US Food Supply?

    Byoliveridley

    A good summary of the state of food safety regulation in the United States.

    How Safe Is The Food Supply?

    These known cases make up a tiny fraction of the overall problem–an estimated 76 million illnesses and 5,000 deaths in the U.S. from food poisoning each year. Meanwhile, imports of food, some from countries without strict controls, soared to more than 9 million shipments last year doubling since 2002. The cash-strapped FDA is able to inspect less than 1% of imports. It’s a recipe for disaster. “Our food-safety system in this country is broken,” warned former FDA Commissioner Dr. David A. Kessler at a recent congressional hearing.

    Few incidents ever have a body count high enough to shock the country into making fundamental changes. Overall, “we do have a very safe food supply,” says Sanford A. Miller, former director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition. But the alarms over pet food and vitamin A have lit a fire under lawmakers and executives. On May 2 the Senate rushed to pass a bill by a vote of 94-0 giving the FDA more responsibilities, such as creating databases of adulterated food. Meanwhile, food producers have been holding emergency meetings with suppliers, looking for problems in their factories or supply chains. Companies are “feverishly examining their own purchasing policies and trying to ensure they are followed,” says Kovacs.

    Note that it is always tempting to blame the bureaucrats here. Bureaucracy is a dirty word in this country, associated with “red tape”, “corruption”, “standing in the way of business”, “pencil pushers”, “big government”, you name it, they get called it. But, agencies like the EPA and the FDA have competent scientists who know what they are doing. But, without the money and the authority, which is given to them by the political arm of the government, they cannot do much. They have also, in recent years, been headed by political appointees who come from the industry they are supposed to regulate and show a distaste for regulation which is in complete opposition of the mandate they are supposed to fulfill as the head of a regulatory agency.

    It’s easy to take potshots at the FDA, but remember who gives them the money, makes the rules and tells them what not to oversee.

6 Comments

  1. As a farmer, I’d sure like to know where those “billion dollar” subsidies are and get in on them. What little I got from the government last year wouldn’t buy much. I don’t get paid to plant more corn, or not plant corn. Some one is telling you a story about big payments because they don’t expect all of us independent minded family farmers to notice. I wonder what they are hiding from you.

  2. http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/PB09-01SweeteningPotFeb09.pdf

    The authors also note corn subsidies have saved HFCS makers significant cash over the years. Indeed, they reckon that because of the downward pressure on corn prices from subsidies, HFCS producers — including the dominant one, Archer Daniels Midland — accessed “corn priced 27% below its cost from 1997-2005.” As a result, producers booked a cool $2.2 billion in savings between 1997 and 2005 (a period of dramatically heightened subsidy payments).

    Unfortunately, it is not the little farmers that get the money, I wish! It’s the agribusiness giants, I guess calling them farmers is ridiculous.

  3. One thing people never seem to think of is that in this time that HFCS growth Americans have become sedentary. If we had to work as hard today as they did 50 years ago I’m sure there would be a lot fewer fat people HFCS or not. Get moving America.

  4. True, exercise plays a part. But this study is about how HFCS is particularly bad in a way that cannot be explained merely on the basis of weight gain = calories in – calories out. The enhanced bioavailability of the fructose appears to affect the body in a way it is not accustomed to dealing with.

    All of North America loses so the giant agribusinesses like ADM can make mega profits. Farmers and consumers are on the same side on this one, squeezed for profits.

  5. I couldn’t agree more. US (and Canadian) farm policy is hypocritical beyond measure. The government insists that they believe in “free markets” but that is merely a euphemism for “what we say goes.” The US has been brought before the WTO for violations of international trade repeatedly, but the US merely ignores any ruling against them. They are, of course, very quick to use the WTO to punish other nations that are doing something that is against US interests. A great documentary exposing this double standard is called Life and Debt (http://www.lifeanddebt.org/) and looks at the policies imposed on Jamaica by the World Bank and WTO.

    Also, that’s an amazingly effective (and disturbing) ad campaign. Kudos to whomever designed that image.

  6. “Some studies have shown that short-term access to HFCS can cause increased body weight, but the findings are mixed.”

    “…these results *suggest* that excessive consumption of HFCS *may* contribute to the incidence of obesity.” (My asterisks.)

    This doesn’t sound “conclusive” to me.

Comments are closed.