A question on sugars

[Carl]

Originally Posted by dogen's beginner article

No High fructose corn syrup. Let me tell you a short story. Once upon a time a scientist created a sugar. The goal of this creation, “an addictive, cheap alternative to sucrose (table sugar).” The creation was a success! The sugar costs almost nothing to produce, and works perfectly as a sweetener. Unfortunately, because it is artificially created, your body doesn’t know what it is ? You touch this stuff and you’re dead. Not only does high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) have a tendency to turn into fat, it also inhibits your bodies natural ability to secrete insulin and control glucose levels in your body. What does that mean? Normal sugars, like dextrose, typically turn into glucose so that the body can use it for quick energy. HFCS turns into fat and hinders your body’s ability to regulate other sugars, like glucose (IT TURNS INTO FAT AND INHIBITS YOUR ABILITY TO BURN OTHER FAT). Eat HFCS = get fat and lose energy. HFCS is the primary reason for obesity in America. If this stuff is so bad for you, then why do they make it? Like I said, it costs a helluva lot less to sweeten food with HFCS than with traditional sugars. That means that any food that is presweetened is probably dosed with HFCS. Almost all soda, crackers, candy, and cereal has HFCS. Check the food label on any food you buy to make sure there’s no HFCS!

So... this means that if you see high fructose corn syrup or modified corn syrup on a label, it's the devil. What about glucose-fructose? or just plain fructose? Is it still the devil?

Also, I remember hearing on the forum that the best stuff to have post-workout is something w/ electrolytes (gatorade) and some dextrose. shopping in a new grocery store today, I came across some sugar sold in the bulk baking aisle. It said Dextrose Corn Sugar. Is this the same thing as plain old dextrose?

[rock_ten]

Originally Posted by Carl

So... this means that if you see high fructose corn syrup or modified corn syrup on a label, it's the devil. What about glucose-fructose? or just plain fructose? Is it still the devil?

Also, I remember hearing on the forum that the best stuff to have post-workout is something w/ electrolytes (gatorade) and some dextrose. shopping in a new grocery store today, I came across some sugar sold in the bulk baking aisle. It said Dextrose Corn Sugar. Is this the same thing as plain old dextrose?

dude tbh, it shouldn't really be an issue. If you're having to check packets for HFCS, then you're still eating junk, right? Infact if your food comes in packets at all, you probably are. No added glucose, fructose, or combinations thereof, is going to be a good thing in whatever food you're thinking of.

The shit your quoted, while a bit weird, is fairly true. Fructose doesn't elicit an insulin response (good, in a way - less inhibition of lipolysis). It can't be stored in muscles before conversion to glucose in the liver, where it readily undergoes, and upregulates, de novo lipogenesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup has a lot of info

[jamesters]

While I respect Dogen and the help he provides, I take a different side on this subject matter. I wrote an article that basically tries to summarize the flaws on measuring carbs affects on the body. The article is probably overly detailed for this topic though haha:

There's a lot of confusion when it comes to how carbohydrates are handled in the body. I'll discuss the Glycemic Index (GI), the Glycemic Load (GL), the Insulin Index (II), and the Satiety Index (SI) here and I'll try to keep it simple. This will help clarify how carbs are handled in the body.

Glycemic Index (GI): A ranking of a food's or a substance's effect on blood sugar.

Glycemic Load (GL): The GI multiplied by the amount of carbohydrates in grams consumed.

Insulin Index (II): A ranking of a food's or a substance's effect on insulin.

Satiety Index (SI): A ranking of a food's or substance's effect on appetite.

Many people currently think that if a food has a high GI then it is more likely to store as fat. Complex carbs are often said to have a low GI and sugar is said to have a high GI. However, because of the many other variable that can effect the GI of a food, this is not always true. It is more complicated than that. The GI depends on many factors including the type of carbohydrate in the food, the acidity of the food, other substances in the food which may affect carbohydrate absorption such as soluble fiber and fat, and other factors. Therefore, relying on a GI guide to know the GI of the foods you eat may be a bit misleading depending on the specific type of that food you buy (green apples or red apples) and how you may cook your food (adding vinegar). A GI guide can still give you a good estimate, however, knowing your GL for the day is even more important. This is because even if you eat a lot of low GI foods, it can have a greater affect on blood sugar throughout the day than if you just ate a few high GI foods.

Furthermore, the II can play a role on a food's GI. If a food has a high II, then the food might normally have a high glycemic response but the high insulin response can stabilize the blood sugar making the food pass as having a low GI. There is a positive correlation between having a high GI and/or GL and having a high II as well. However, there are other factors which can also raise an II such as protein, which can mask the high GI of a food. Because of that, unless both the GI and II of a food were measured, then it may simply be misleading to follow a GI guide in the foods you eat to try to maintain stable blood sugar levels and try to prevent too much carbohydrates from being stored as fat.

As for the SI, neither the GI, GL, or II have a positive correlation with it. The caloric density of a food doesn't effect the SI of a food either. The greatest factor towards the SI of a food is food volume. So if you'd like to feel satiated without consuming a whole lot of calories, the most effective way to do that would be too eat food that is large in volume but low in calories. Water, soluble fiber, and protein tend to be highly satiating substances. Soluble fiber can occasionally provide calories and protein can as well, but generally not as much as fat and carbs. Fats can be satiating in the long term since they are generally absorbed more slowly and carbohydrates can be satiating short term since they are generally absorb quickly. However, fat and carbohydrates are more likely to store as fat.

Basically, I don't think high fructose corn syrup can be picked on. There are many other variables that can affect whether it is converted and stored as fat, or used as energy. Also, regardless if something is artificially created or naturally produced, the body may or may not know how to deal with it, how the substance was formed doesn't matter to the body. In artificially created high frustose corn syrup's case, the body knows how to deal with it just as well as many other naturally produced carbs.

[rock_ten]

Originally Posted by jamesters

While I respect Dogen and the help he provides, I take a different side on this subject matter. I wrote an article that basically tries to summarize the flaws on measuring carbs affects on the body. The article is probably overly detailed for this topic though haha:


Basically, I don't think high fructose corn syrup can be picked on. There are many other variables that can affect whether it is converted and stored as fat, or used as energy. Also, regardless if something is artificially created or naturally produced, the body may or may not know how to deal with it, how the substance was formed doesn't matter to the body. In artificially created high frustose corn syrup's case, the body knows how to deal with it just as well as many other naturally produced carbs.

not entirely relevant, Jamesters. Completely apart from the parameters you discussed, fructose does upregulate (de novo) lipogenesis, and is very prone to undergoing the process itself - which is the main problem with HFCS, afaik.

[jamesters]

Originally Posted by rock_ten

not entirely relevant, Jamesters. Completely apart from the parameters you discussed, fructose does upregulate (de novo) lipogenesis, and is very prone to undergoing the process itself - which is the main problem with HFCS, afaik.

All right well how about this from research study:

"Studies that have compared HFCS to sucrose (as opposed to pure fructose) find that they have essentially identical physiological effects. For instance, Melanson et al (2006) studied that effects of HFCS and sucrose sweetened drinks on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels. They found no signficant differences in any of these parameters."

"Perrigue et al (2006) compared the effects of isocaloric servings of colas sweetened HFCS 45, HFCS 55, sucrose, and asapartame on satiety and subsequent energy intake. They found that all of the drinks with caloric sweeteners produced similar satiety responses, and had the same effects on subsequent energy intake. Taken together with Melanson et al (2006), this study shows that there is little or no evidence for the hypothesis that HFCS is different from sucrose in its effects on appetite or on metabolic processes involved in fat storage."

I'm not saying HFCS does not upregulate lipogenesis, but I'm saying that so do many other forms of carbs and to similar degrees. Or am I missing something here?

[rock_ten]

I'm not surprised that HFCS is similar to sucrose in it's physiological effects. HFCS is about 55% fructose, sucrose yields 50% fructose upon digestion. They're very similar chemically - HFCS is just much cheaper (in the US at least).

Seeing similarities between HFCS and sucrose doesn't go any way to improving HFCS reputation. Sucrose is crap too.

[jamesters]

Originally Posted by rock_ten

I'm not surprised that HFCS is similar to sucrose in it's physiological effects. HFCS is about 55% fructose, sucrose yields 50% fructose upon digestion. They're very similar chemically - HFCS is just much cheaper (in the US at least).

Seeing similarities between HFCS and sucrose doesn't go any way to improving HFCS reputation. Sucrose is crap too.

Agreed. I think there was some confusion between us. I was pretty much just saying that it's not ONLY HFCS that is gaca between my gut cheeks and I think we both agree on that.