In view of that that the corn syrup (HFCS) with high fructose corn syrup is just sugar water and is a similar composition as table sugar, why is it disparaging?
# # # # # #
Villars HFCs is an growing out of the more general war war against sugar. Under the pretext (or misunderstanding) that HFCs in fructose is “high”, a lot of research was carried out to examine the results of the feeding of 100% fructose to animals and humans.
“Although that HFCS adiposity hypothesis It may have been developed initially, as Popkin recently claimed, simply “science” (link) to “lane” (link) quickly his own life. This once secular component was slandered into scientific circles and then in the public sector when the hypothesis was translated as a fact by leading nutritional magazines, weekly and specialty magazines, national and local newspapers and an endless number of television news as a fact. ” [ source ]
Barry Popkin, a co-author of the study mentioned above, was quickly packed on the hypothesis:
“Even the Two Scientists who first propagated the idea of a unique link between high-fructose corn syrup and America's soaring Obesity Rates have Gently Backed Off from their Initial Theories. Barry M. Popkin, A Nutrition Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Says that a that a that A that a Widely Read Paper on the Subject that Wrote in 2004 with George A. Bray, a Professor of Medicine at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La. “…” It was a theory that should boost science, but it is quite possible that it is not true, “said Professor Popkin. “I don't think there should be a perception that corn syrup triggered with high fructose corn until we know more.” “[ source ]
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the current secretary for health and human services of the US federal government with control over the centers for the control and prevention of diseases (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in 2024: High-fructose corn syrup 'is only a formula to make them obesity and diabetics. ” [ source ]
This opinion depends on the great research, which has examined the metabolic differences between the diets that contain only fructose compared to exclusively glucose diets.
“If the HFCS adiposity hypothesis is correct, HFCs should not be present in sucrose. Glucose will produce metabolic anomalies (7.8). [source]
In fact, the 1994 review mentioned came to the conclusion:
“These conclusions should not be interpreted as a warning to restrict all fructose foods. In fact, fructose is an important natural component in our diet, and a plenty of source for carbohydrate in fruits and vegetables. To be on the food on food food. Harmful metabolic effects. ” [ source ]
A diet with high fructose in the absence of glucose will “produce metabolic anomalies”. There is no lack of diet that contains sucrose or HFCs, the necessary glucose to produce these metabolic anomalies. Both sucrose and HFCs are approximately the same: 50% glucose and 50% fructose.
In part 1 of this essay I have this picture of Bray et al. (2004) shown:
And I asked the readers whether they could see what had been left out of the graphic. The following graphic answers this question:
The data comes from different sources, but close enough for our comparison. Bray et al. Give estimated recordings of “totally fructose” and “free fructose” against US overweight and obesity rates. Total fructose means the entire fructose made of sucrose (half fructose) plus the entire fructose from fruits plus the entire fructose of HFCs (which is shown as “free fructose”, which is about half of the entire sugar in HFCs).
What is omitted in this graphic is a change in the recording of overall sugar. The first diagram (Bray) seems to imply that the overall sugar recording has increased, but, as in the second diagram, stated as the “percentage of calorie intake”, which, at least in this point of view, does not really change.
In this diagram we see that the overall sugar intake (not the entire fructose) has risen by around 17% from 1970 to 2005, which does not quite match the previous diagram, which shows an increase in calories by 1% compared to sugar in the same period. Here, too, the difference can be completely due to the difference in the calculation method (what exactly you count and here). However, this is that the acceptance of the amount of pipe and beet sugar in US diets was replaced by almost one to one by the increase in HFCs between 1970 and 2005 and since then. During the same period, grains (flour and grain) and fats increased.
In addition, the domestic use of HFCs in the United States in 2001 has reached a climax and has decreased since then, while the US fatty lane rates have increased:
Is the increase in the use of HFCs overweight and obesity?
Let's see:
One thing is to know that the goal posts were moved for obesity and obesity in 1998:
The BMI classifications for overweight were changed in 1998 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH took over the classification of the World Health Organization (WHO). Reduction The threshold of overweight from a BMI of 27.8 (men) / 27.3 (women) to a BMI of 25. This change effectively Millions of appropriately by Americans as overweight or obese. Therefore, every historical calculation of overweight/obesity must be included if the older data (in the time frame before 1998) was determined by the current standard or the new standard according to 1998.
If we use an international point of view, we can see with this diagram that HFCS consumption on a national basis does not predict overweight and obesity:
Examples of pure fructose that cause a metabolic structure at high concentrations are common, especially if they are the only carbohydrate source. However, there is no evidence that the usual fructose-glucose-nuts-saccharosis, HFCS42, HFCS 55, honey-das do the same.
This also does not mean that a great increase in the intake of sweeteners and other caloric foods has no influence on overweight and obesity. However, this means that increased use of HFCs in food and drinks does not correspond to increasing overweight and obesity.
Another common claim is that HFCs is a liquid and causes more weight gain in drinks (lemonades, sports drinks, etc.) than solid sugar. This often repeated view is mainly based on a single small human study, Dimeglio and Mattes (2000), [ pdf ]:
“The study examined the difference between two forms of carbohydrate delivery:
- Liquid form: The carbohydrate load was delivered as calorically sweetened soda for four weeks.
- Solid form: The same carbohydrate load was delivered as Jelly Beans for a separate period of four weeks.
The researchers observed that the carbohydrate load was consumed as a soda that The participants had a significantly larger weight gain Compared to the same amount of carbohydrate as Jelly Beans. “
When I say “little studies”, I mean really small: only 15 people. The participants were offered sweet lemonades for four weeks and as Jelly Beans for 4 weeks, in addition to their otherwise normal daily diet. Something was certainly tested, but not whether liquid or fixed sweeteners caused more weight gain. Here the summary of the graphic data, in which it is claimed to show “significantly larger weight gain” for liquid (soda) sugar (with my notations):
[ Click for larger image ]
All other studies on this topic are mouse and rat studies. Why this is important is discussed here and here (and many, many more).
Important note: The innocence of HFCs as a unique or special cause of obesity and obesity does not mean that excessive over -consumption of calorie food (sugar, strength, fat) does not contribute to these conditions. It is just the case that HFCs does not do this in any special way.
In summary:
So that HFCs are somehow particularly adesogenic (obesity), it would have to distinguish from sucrose in an important way. However, HFCs is essentially the same as sucrose.
If HFCs were unique, HFCS use and obesity would be collapsed nationally and internationally. You are not. In the United States, HFCS use has decreased by almost 20% in the past two decades, while the obese rates continue to rise.
Diabetes is related to obesity, whereby obesity is particularly considered the cause of type II diabetes. Since HFCs itself is not a special cause of obesity, it is probably not the cause of diabetes. There is no evidence that taking HFCS diabetes causes one of the two types.
Despite the popular Health Press and despite the opinion of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the US Food and Drug Administration still says:
“We are not aware of evidenceIncluding the above studies, that there is a difference in the safety between food with HFCS 42 or HFCS 55 and food with similar amounts of other nutrients with sweeteners with approximately the same glucose and fructose content such as sucrose, honey or other traditional confectionery. ” [ source ]
# # # # # #
The author's comment:
I am not aware of any real evidence that HFCs are more or less harmful or advantageous than any other sweetener of glucose/fructose. The FDA is not either.
There are many arguments based on a half -understood science, but no real evidence.
In my opinion, HFCs is simply based on the misunderstanding based on the misunderstanding of his name on the basis of the long -term war against sugar and only on the basis of the misunderstanding of his name. (see Propter nouns)
Please do not deal with obesity epidemic. It's about HFCs.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # # #
3.7
3
Voices
Article evaluation
Like this:
Load…
Related
Do you discover more from watts?
Subscribe to the latest posts to your e -mail.
