I'm sure by now you've seen the commercials. Two people are are conversing about HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) and one of them says something like, "Oh, that's not good," and the other one says, "Why not? It's made from corn. Duh." And makes the other one looks like a complete idiot.

Well, my friends, don't be fooled.
First of all, HFCS is not natural. Just because it has the word "corn" in it doesn't mean it's natural. They get away with using that term because the FDA is being technical. Maybe they saw the commercials. It's stupid. If you take something natural, and do something to it to change it into a different form altogether, it's not natural anymore, is it?1
Recently, Princton U did a study on this whole "HFCS is not a big deal" campaign. Their findings? Quote: "Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same."2 In other words, the myth that HFCS is the same as sugar... busted. You will gain more weight with HFCS.
"When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."3
So next time you see that commercial, you can shout a tip to the victim on screen: "Actually, Princeton University researchers have found that HFCS makes you obese in ways that regular sugar won't."

And the moderation part? OK. But take a look around to see how much of this is in the food you eat. It's quite a bit. And that argument can be used for just about anything. Poop, eaten in moderation.... ugh, nevermind.
I won't go into the other controversial issues about whether or not HFCS really does impact levels of insulin, leptin, and other essential hormones (all essential for weight moderation.) Remember, though, that most of the "controversial studies" are supported by the soft drink industry. If you've seen Thank You For Smoking4, you know what I mean.
Pass the sugar, please.6 (No, I didn't skip a number. See below.)
PS. I am very proud of my end notes. Please read the article!
[1] http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2007/01/cspis_litigatio.html: "It may sound as though HFCS comes from corn in the same way sugar comes from sugar cane or sugar beets. Not so. HFCS is created by a complex industrial process performed in refineries using centrifuges, hydroclones, ion-exchange columns, backed-bed reactors, and other high-tech equipment. Starch is extracted from corn and then converted by acids or enzymes to glucose. Then, some of the glucose is further converted by enzymes into fructose... The fact that chemical bonds are broken and rearranged in their production disqualifies them from being called “natural.”"
[2] http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ (posted March 2010, retrieved July 14, 2010). This quote can be found in the first ppg.
[3] ibid. This is a quote from Prof Bart Hobel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight, and sugar addiction. (Found in the end of the third ppg.)
[4] This is a gratuitous endnote to explain the premise of this movie. Nick Nalor, the protagonist, is the VP of a company called "The Academy of Tobacco Studies." He lobbies on behalf of tobacco, and cites studies funded by tobacco companies that claim that there is no link between nicotine and lung cancer. Very cool movie. In the end, everyone dies.5
[5] Just kidding. Yeah, that was a citation within a citation! Who's overseeing this, anyway? The movie had been rated R for a good reason. Lately, I feel like rated R movies are really pushing it. I wish it hadn't, since it's something I would've liked to show my students.
[6] But remember that it's not just HFCS... it's most refined sugars (including aspartame!), and yes, sugar in general should be consumed 'in moderation.'
Recent Comments