InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 123
Posts 6709
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/01/2011

Re: miketrav69 post# 237400

Tuesday, 09/24/2013 2:56:49 PM

Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:56:49 PM

Post# of 289427
Straight from a link from the article you posted:


Low-calorie diets that included high fructose corn syrup yielded the same progress in terms of obesity indices as diets with equivalent amounts of table sugar.


In Mexico, Coca-Cola contains "sugar" instead of high fructose corn syrup.  [elleinad/Flickr]
PROBLEM: High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a fructose-glucose mix that's a little more stably and economically used in food production than traditional table sugar (sucrose). When everyone in the United States started getting fat, there was a temporal correlation with our use of HFCS (among many other things), and we worried that the relationship was causal. Though current evidence suggests that the form in which we ingest added sugar is vastly less important than the quantity we ingest.....

METHODOLOGY: In a "randomized, prospective, double-blinded study," 247 overweight participants were placed on one of four low-calorie diets, each with a calorically-equivalent sugar component. The sugar came in different forms, with varying proportions of sucrose and HFCS. The diets all had the same overall calorie content.

RESULTS: Across the varying diets there was no significant difference in the degree of decrease in BMI, waist circumference, weight, or overall body mass. 

CONCLUSION: Diets that contain sucrose are equally effective in terms of obesity indices as those containing the caloric equivalent of high fructose corn syrup.

IMPLICATION: We're best to consume sucrose and high fructose corn syrup in very limited quantities -- the American Heart Association recommends that men and women not get more than 150 and 100 calories daily from added sugar, respectively. As far as weight loss and obesity indices, though, this study says sucrose is no better than HFCS. To be clear, both are sugar, and HFCS has other metabolic effects not discussed here. One thorough review of the larger HFCS debate is available in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

So there you go. Continually beating the same dead horse is either disingenuous or ignorant at this stage.

BBDA