4 ms·

I thought this too, until I read this: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ A Prin

by Goladus 16y ago

I thought this too, until I read this: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: 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.

nopassrecover 16y ago
And yet, assuming the mice on table sugar weren't more hyped up than those on HCFS, we still perpetuate the leaky abstraction of calories in, calories out.
- tptacek 16y ago
  While I'm also interested in the leakiness of "cals in cals out", the study in question isn't that inconsistent with the model; HFCS was obesogenic in rats, but that's a fuzzy term that in this case seems to mean in part "when fed HFCS, rats ate more."
  - nopassrecover 16y ago
    The parent stated they ate the same amount of calories.
tptacek 16y ago
This is one very recent very controversial rat study which relies on the group's previous observation that rats whose diets are supplemented with sucrose solution eat less to compensate for the sucrose, but don't eat less to compensate for HFCS. Look, to avoid a rathole argument that neither of us are really qualified to have, let's just stipulate: HFCS is evil. I completely agree. Regardless of any distinctive biochemical affects, it is clearly a tool used by the food industry to amp up palatability (and thus consumption and thus profit margin) in processed foods. But if we fixate on HFCS, we're just going to be victimized by the whatever sugar the industry replaces HFCS with.
- sophacles 16y ago
  An interesting personal observation to that controversial study: When I drink a regular hfcs-sweetened cola, it really has no noticable affect on my hunger level, on my fullness level, nothing. On the other hand when I drink one of the can sugar varieties, it actually does sate some hunger. Further, the cane sugar varieties make me feel full after drinking one. I am not unique in this observation... but it is still anecdotal, take it as you will.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Consuming anything heavily sweetened --- or even high in refined carbohydrates of any sort --- should play havoc with your appetite, simply because of the way insulin works.
- Goladus 16y ago
  I'm not even prepared to agree that HFCS is evil. Just that there are reasons to differentiate it from sucrose, and sugar is essentially synonymous with sucrose. "Corn sucrose" is clearly not accurate, and "corn sugar" means essentially that. (Also, prefacing a comment with "look," is superfluous)
tokenadult 16y ago
Earlier HN thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629082 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629082
- tptacek 16y ago
  From the article in that thread: In fact, sucrose — even “natural” cane sugar — is 50% fructose once it is digested and absorbed. While this is 20% less than the fructose content of HFCS 55, food manufacturers need to use less (about 20% less) HFCS 55 to get the same sweetness, so it’s a wash as far as fructose content.

by Goladus 16y ago

nopassrecover 16y ago

And yet, assuming the mice on table sugar weren't more hyped up than those on HCFS, we still perpetuate the leaky abstraction of calories in, calories out.

tptacek 16y ago
While I'm also interested in the leakiness of "cals in cals out", the study in question isn't that inconsistent with the model; HFCS was obesogenic in rats, but that's a fuzzy term that in this case seems to mean in part "when fed HFCS, rats ate more."
- nopassrecover 16y ago
  The parent stated they ate the same amount of calories.

tptacek 16y ago

This is one very recent very controversial rat study which relies on the group's previous observation that rats whose diets are supplemented with sucrose solution eat less to compensate for the sucrose, but don't eat less to compensate for HFCS. Look, to avoid a rathole argument that neither of us are really qualified to have, let's just stipulate: HFCS is evil. I completely agree. Regardless of any distinctive biochemical affects, it is clearly a tool used by the food industry to amp up palatability (and thus consumption and thus profit margin) in processed foods. But if we fixate on HFCS, we're just going to be victimized by the whatever sugar the industry replaces HFCS with.

sophacles 16y ago
An interesting personal observation to that controversial study: When I drink a regular hfcs-sweetened cola, it really has no noticable affect on my hunger level, on my fullness level, nothing. On the other hand when I drink one of the can sugar varieties, it actually does sate some hunger. Further, the cane sugar varieties make me feel full after drinking one. I am not unique in this observation... but it is still anecdotal, take it as you will.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Consuming anything heavily sweetened --- or even high in refined carbohydrates of any sort --- should play havoc with your appetite, simply because of the way insulin works.
Goladus 16y ago
I'm not even prepared to agree that HFCS is evil. Just that there are reasons to differentiate it from sucrose, and sugar is essentially synonymous with sucrose. "Corn sucrose" is clearly not accurate, and "corn sugar" means essentially that. (Also, prefacing a comment with "look," is superfluous)

tokenadult 16y ago

Earlier HN thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629082 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629082

tptacek 16y ago
From the article in that thread: In fact, sucrose — even “natural” cane sugar — is 50% fructose once it is digested and absorbed. While this is 20% less than the fructose content of HFCS 55, food manufacturers need to use less (about 20% less) HFCS 55 to get the same sweetness, so it’s a wash as far as fructose content.