3 ms·

My hypothesis would look something like this: > The amount of fructose in the Standard American Diet (SAD) is a major culprit in obesity and obesity related di

My hypothesis would look something like this: > The amount of fructose in the Standard American Diet (SAD) is a major culprit in obesity and obesity related diseases. > The body metabolizes fructose differently than other carbohydrates. Fructose has become the default cheap carbohydrate additive for food, and it is found in nearly every packaged food in America. Human bodies have not evolved to handle these levels of fructose.

heymijo 7y ago
A quick search on the history of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) in the food chain has a timeline that works. This is where I'd start: > The first corn syrup in the United States was produced in Buffalo, New York, in 1866. A major breakthrough occurred in 1967 with the patenting of an enzymatic process to convert dextrose to fructose, a 6 carbon sugar that is sweeter tasting than sucrose. High fructose corn syrups was developed in the 1970s. Americans began producing starch sugar from cornstarch instead of potato starch. Its cheaper than table sugar. In 1971, food scientist in Japan found a way to produce a cheaper sweetener from corn. HFCS began to appear in frozen foods to protect against freezer burn and in vending machine products to preserve taste. In the 1980s, both Coke and Pepsi switched from a fifty-fifty blend of sugar and corn syrup to 100 percent high fructose corn syrup, saving them 20 percent in sweetener costs. [0] [0] https://www.world-foodhistory.com/2011/04/history-of-high-fructose-corn-syrup.html https://www.world-foodhistory.com/2011/04/history-of-high-fr...
- cdoxsey 7y ago
  And all as a result of US sugar policy raising the price of sugar: https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/candy-coated-cartel-time-kill-us-sugar-program https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/candy-coat.... I'm going to guess the "throwback" soda that came out a few years ago was probably almost entirely the result of corn prices rising due to ethanol production. (itself the result of government policy)
mumblemumble 7y ago
I think that this is probably a combination of spurious correlation and a food additive whose name implies things about it that aren't necessarily true. High fructose corn syrup is, from a nutritional standpoint, pretty much equivalent to table sugar. The most substantive difference between the two is a hydrogen bond that is easily broken by even fairly weak acids - it doesn't last long at all once it hits your stomach, so what actually hits your bloodstream is (typically) a 42/58 fructose/glucose mix for solid foods with HFCS, a 50/50 mix for table sugar, and a 55/45 mix for HFCS-sweetened beverages. Those numbers also imply that, unless you just guzzle soft drinks, the industry replacing sucrose with HFCS presumably actually tilts the fructose/glucose mix in your sugar intake away from fructose. And if you do guzzle soft drinks, blaming HFCS for your metabolic situation seems just a bit dissonant. I think we should be looking first at the big picture: Overall calorie consumption over the past 50 years is way up. If you break that down, fat, having nearly doubled, comes in first, followed by complex carbohydrates (up by about 1/3), and sugar is comparatively a quite small portion of what's changed. Over the same time period, caloric expenditure from physical activity has gone way down, too. To me, that picture doesn't imply, "Nabisco changing the sugar they put in my Wheat Thins is ruining my health." It implies, "Driving my car to the supermarket and coming home with a back seat full of Wheat Thins is ruining my health." FWIW, the word "additive" also has a tendency to be a bit of a weasel word in this context. The glycemic index for starches and sugars is typically about the same, and your metabolism doesn't care that the starches are typically considered the food itself while the little bit of sweetener that's added for flavor is just an additive.
- porknubbins 7y ago
  I wonder where is all that extra fat coming from? Very counter to my expectations that carbs were most of the increase. I thought in the past people ate slightly more meat, esp. red meat, full fat dairy etc. I suppose it could reflect the shift from home to restaurant/snack food because when you put a chunk of butter in something you can tell how much it is, but already baked in it tastes like much less.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    Insulin causes cells to convert glucose to fat. Liver can convert fructose to fat. Also the amount of glucose in you blood is highly regulated and the amount is 'less than you would assume'. Least as I understand. Probably consuming even moderate amounts of sugar sets off a desperate attempt by the body to stash glucose as fat to keep glucose blood levels normal.

heymijo 7y ago

A quick search on the history of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) in the food chain has a timeline that works. This is where I'd start: > The first corn syrup in the United States was produced in Buffalo, New York, in 1866. A major breakthrough occurred in 1967 with the patenting of an enzymatic process to convert dextrose to fructose, a 6 carbon sugar that is sweeter tasting than sucrose. High fructose corn syrups was developed in the 1970s. Americans began producing starch sugar from cornstarch instead of potato starch. Its cheaper than table sugar. In 1971, food scientist in Japan found a way to produce a cheaper sweetener from corn. HFCS began to appear in frozen foods to protect against freezer burn and in vending machine products to preserve taste. In the 1980s, both Coke and Pepsi switched from a fifty-fifty blend of sugar and corn syrup to 100 percent high fructose corn syrup, saving them 20 percent in sweetener costs. [0] [0] https://www.world-foodhistory.com/2011/04/history-of-high-fructose-corn-syrup.html https://www.world-foodhistory.com/2011/04/history-of-high-fr...

cdoxsey 7y ago
And all as a result of US sugar policy raising the price of sugar: https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/candy-coated-cartel-time-kill-us-sugar-program https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/candy-coat.... I'm going to guess the "throwback" soda that came out a few years ago was probably almost entirely the result of corn prices rising due to ethanol production. (itself the result of government policy)

mumblemumble 7y ago

I think that this is probably a combination of spurious correlation and a food additive whose name implies things about it that aren't necessarily true. High fructose corn syrup is, from a nutritional standpoint, pretty much equivalent to table sugar. The most substantive difference between the two is a hydrogen bond that is easily broken by even fairly weak acids - it doesn't last long at all once it hits your stomach, so what actually hits your bloodstream is (typically) a 42/58 fructose/glucose mix for solid foods with HFCS, a 50/50 mix for table sugar, and a 55/45 mix for HFCS-sweetened beverages. Those numbers also imply that, unless you just guzzle soft drinks, the industry replacing sucrose with HFCS presumably actually tilts the fructose/glucose mix in your sugar intake away from fructose. And if you do guzzle soft drinks, blaming HFCS for your metabolic situation seems just a bit dissonant. I think we should be looking first at the big picture: Overall calorie consumption over the past 50 years is way up. If you break that down, fat, having nearly doubled, comes in first, followed by complex carbohydrates (up by about 1/3), and sugar is comparatively a quite small portion of what's changed. Over the same time period, caloric expenditure from physical activity has gone way down, too. To me, that picture doesn't imply, "Nabisco changing the sugar they put in my Wheat Thins is ruining my health." It implies, "Driving my car to the supermarket and coming home with a back seat full of Wheat Thins is ruining my health." FWIW, the word "additive" also has a tendency to be a bit of a weasel word in this context. The glycemic index for starches and sugars is typically about the same, and your metabolism doesn't care that the starches are typically considered the food itself while the little bit of sweetener that's added for flavor is just an additive.

porknubbins 7y ago
I wonder where is all that extra fat coming from? Very counter to my expectations that carbs were most of the increase. I thought in the past people ate slightly more meat, esp. red meat, full fat dairy etc. I suppose it could reflect the shift from home to restaurant/snack food because when you put a chunk of butter in something you can tell how much it is, but already baked in it tastes like much less.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Insulin causes cells to convert glucose to fat. Liver can convert fructose to fat. Also the amount of glucose in you blood is highly regulated and the amount is 'less than you would assume'. Least as I understand. Probably consuming even moderate amounts of sugar sets off a desperate attempt by the body to stash glucose as fat to keep glucose blood levels normal.