Guest Essay by Kip Hansen — 26 July 2025 — 1700 words
“High-fructose corn syrup ‘is just a formula for making you obese and diabetic,’ RFK Jr. has said.” [ source ] That’s the narrative in the Wild and Wacky World of Nutrition. It is based on the ever-present, ubiquitous, error of mistaking association and time-coincidence with causation.
“In 2004 Bray et al ( link ) published the hypothesis that HFCS is a direct causative factor for obesity. They based their hypothesis on a temporal relation between HFCS use and obesity rates between 1960 and 2000.” [ source ]
In that paper, this is the money graph:
[Extra points to readers who can see what was omitted from this graph – which omission substantially negates Bray’s hypothesis. ]
# # # # #
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is just sugar.
When we use the word “sugar” in everyday language, what do we mean? Most of us mean “table sugar” – what white granular sugar that is in our sugar bowls, or comes in little packets at the café or in 5 pound bags from the grocery store.
And what is “table sugar”? It is sucrose.
There are lots of sugars in the natural world. A “ sugar”, in biochemistry, is “any of the class of soluble, crystalline, typically sweet-tasting carbohydrates found in living tissues and exemplified by glucose and sucrose.” There are several more sugars commonly found in foods: fructose, lactose, maltose, galactose.
Here’s a rundown of the most common sugars that humans ingest in their diets:
Sucrose: Chemical Formula – C12H22O11
This is our common white table sugar. It is the most used sweetener in foods and beverages. Sucrose is a compound sugar, a disaccharide, consisting of exactly 50% fructose and 50% glucose, one molecule of each bonded together.
Glucose: Chemical Formula – C6H12O6
Glucose is the most important source of energy in all organisms. Glucose circulates in the blood of animals as blood sugar. Dietary glucose can be directly absorbed and becomes then is often referred to as “blood sugar”.
Dextrose, also labelled D-glucose, is another name for glucose – they are the same molecule. D-glucose with water (H2O) becomes Dextrose monohydrate and is one of the two sugars that make up high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS ) [the other is fructose].
Fructose: Chemical Formula – C6H12O6
Fructose is often referred to as “fruit sugar” and is the sugar found in fruits and plants. It has the same chemical formula as glucose, but has a slightly different structure. The liver converts substantial portion of fructose into glucose for distribution in the bloodstream.
Lactose: Chemical Formula – C12H22O11
Lactose is a disaccharide composed of galactose and glucose. It has the same chemical formula as sucrose but has a slightly different structure. When found in mammal milks, it is commonly known as “milk sugar”.
Galactose: Chemical Formula – C6H12O6
Galactose is one of the sugars that make up the disaccharide lactose. It has the same chemical formula as fructose. It is sometimes itself referred to as “milk sugar”.
Maltose: Chemical Formula – C12H22O11
Maltose, or malt sugar, is a disaccharide formed from two units of glucose. It has the same chemical formula as lactose. It is found in sprouting seeds that have their sprouting stopped and then dried, known as malt. Malted barley is used to make beers and whiskeys, while other malted grains as used to make malted milk, malt vinegar and malt-flavored confections.
All of these sugars are metabolized and utilized by the body as sources of primary energy: mostly through the conversion to glucose. Dietary glucose needs no processing by the body and can be directly absorbed and enter the bloodstream as “blood sugar”, your body’s source of energy. Other sugars require some breakdown, or conversion, primarily into simple glucose.
[Note: This biological chemistry is far more complicated than this simple explanation but it suffices for this essay.]
“Dietary sugars are absorbed in the hepatic portal circulation [in the liver] as glucose, fructose, or galactose. The gut and liver are required to process fructose and galactose into glucose, lactate, and fatty acids.”
“Fatty Acids” sound bad to our ears; we have a bad image of both acids and fat. But, “Fatty acids (mainly in the form of triglycerides) are … the foremost storage form of fuel in most animals.” [ source ] Likewise, lactate, once considered “a waste by-product of anaerobic glycolysis [utilization of glucose in the muscles] with multiple deleterious effects”, is now better understood to be not only “a readily accessible fuel that is shuttled throughout the body but also a metabolic buffer ….it also acts as a multifunctional signaling molecule through receptors expressed in various cells and tissues.” [ source ]
Why this focus on sugars?
The War on Sugar is the nutrition science narrative which says “sugar is bad because we eat too much of it” — is then used to vilify food producers who use sugar in their products – positioned as unnecessary, too much, wrong kind – an endless attack on a substance that is not only innocent, but is a necessary part of the human metabolism and the main source of quick energy for most higher life forms on earth.
The War on Sugar has morphed into the War on Food (UPFs) (and here and here). Why do I think that the War of Food (specifically the hobby-horse of nutrition science vilifying so-called Ultra-processed Foods – UPFs) is a continuation, an extension, of the War on Sugar?
All of the anti-UPF studies have a commonality that looks like this:
All of the other categories are either slightly beneficial or “nothing done/no effect” as the hazard ratio uncertainty bars include one. I discuss this in detail in What Junk Nutrition Science Looks Like. In every research paper on so-called UPFs, the findings mirror the above chart of hazard ratios – the deleterious effects claimed for UPFs all derive from the over consumption of sugars of all types, usually represented by sugar-sweetened beverages and sweetened snack foods, which is associated with, but does not necessarily cause, over-weight and obesity and thus diabetes, and some effects from processed red meats ( see The Meat War). None of the other sub-categories of UPFs show any clinically significant negative effects at all.
The War on Food has been more than adequately covered here as linked above, but let’s drill down a little to see one major battlefield of those combined scientific wars : High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).
High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)
There are important things to know about High-Fructose Corn Syrup.
I’ll start by quoting the current information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) “High Fructose Corn Syrup Questions and Answers”:
Corn Syrup is just glucose: “HFCS is derived from corn starch. Starch itself is a chain of glucose (a simple sugar) molecules joined together. When corn starch is broken down into individual glucose molecules, the end product is corn syrup, which is essentially 100% glucose. …. To make HFCS, enzymes are added to corn syrup in order to convert some of the glucose to another simple sugar called fructose, also called “fruit sugar” because it occurs naturally in fruits and berries.”
High-Fructose Corn Syrup is just fructose and glucose, approximately 50/50: “The most common forms of HFCS contain either 42 percent or 55 percent fructose….The rest of the HFCS is glucose and water. HFCS 42 is mainly used in processed foods, cereals, baked goods, and some beverages. HFCS 55 is used primarily in soft drinks. …. The proportion of fructose to glucose in both HFCS 42 and HFCS 55 is similar to that of sucrose.”
[Note: The ratio of fructose/glucose in HFCS is 42/53 or 55/42, both approximately 50/50. Other sugars make up the remaining 5 and 3 %s. Water is not included in the percentages. ]
How is HFCS different from our common table sugar, sucrose?: “Sucrose (sugar), the most well-known sweetener, is made by crystallizing sugar cane or beet juice. Sucrose is also made up of the same two simple sugars, glucose and fructose, joined together to form a single molecule containing one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule, an exact one-to-one ratio. …. In sucrose, a chemical bond joins the glucose and fructose. Once one eats, stomach acid and gut enzymes rapidly break down this chemical bond. … In HFCS, no chemical bond joins the glucose and fructose.”
Compared to table sugar, High-fructose Corn Syrup is either slightly lower in fructose than table sugar as HFCS 42 or slightly higher as HFCS 55. The FDA uses this language “The proportion of fructose to glucose in both HFCS 42 and HFCS 55 is similar to that of sucrose.”
As a note, for pure apple juice the ratio is generally about 66/34 fructose/glucose – much higher in fructose than either of the two standard HFCS formulations.
HFCS Bottom Line:
HFCS is just sugar water, with approximately the same ratio of fructose and glucose as table sugar (sucrose). “High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a fructose-glucose liquid sweetener alternative to sucrose (common table sugar).” [ source ] Some HFCS is lower in fructose and some HFCS is higher in fructose when compared with table sugar. HFCS is a liquid, as the sugars are mixed with water.
With the basics covered here in Part 1, Part 2 will focus on the question:
If HFCS is just sugar water, with a similar composition to table sugar, why is it vilified?
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
As with other Science Wars, this topic is just too complex and complicated to cover in under 1500 words, thus I have spilt it into two parts: this introduction which will be followed shortly by a dissection of the “science” that has been used to turn HFCS into a villain.
I have long held that human nutrition, as a subject, is one field of science that suffers the most from fads, based on poor science, which become self-perpetuating and self-reinforcing: unproven hypothesis becoming ‘facts’ by simple repetition.
Please limit your comments to the materials presented in this, Part 1, of this essay. HFCS is at the center of a swirling controversy with opinions varying wildly. In Part 2, I will cover the studies that have been produced about HFCS.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
I prefer mine with seed oils.
In the comments below I see there isn’t any discussion of the transition from a life that basically required a lot of physical activity to today’s sedentary life. I’m 70, and I have had plenty of time to see what having a sedentary or physically active life does to my friends. While we all end up with medical headwinds and setbacks (and something gets us sometime), none of my climber/running/hiking friends are obese. Many of my old friends from work who are lifelong couch potatoes, they are obese and struggling with various metabolic issues and are on many meds for life.
There is not much obesity in Japan and other countries….Japanese who have lived in Hawaii for generations tend towards obesity – you are what you eat to a great extent. The South Sea Island people are not obese if they still eat the traditional diet – in larger islands whare “westernization” has taken over the diet – the natives become fat. In Afghanistan, USA doctors treating war wounded noticed the natives had almost no fat compared to USA soldiers who had some fat almost everywhere in their bodies…human fat tends to be slightly yellow and visible in wounds.
I’ve no doubt you are correct. In the old US of A, diet is a far more complicated and compromised situation. Afghanistan, in addition to a very different diet the “natives” habitually climb what we call mountains to get through their daily lives. Most of my good time hiking and climbing buddies could all stand to lose 5,10, or 20 pounds to get to “fighting weight”, but we are all pretty fit and not overweight, let alone obese. Except Juan, a nebbie who if he lost 50 pounds would be an awesome climber.
As I age ….I tend towards moderation in everything including exercise. 70 and higher don’t need to be breathing hard or causing blood to accumulate in the brain….strokes and coronaries. I recently started eating a couple cloves of garlic daily – supposed to be “healthy”. I’ll probably drop it after awhile – always something going on.
“The War on Sugar is the nutrition science narrative which says “sugar is bad because we eat too much of it” — is then used to vilify food producers who use sugar in their products – positioned as unnecessary, too much, wrong kind – an endless attack on a substance that is not only innocent, but is a necessary part of the human metabolism and the main source of quick energy for most higher life forms on earth.”
C’mon now, Kip! We all know that sugar is sugar, and is a part of many natural, unprocessed foods, such as raw fruits which are very nutritious. What’s bad is not the sugar itself but the ways in which the sugar is used by the food industry and in certain food recipes.
For example, whole fruits are rich in fiber, which slows down digestion and the absorption of sugars, leading to a more gradual release of glucose into the bloodstream. This can help promote feelings of fullness and reduce overall calorie intake.
Fruits also contain other beneficial nutrients like vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, which probably contribute to overall satiety and well-being.
The physical act of chewing whole fruits can also play a role in appetite regulation by stimulating the release of hormones that signal fullness.
On the other hand, added sugars, like those in sugary drinks, are often in a concentrated form and lack fiber, potentially leading to a less satisfying and more rapid rise and fall in blood sugar levels, which contributes to overeating and weight gain.
One can’t become overweight without eating too much.
They have to do something sat in front of the television.
Vincent ==> Fruits are great for you, but this: “whole fruits are rich in fiber, which slows down digestion and the absorption of sugars, leading to a more gradual release of glucose into the bloodstream.” is a myth. The glucose in fruits is absorbed very very quickly and does not depend on the fiber in the fruit at all. The fructose, in which fruits are higher, has to be processed through the liver, just like the 50% of sucrose (white sugar) which is fructose.
“whole fruits are rich in fiber, which slows down digestion and the absorption of sugars, leading to a more gradual release of glucose into the bloodstream.” is a myth.”
Then please show the research which clearly demonstrates that this is a myth. My searches on the internet imply it is not a myth.
Here’s an AI summary of the situation, when I asked the question on Google.
“Yes, fiber, particularly soluble fiber, does slow down the digestion of sugar. This is because soluble fiber forms a gel-like substance in the digestive tract, which slows down the rate at which food, including sugars, moves through the stomach and intestines. This slower digestion and absorption can help prevent rapid spikes in blood sugar levels after eating.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Soluble fiber’s role:
Soluble fiber, found in foods like oats, beans, and apples, dissolves in water and forms a gel-like substance in the digestive system. This gel slows down the movement of food, including sugars, through the digestive tract.
Impact on blood sugar:
By slowing down the digestion and absorption of sugars, soluble fiber helps to prevent the rapid increase in blood sugar levels (glucose spikes) that can occur after eating foods high in simple sugars.
Benefits for people with diabetes:
This slower release of sugar is particularly beneficial for people with diabetes, as it can help them better manage their blood sugar levels.
Other benefits:
In addition to regulating blood sugar, fiber can also help with weight management by promoting feelings of fullness, which can reduce overall calorie intake. It also contributes to a healthy digestive system.
Vincent ==> LLMs (AI) simply report a consensus view of a topic, the most often repeated talking point — not necessarily scientific or biological truth (unless the Ai is hallucinating, which is possible).. The gel around fiber prevents the digestion of fiber…free sugars are absorbed regardless. All the sugars are taken up regardless of what else is in the diet. This is why eating a nice juicy apple (high is fructose and glucose) gives one a lift on a summer afternoon, no waiting necessary.
Andrew Dice Clay mentioned a diet book. The title was something like “Stop Eating You Fat Bastard”.
I questioned thusly: “sugar in orange juice, apple juice, and soda?”
DuckDuckGo’s Search Assist returned: An 8-ounce serving of orange juice contains about 21 grams of sugar, while apple juice has around 24 grams of sugar. In comparison, a typical 12-ounce soda contains approximately 39 grams of sugar.
Why use 12-ounce soda and 8-ounce for the others?
An apple/berry/cherry “No Sugar Added” juice drink has 29 g per 8 oz., or 3.625 grams per ounce. Pepsi claims 3.416 g per ounce.
Two tablespoons of sugar in your coffee gets you 25 grams.
If one is concerned about such things, perhaps water should be your drink of choice.
Coffee in the morning, iced tea in the afternoon.
Probably should have clarified, black coffee (no sugar or cream) and unsweetened iced tea.
How about applying moderation when it comes to our diet. Consumption of too much processed foods, a sedentary lifestyle and a lack of exercise seems to be the pitfalls of modern society.
Why include “processed” in your statement?
Ther is an absolutely clear link between high starch and sugar consumption and obesity. And Type II diabetes
Whether fructose is worse than sucrose is less certain.
Leo ==> Eating too much (particularly WAY TOO MUCH) sugars and starches certainly contributes to overweight and obesity. Obestity is a leading factor in Type II Diabetes.
There is no apparent link between HFCS, or fructose, to either.
Public Announcement:
A Little Of What You Fancy Does You Good.
Everything in moderation, including moderation.
I remember one remarkable article in Science News in 1986 that connected high levels of fructose and copper deficiency to heart disease. This was a bit of a surprise as deaths due to heart attacks had been going down. My suspicion at the time, never confirmed as far as I know, was that the acid rain issues around that time led to copper eroding from home plumbing and I wondered if that may have led to a increase in people’s copper levels.
https://www.sciencenews.org/wp-content/uploads/1986/05/00368423.ap071794.07a00100.pdf
Another thing I did look into but never resolved is the relative speed of the enzyme that splits sucrose into its monomers vs the one that converts fructose into glucose. If the former is fast, then that should lead to high blood levels of fructose. If the latter is fast, then that would mean sucrose consumption doesn’t lead to high fructose levels.
Another SN article that is worthwhile is https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sweet-confusion which takes a long look at fructose mostly, but with notes on other sugars too.
An excerpt:
The scientists announced their triumph [identifying a bacterium that converts glucose into fructose] in a short report in Science in 1957. There the discovery sat in quiet obscurity for almost two decades, until a worldwide spike in sugar prices sent manufacturers scrambling. By the end of the 1980s, high fructose corn syrup had replaced cane sugar in soft drinks, and it soon became popular among makers of baked goods, dairy products, sauces and other foods.
Few consumers seemed to care until 2004, when Barry Popkin, a nutrition scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, along with George Bray, at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La., published a commentary in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition pointing out that the country’s obesity crisis appeared to rise in tandem with the embrace of high fructose corn syrup by food producers. That shift began in the early 1970s — just about the time Japanese researchers, who had noted Marshall and Kooi’s experiment with keen interest, overcame the technical hurdles of industrial production.
Ric: Cleaving Sucrose into Glucose and Fructose occurs within the digestive system. Conversion of Fructose into Glucose happens in the liver after enzyme (GLUT2,GLUT5) assisted transport thru the gut wall and transport thru the bloodstream. Which is to say that the processes are sequential, not parallel. That suggests to me at least that relative reaction speed probably has little effect.
NOW do (look at) the effect cigarettes had on (deceasing, keeping in check) obesity. (JUST throwing this out there.)
Noting it is the appetite suppressing quality that smoking (nicotine use?) has.
It appears to be a fine essay on the Sugar in general which is educational however the problem isn’t the variable sugars themselves it is overuse of them in too many foods that are offered for sale some that are totally unnecessary to add such as fruit drinks which already have its own delicious fruit sugars in them.
Dried fruits have sugar added to them thus ruining the taste, try a sugar free version and suddenly it’s a treat!
I avoid soda drinks as they are not much more than sugar water formulations which the human body was never equipped to handle well.
I eat oatmeal with a little sugar added in the packaging that is easily handled and taste good as oats are tasteless without the flavoring.
Carbohydrate should be taken in moderation and better with the more complex sugars that slows down the transfer into the bloodstream what is more easily handled as it is more spread out instead of getting it all at once that drives insulin process into large up and downs that generates its own set of problems such as developing insulin resistance that can lead to diabetic conditions.
re: “I eat oatmeal with a little sugar added in the packaging that is easily handled and taste good as oats are tasteless without the flavoring.”
My Green Cheek conure (small winged parrot-type creature often kept as a pet) didn’t mind unflavor-enhanced oatmeal, so I gave it a try … and ya know what? The bird was right, there IS taste there, so that’s the way I now take my occasional bowl of oatmeal!
“And what is “table sugar”? It is sucrose.”
From WebMD (https://www.webmd.com/diet/what-to-know-about-high-fructose-corn-syrup): “Regular sugar is 50% fructose and 50% glucose” and “High-fructose corn syrup isn’t all that different from sugar. The two most common forms contain either 42% or 55% fructose, as well as glucose and water”.
Joe ==> Yes, exactly correct.
The phrase ‘processed food’ is tossed around as if its meaning is obvious.
What _exactly_ is processed food?
What is the ‘process’ that makes food ‘processed’?
What does processing remove/add/change?
Is a steak that I get at the local butcher processed? Does cooking it ‘process’ it?
What about ground wheat? Bleached flour? Whole wheat flour?
What _exactly_ is processed food?
A few months back, Kip did a 3 or 4 part series on exactly this.
Fred ==> The series Tony_G refers to is The War on Food, linked in the essay above.
Fred, There are some “guidelines” of sorts for distinguishing between raw, unprocessed, and ultra-processed foods. They don’t seem to me at least to make all that much sense. Some foods require processing (cooking, washing, freezing, fermentation) for safety or preservation. And some additives are probably desirable (adding iodine to salt). See Kip’s article or the internet in general for details.
Eat less and exercise. Got it. Now, just to do it. 😉
2hotel9 == Good advice for eveyone — but if you are seriously overweight or obese — it will not change that fact by much at all.
It is the only advice that matters or will make any difference at all. This current fad of “weight loss” drugs is doing more harm than good. People are idiots, they jab that crap into themselves and then gobble and drink as much of whatever as they want, thinking they are going to lose weight.The secondary and tertiary effects of these witches’ brews are still not fully listed, much less understood. That is the other leg that has to be broken off this particular stool, pharmaceutical industry. They are fixing or curing nothing, simply insuring their continued astronomical profits.
So, eat less and exercise. The only medical advice that matters.
But, those are chemicals and chemicals are bad. <sarc>
If HFCS is just sugar water, with a similar composition to table sugar, why is it vilified?
Its a social question, not a scienfic one. I suspect something like this is the answer. Its one of a triad of foods, the others being vegetable oils and soy derivates, that people see as being the base of a problematic way of eating. They find HFCS a convenient short hand for sugar in the diet.
What they see is that it may be chemically no different than table sugar, but table sugar is white or brown, is identifiable, takes a conscious decision to add to one’s cooking. Whereas, the feeling is, the corn syrup is everywhere in prepared foods, you don’t even know its there, and it adds a lot of sugar to most diets.
I know you have a few lunatics who think that there is something special and different in the dietary effects of HFCS as compared to table sugar, but I don’t think that for most of its critics this is the case.
Are they right to focus on HFCS? No, not really. In fact, its misleading because it can focus attention not on the foods we are eating, but the particular kinds of sugar they contain, often with the implication that if we changed the constituents, including the kind of sugar, the diet would improve. It wouldn’t.
If you are comparing the diets of 1950s Europe with today, HFCS is a factor in increased sugar consumption, but the consumption coming from what is eaten and drunk, from soft drinks, snacks in part, but also in the availability of fruit juices and sweetened yoghurts and shake-type drinks. If we just replaced HFCS with some other kind of sugar and carried on eating as now, it would not help.
Those thin crowds you see in old documentaries had none of today’s soft drinks, and whole aisles in their food stores were not loaded with biscuits and snacks. In fact, there were no supermarkets to be configured like that. There were groceries, butchers, greengrocers. And they did not eat between meals – in those days children ate what they were given, at mealtimes, they did not have open access to large fridges whenever they wanted. It was not that they were eating like us, but eating table sugar in place of corn syrup. Its that the diet was different, there was less sugar of any sort in it.
Anyway, that’s a suggestion, it happens because people have correctly seen a problem but got its nature wrong, and have then let a part of it take the role of main cause and villain.
michel ==> Most of those thin crowds you see in old photos just plain didn’t have enough to eat and often did not have good diets. The well-to-do farmers ate well off their own produce and animals.
I was thinking of UK wartime rationing, Grok says in summary (preceded by a lot of backup information, and some caveats):
Conclusion
For obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic illnesses, the UK population’s health was better during wartime rationing than today. The restricted, whole-food-based diet and active lifestyles minimized these conditions, while modern abundance and processed foods have driven a surge in metabolic diseases. If you’d like me to dig deeper into specific studies or analyze related X posts for public sentiment, let me know!
michel ==> There certainly were fewer obese people, but once he war was over, and the U.S. started sending meat and milk products, the people were much happier. The Brits loved Spam — it was the only meat they got.
NEVER!
Really, this statement should have been posted at the top of the article, in flashing lights, to let the reader know that nothing that follows will have any relevance to the ubiquity of slow-death-by-fructose.
I invite the author to ask that his IV line have the glucose feed swapped for fructose, and then watch for the look of horror on the faces. It would be as though you asked for ethylene glycol (antifreeze) sweetener in your drink.
Whetten ==> Well, that is a strong reaction. They drip glucose (and salts) into your IV line because that is the sugar that feeds you — glucose known as blood sugar — which is 1/2 of the sucrose you eat and 1/2 of the HFCS you consume. Almost no 100 fructose is readily available to you — with the exception agave syrup. No one consumes much of that (very expensive).
Nope. I know my body too well. There is definitely a difference. Perhaps it is because I have Crohn’s, but there is a distinct difference between sugar and HFCS when it comes to my body.
Dietary science is very fadish. There has been a war on fats as long as I can recall. A woman acquaintance who was an Army nurse upbraided me in the early 1980s for my consumption of dairy, avocados, coconut, Mexican foods involving pork and lard, and so on. I persisted.
Thereafter we learned that transfats, considered a healthier substitute for fats, were actually worse. About twenty five years ago Science magazine published a lengthy expose entitled “The Soft Science of Dietary Fat”, I sent it to all my fat-phobic friends. What good it did I can’t say.
But we were now encouraged to consume much less fat and red meat, and more carbs. My mother in law, who is only 4 years older than me has taken this to the extreme. Everything is fat-free or low-fat, and the amount of sweets she bakes is obscene. Perhaps it is only because I am more active, or live at higher elevation, or different genetics, but I have none of the weight gain problems, or other issues, of the in-laws.
Now I see from figure 3 that fish and chicken are now considered as unhealthy as, not just red meat, but sugary beverages too. Well, no matter. I will persist.
Kevin ==> Well, the Kilty abides…. 😉
Do you know Gerry Meyer? I see he won a couple of medals at the Wyoming Senior Olympics (only entry for the 105-109 age group).
The War on Sugar has morphed into the War on Food
And both are useless misdirection. The real culprit is dietary self-discipline. People get fat because they consume too many calories. It’s that simple. Adding sugar to food makes it more appealing and perhaps more likely to eat more than is necessary, but the problem still is dietary self-discipline resulting from easy access to a large variety and quantity of food; a problem that people in poor countries wish they had. Your body isn’t smart enough to know when you’ve eaten too much, except when you’ve really gorged yourself at a single meal. Calorie-counting and weighing yourself regularly are the best tools to help you gauge your food intake and identify trends that lead to excessive weight gain.
stinkerp ==> It is not quite that simple — Many people eat far “too many calories” and don’t get fat — many fat people, put on restricted calories lose a little, but not a lot, of weight. There is something else going on, but we haven’t figured it out yet.
I lost nearly 50 pounds simply by almost entirely quitting drinking sodas with HFCS or sugar. No other dietary changes. I was diagnosed with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. I was on three different blood pressure medications and was retaining fluid in my legs and abdomen. I don;t drink alcohol nor do I smoke anything, never have.
Now my weight is around 202 to 210 pounds and I feel much better plus I’ve been able to stop the blood pressure medications. My liver enzymes and other liver associated chemistry is back to normal. My legs are no longer swollen from fluid retention.
All it took was eliminating 99% of the sugary soft drinks. I still drink one now and then, but mostly it’s Coke Zero. I don’t even like the taste of regular Coke now. It’s too sickly over sweet.
Using Sucrose (from sugar cane or beets) to sweeten carbonated beverages achieves the same result as HFCS, if the HFCS is a 50:50 mix of fructose and glucose. The carbonic acid made by the carbonation breaks the sucrose into fructose and glucose, so no chemical tests for sucrose will show any. But if tests for fructose and glucose show equal % of both then it’s likely the drink was initially made with sucrose.
Gregg ==> Congrats on losing that much weight — I know it takes a real effort, and a real effort to maintain the new weight. My guess would be that you were drinking a LOT of sugar-sweetened soda?
When I was a desk-bound programmer with IBM, I knocked back Coke after Coke to sustain 14-16 hour workdays under heavy pressure to invent and innovate. Gained 30 pounds (inactivity and too many calories, including corporate cafeteria lunches…) Shifted to non-sugar soda and walking during lunch break instead of eating….lost he extra 30 lbs.
At my age I still have to watch for creeping weight gain…..but maintain a new “older gentleman” acceptable weight.
Stomach acid breaks the sucrose into glucose and fructose as well….I’m checking out the idea that the carbonic acid in carbonated soda does the same. Interesting point.
Very nice Kip. The do gooders and busy bodies have taken a very helpful subject, nutrition, and turned it into powerful cult like endeavor not unlike CAGW. I pay no attention to modern nutritional advise because the nutrition camp has been hijacked by people lusting for power and control. I will say once again everything Kennedy says or does must be backed by proper science, I’m not sure that is the case now. We must demand it.
Bob ==> The Gold Standard Science decree will protect us from Kennedy’s hobby horse health opinions. (Hopefully). He has always had nutty ideas.
Well what works for me might not work for thee, so let me be and keep looking for what “maybe” (the solution of your problem).
Obesity will have many causes, blaim it on sugar, fat or processed food is just scapegoating.
I know how I can control my weight and am sick and tired of hearing BS like: ” I can’t eat breakfast”, or “can’t skip supper”. Pay so called health gurus or weight watchers as much as you want, their secret lies in stripping you of your cash so thay you either est less or stuf yourself with cheap crap.
Gaining weight as well muscle buildup has certainly genetic roots that can’t easily be bypassed. So try and error, just skip that “oh I feel bad so you must too”…makes me not wanna hang myself but garrot you slowly.
My sister and I stuffed us back in the good old days with all kinds of artificially flavoured crap (and sugar as well). None of us got fat, mommy cooked well and plenty, bread and butter was as usual and unrestricted as cover your Frosties with sugar to your liking. Idiots nowadays want you to eat less of what you crave for…hey abolition…how did that stupidity play out for you US??
As an example.
Yes today I don’t eat anymore peanut flips, chips or corn flakes. Recipies changed, the overly expensive crap doesn’t taste anymore so what’s the comclusion? Less joy, more drinks…does your obesity or diabetes no favour at all.
An old fart has spoken, still enjoy my morning coffee strong, with sugar and milk, sometimes with a dash of rum and whipped cream on top…because I like it that way. Don’t need any “purist” to tell me what to do, because if you do so I return the favour with unpleasant words, or in the worst case with lead sarc.
I am a retired CEO of a major refined sugar company. I am a past president of the World Sugar Research Organization, and I have studied all of the research into sugar and health intensively.
The one definitive outcome of sugar consumption is that it will make your babies be born naked.
Bill S ==> Thanks for checking in…and glad to see that you aren’t calling out any errors I may have made in my simplified presentation of the issue.
And I am ever so grateful that my son and his wife ate enough sugar to see that our new grandson, 2 weeks old, was born naked and not dressed in pre-ripped jeans and a black hoodie!
After several years of stable living with a 2 lead pacemaker/defibrillator, things went south on us, and I was in the hospital last year for a 3 lead upgrade. The improvement has been remarkable, but my attention has been drawn to Dean Ornish’s program to reverse heart disease. It’s more than just diet; it involves diet, exercise, and stress reduction. I’m giving it a try, as I figure if it works for heart disease, it’s worth the trouble. In relation to this thread, Ornish reports significant improvement in patients with diabetes. (How many, I don’t know. His book only has a single testimonial.) I’d be interested if anyone has information.
Just because the components of HFCS are present in table sugar, does not mean that HFCS is exactly the same harm/good as table sugar.
In particular: due to the massive subsidies to the corn farmers, HFCS is super cheap. That is a major reason why it became so ubiquitous.
The real question is whether you agree that too much sugar in food is a problem or not.
That is the real point RFK Jr is making – not that HFCS’s are bad but that sugar is good per se.
c1ue ==> HFCS is just sugar — the same sugars that make cane sugar, in approximately the same ratio.
The cost of a food component doesn’t change its biological nature.
Of course, TOO MUCH sugar is not a good thing just as TOO MUCH anything. Where to draw that line is the controversy.
This essay is not advocating the position that humans should consume sugar in endless quantities, only that HFCS and SUGAR are the same and have the same effects on the body.
So we agree that too much sugar is bad.
This is important because it means that we agree that there is definitely a real problem that needs being addressed: the amount of sugar in food.
The question now is whether the name-shaming of HFCS will reduce the amounts of sugars being put into food.
All I pointed out is that the issue with HFCS is that it is so cheap that it gets put into pretty much all food.
c1ue ==> It is not just because it is less expensive. The biggest plus for food manufacturers is that it is a liquid, thus far easier to add and mix into other ingredients. Mixing solids (powders, granular materials like grains of flakes) is very difficult to do evenly.