High Fructose Corn Syrup June 7, 2010

I feel like HFCS has become a curse word among health-conscious people. Some blame obesity on it. Wow! It would have to be some pretty powerful stuff to be the root cause of one of the biggest health problems in the US.

A colleague just sent out an interesting review article on HFCS and its potential health impact. I found it fascinating and very helpful in decoding the HFCS mystery. I personally don’t think HFCS is the enemy to a healthy diet. No one ingredient should be doing that in anyone’s diet. I do get a little ticked about the whole made from corn issue and the fact that it is a highly processed ingredient. In and of itself though, it’s essentially harmless if found in the context of a healthy diet. Read this great science and you can form your own opinion.

REVIEWS
The effects of high fructose syrup.
Moeller SM, Fryhofer SA, Osbahr AJ 3rd, Robinowitz CB; Council on Science and Public Health, American Medical Association.
J Am Coll Nutr. 2009 Dec;28(6):619-26.
PMID: 20516261

CONCLUSIONS

HFCS is a common food ingredient in the United States. The most commonly used types of HFCS (HFCS-42 and HFCS-55) are similar in composition to sucrose, consisting of roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose. The primary difference between HFCS and sucrose is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The free monosaccharides in HFCS provide better flavor enhancement, stability, freshness, texture, color, pourability, and consistency to foods in comparison with sucrose. As use of HFCS increased over the last 30 years, so did the rates of obesity and diabetes. Human and animal studies have found direct associations between fructose and adverse health outcomes, including obesity. However, the adverse health effects of HFCS, beyond those of other caloric sweeteners, most of which contain fructose, are not well established. Consumption of added caloric sweeteners in general increased over the same period, as did total calories. Likewise, rates of obesity have risen even in countries where little HFCS is consumed.
The literature on HFCS consists mostly of ecological or small, short-term experimental studies, many of which have been industry-supported. Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose does. Nevertheless, it is difficult to thoroughly examine the potentially differential effect of various sweeteners, particularly as they relate to health conditions such as obesity, which develop over relatively long periods of time. Improved nutrient databases are needed to analyze food consumption in epidemiologic studies, as are more strongly designed experimental studies, including those on the mechanism of action and relationship between fructose dose and response. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to ban or otherwise restrict the use of HFCS or other fructose-containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. Nevertheless, dietary advice to limit consumption of all added caloric sweeteners, including HFCS, is warranted.

Sugar Alcohols April 16, 2010

Yesterday I posted the nutrition facts for the 3 Bar that included sugar alcohols. Sugar alcohols have a scary name but are not to be feared. According to the label of the 3 Bar, “Sugar alcohols are slow to non-digestible, naturally occurring carbohydrate derived from corn, fruit, berries, Birchwood and other plants. Individuals sensitive to sugar alcohol should avoid excessive consumption.”

‘Why are they non-digestible?’ you may be asking. Likely it is because our bodies do not have an enzyme that can break down that particular type of starch. Sugar alcohols are used to sweeten foods while only adding a fraction of the calories and have a very low glycemic affect. (FYI – they also do not cause tooth decay.) The reason there is a warning for sensitive people is because sometimes if you eat too much, it can cause an upset stomach or bowel issues (temporarily).

To answer another possible question in your mind, ‘Why are they called alcohols?’, we have to go back to chemistry. Most technical food names are based on their chemical structure. For example, carbo-hydrates are a combinations of carbon atoms (carbo) and hydrogen (hydrate). Isn’t that cool? That is why I love science. Anyways, a sugar alcohol, therefore, is a sugar molecule that has additional OH (oxygen and hydrogen) groups on it. This addition makes it difficult to digest.

All in all, I think sugar alcohols are safe to consume in moderate amounts. Too much of them could cause some trouble down south. But do not be afraid when you see them in a product here and there. Here’s a great article from yale that goes into a little more details: http://www.ynhh.org/online/nutrition/advisor/sugar_alcohol.html

This is sorbitol, a sugar alcohol, for all you science nerds out there like me.

Good News for Stevia Fanatics and Splenda too! September 3, 2009

Ahh… the splenda vs stevia battle continues. Some interesting scientific news came out this week about these two sweeteners.

1. Sweetleaf Stevia is now not only a GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) product but has also received the “no objection” blessing of the FDA.  This is considered the gold standard in safety labeling for food. Awesome news, right?! So keep on using Stevia products, although this certification is for Sweetleaf brand only. Check out this link for an easy to understand briefing: http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Legislation/FDA-has-no-objection-to-GRAS-for-SweetLeaf-stevia

2. The research about Splenda/Sucralose that came out last year (see September 28, 2008 post) has come under scrutiny. This study found that using recommended amounts of sucralose decreased helpful bacteria in the guts … of rats. An independent panel (very important detail) of researchers have reevaluated the study and found it lacked scientific rigor. This basically means that the conclusions from the study are not really valid. The sucralose witch-hunt will continue on! Check out the brief at: http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Science-Nutrition/Sucralose-safety-scientifically-sound-Expert-panel

What do you think about this? Which product do you prefer to use and why?

High Fructose Corn Syrup vs. Sugar April 14, 2009

High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) has taken over the grocery store!!! What are we to do? (This is in my mocking panic voice.)  I have had several clients complain to me about spending 30 minutes in the bread isle trying to find a bread without HFCS. I’ve been told there is only one, and I don’t remember the brand. So what is going on? There are now commercials on TV about the evils and positives of HFCS. We now are now being led to think that sugar is better for us because it is more “natural.”  My take-home-message is reduce your intake of both!

Sugar and HFCS are carbohydrates and therefore have the identical 4 kilocalories per gram that defines them chemically. So calorie wise, it doesn’t matter which one is the source of your sweetener. There has also not been shown a true difference between the way the 2 sweeteners are metabolised.

I’ve been learning a lot about HFCS lately because I am reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma. HFCS came on the scene around the early 1980′s because America was producing way too much commodity corn for the demand in the food supply.  Scientists began creating new uses for corn and thus HFCS was born. It is made from corn (therefore making it “natural”) which is extensively processed. It is a cheaper sweetener than table sugar because corn is very cheap due to its excess (read the book).  The Coca-Cola brand switched completely to HFCS in the 80′s and this enabled them to increase the serving size (from 8 oz bottles to 16+ oz bottles) and only have to raise the price a little bit. No one noticed a taste difference, by the way.

So now, HFCS is in everything! What should we do? Hopefully you picked up along the way that we should all reduce the amount of sugar in our diets. Sugar is rich in calories and void of any real nutritional value. We all have an innate desire for sweet-tasting foods, unlike the taste/desire for salty foods. So it adds quantity and calories to our diet and leaves us with no disease-fighting, weight-managing properties. It’s not the “devil”,  as many hard-core sugar-haters may tell you. But it does need to be controlled and manage in our diets.  Sweets are a joy in a life! I think a world without tasty sweets sounds terrible. I just don’t think we need to be eating twinkies, brownies, soda, sports drinks, and Fruit Loops every single day.

In conclusion, it is important to reduce your intake of both HFCS and sugar. Neither one is great for you. But having HFCS is also not going to ruin all your efforts at weight management.  I’d much rather you pay attention to the total calorie content of a food, the amount of fat, and the amount of fiber a particular food item contains.

Have a healthy, low-sugar day!

Truvia January 28, 2009

Sucralose Molecule

Sucrose Molecule

Q: Is Truvia better than Splenda?

A: They are different. You can decide which one is “better.”

What do I mean? Splenda is an artificial sweetener. The phrase “It tastes like sugar b/c it’s made from sugar” is true. Splenda starts as the same molecule as sugar, sucrose. A few oxygen atoms and a couple of hydrogen atoms are removed and replaced with chlorine atoms (Cl-) to create sucralose (Splenda). See the picture. The body does not recognize the chlorine as toxin but rather the molecule as a whole. It is not able to be digested and passes on through the GI tract. Splenda is 600 times sweeter than sugar so less is definitely more. It is also heat stable and therefore can be used in baking and cooking, unlike some other artificial sweeteners. These are all good things. Whether or not Splenda is “bad” for you is still in debate. I’m still cool with small quantities.

Truvia comes from a plant, stevia, so it would be what we loosely call a “natural” sweetener. According to www.truvia.com, the sweetener is extracted from the leaves in a similar way as steeping tea. It is still then “processed” further to create the crystals or liquid used as a sweetener. Truvia is also calorie-free which makes it a nice sweetening choice. There are recipes on the website, so you can apparently bake with Truvia. The shortbread recipe, however, calls for 18 packets of Truvia. That’s kind of annoying.

So I think this is comparing apples to oranges. If you are into the more “natural” diet thing, Truvia is a great choice. Splenda can be a great choice too and looking at the molecular structure it looks pretty “natural” to me. The point is always moderation. If you saw me in the grocery store you might find either one of the products in my cart.

New Splenda Research September 25, 2008

A new piece of research has hit the media this week highlighting some possible negative effects of Splenda (aka sucralose). These effects are: “Reduces the amount of good bacteria in the intestines by 50%, increases the pH level in the intestines, contributes to increases in body weight, and affects the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) in the body in such a way that crucial health-related drugs could be rejected.”

Here’s some thing to keep in mind before changing your use of Splenda or your hatred of artificial sweeteners is intensified.

- This is just one study. Practice is never changed by one study. One study can definately tip us off to some important things to think about and where further research is needed.

- The subjects of this study were rats, not humans. Rats are a typical subject group and the FDA also tested on rats in their studies. I still say they are rats.

- This study was funded by the Sugar Association. Hmmmm. You always have to say that when you find out who funded a huge project against a competetor. This is not to say that the research is bogus. In fact, the researchers have already made a public statement saying the funders had nothing to do with the results.

Adverse effects of sucralose were found at a level of 1.1-11 mg/kg of body weight. The FDA recommends a safe level of sucralose at 5 mg/kg of body weight.

So what do we do now? I still stand by the fact that artificial sweeteners are generally safe to consume. However, I always respect those who choose to avoid them altogether. I think each person should make their own decision until more valid research is available. I think this study can lead us to think that maybe too much is not good. I encourage you to look at just how much artificial sweetener you are getting in your diet. We shouldn’t use Splenda in everything, but most dietitians have felt that way from the beginning. Yes, switching to a diet soda is a good choice calorie-wise. But if you are now drinking several diet sodas a day, we have another problem to address from a healthy-eating perspetive.