Category Archives: Research

Sugar vs. High Fructose Corn Syrup: Is One Better than the Other?

Posted by happyhealthytasty in Health, Nutrition, Research and tagged with ,

sugar_spoon-jpg

There’s a debate raging in the media, amongst moms and families, and even within the medical and scientific communities about high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Some believe that HFCS is approximately “equal” to sugar in terms of chemical structure, sweetening power, and health effects, but others are claiming HFCS is responsible for everything from obesity to diabetes. To better understand the issue, below are some common questions and answers.

What is HFCS?

Simply put, HFCS is a liquid sweetener, made from corn, that is used to sweeten a variety of products, including sodas, juices, prepared foods, ketchup, sauces, salad dressings and hundreds of other items. It was discovered in 1957, industrialized for mass production in the early 1970s, and made widely available in the US in the 1980s. For a fun example of how HFCS is made (along with a dose of humor and political savvy), check out the documentary, “King Corn,” about two recent college graduates who buy a single acre of farmland in Iowa to grow corn and then venture into making HFCS in their kitchen. http://www.kingcorn.net/

What’s the difference between sugar and HFCS?

Chemically, the two are very similar. Each is a combination of two natural sugars (glucose and fructose). Table sugar is approximately 50% fructose and 50% glucose, while the most commonly used version of HFCS is about 55% fructose and 45% glucose. HFCS typically has a longer shelf life than sugar and is easily portable in its liquid form, and thus is a convenient and desirable ingredient for sweetening packaged or processed foods. While it’s often believed that ounce for ounce, HFCS is sweeter than sugar, both have approximately the same level of sweetness and the same calories (4 calories per gram).

Why is HFCS so controversial? 

HFCS strikes a highly political note in terms of its origins and production. Many believe that the US is over-producing corn, due to ongoing government subsidies paid to farmers to grow corn. And, increasingly, much of the corn grown in the US is grown from genetically modified seeds (seeds that have been altered to be pest resistant, drought resistant or otherwise “non-native” seeds).  The science on the effects of genetic modification is still largely in flux: food products grown from modified seeds appear to be safe, but they have not been studied long enough to conclude there are no ill effects on humans, animals, or the environment.  Additionally, the massive production of cheap and often modified corn has created a surplus – more corn than we need to eat or feed animals with – and thus, new ways to use all this extra corn were needed. Because of the subsidies and the surplus of corn, HFCS is a very inexpensive sweetener to produce. And because it is so cheap to produce and use, it is found virtually everywhere, from breads to beverages to everything in between. As of 2008, about half of all sweeteners used in the US was HFCS.

What about health impacts of HFCS?

The increasing usage of HFCS in beverages and other food products parallels the increasing rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes and other related diseases in the US.  Since the 1970’s and 80s, we have seen increased rates of sugar consumption, as well increases in the average calorie intake and the average weight of both children and adults. Because of the similar timing between growing obesity rates and HFCS usage, fructose and HFCS have been at the center of a great deal of research and debate.

Additionally, it is known that fructose is metabolized by the body via a slightly different process as compared to glucose or other natural sugars. This is some of the basis for concern regarding the health impacts of HFCS. Fructose is largely metabolized by the liver, unlike glucose (the latter of which goes straight into your blood stream and waiting organs after being digested by your intestines). Over-consumption of fructose can lead to the storage of excess fructose as fat in the liver, putting individuals at risk for fatty liver disease, cardiovascular disease, liver failure, insulin resistance and other serious health problems. Recent studies have also shown that high concentrations of fructose can decrease satiety (feelings of fullness after eating) and increase hunger levels, leading to over-eating and weight gain. For a highly entertaining (and very opinionated) lecture on more of the potential perils of fructose, check out the UCSF’s Dr. Robert Lustig’s very popular YouTube lecture. He also has a new book out, which I’m looking forward to reading, called Fat Chance

Ultimately, hundreds of scientific studies have been conducted over the last 5-10 years to evaluate the effects of eating or drinking large quantities of fructose, with varying results. Some studies have shown that high amounts of fructose may interfere with or alter the body’s normal metabolic processes, which can lead to insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, gout and other related diseases. However, to date, the research cannot 100% conclusively point to HFCS as “worse” (or better!) than regular table sugar when it comes to your health.

What’s the bottom line for my health?

Sugar, in any form and in large quantities, can have adverse impacts on your health and the health of your family. For young children with growing bodies and developing teeth, sugar can cause cavities and lead to the consumption of too many calories, resulting in overweight or obesity. As mentioned above, excess sugar and calories can also lead to metabolic issues, including type 2 diabetes. Americans eat about 80 pounds of sugar each year (which averages out to about 21 sugar cubes per day, or 8,000 sugar cubes each year!). This means that Americans are eating more than 300 calories per day just in sugar. Yuk. Thus, it’s wise to minimize overall consumption of all sweeteners and products that contain them if you can. If you’re looking for something sweet, choose whole fruit, healthy veggies like sweet potatoes and yams, and make sure to eat a balanced diet.

Read More:

Supplements: Be Wary and Wise

Posted by happyhealthytasty in Nutrition, Research and tagged with ,

Be wary!

A lot of people have asked me about taking supplements – vitamins, minerals, herbs or other compounds – to support their diet and/or athletic performance. I personally take calcium, magnesium, zinc and iron supplements, having been advised by my physician that I’m at risk for low levels of each (and/or I’ve tested low via blood tests). I also take fish oil, as it’s been shown to help reduce inflammation and may be important in preventing off chronic disease. But, there are a LOT of supplements that do absolutely nothing!

There are literally millions of different supplements on the market — crying out to you from the drugstore or natural foods shelf, hypnotizing you with their pretty colors, cool names and fabulous claims. There are supplements that claim to offer immune health, make your bones stronger, balance your moods, improve your memory, increase your chances of getting pregnant, help you lose weight, boost your athletic performance, and all things in between. And, SOME of these claims are even (somewhat) true. However, most are NOT.

Let’s look at how supplements are regulated, as this is a really important issue in terms of what you see and hear in the market. The 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) was passed to govern supplements and allows manufacturers to make claims regarding their products’ effects on the body without any guarantee on safety and effectiveness. These are called “structure/function claims, ” and include things like, “promotes hormone production to increase strength” or “promotes detoxification, cleansing and rebuilding.” However, (a) supplement manufacturers are NOT allowed to say that a specific product/supplement will prevent, reduce or cure a disease or specific health condition (yet many do!) and (b) there is NO guarantee of what you’re getting in the product either, as amounts of ingredients do not have to be listed on the label.

All supplements are regulated by the FDA, but they are not regulated as drugs – they are instead regulated as “foods.” This means that while pharmaceutical-grade drugs, medications and devices must undergo years of rigorous safety trials, massive pre- and post-market testing, and very careful marketing review, supplements do NOT have these same requirements. While a pharma drug must be proven safe before it can be sold, a supplement does not. Instead, a supplement has to be proven harmful before it can be removed from the market. And, some supplements may contain banned or even illegal substances. Especially those you can buy over the internet.

Thus, it pays to be very cautious when it comes to taking supplements. The bar for safety is very low, and regulation is quite limited. So, when you read that a supplement “controls blood sugar, reduces your risk of diabetes, increases stimulation and function of pancreas, increases HDL cholesterol, lowers LDL cholesterol, decreases triglycerides and helps control and balance sugar intake” (a real product, BTW, from Super Supplements’ website), you want to be EXTREMELY wary.  First of all, with all these claims, frankly, it’s just too good to be true. Second, this company is making illegal claims about its product (e.g. reduces risk of a disease: diabetes), so how can you trust that: (a) what they say is in it really is, and (b) that this product comes even 1/10 as close to delivering what it says it delivers?  Don’t waste your money. And don’t risk your health!

Finally, it is true that some supplements may indeed do what they claim to, but it also may depend on your gender, physical condition, genetics, etc. – you can expect a very individual response. One size just doesn’t fit all. So, if you decided to take certain products, please keep that in mind. And, please, please tell your doctor what you are taking: some supplements may interfere with medications or interact with meds with adverse results. Checking out clinical research on specific supplements is a great way to stay on top of this stuff, so consider reviewing the abstracts at PubMed, Up-to-Date or USP for details on which supplements were tested in clinical trials (and the results!).

And, for a bit of fun, check out this 3 minute You Tube video about a couple of guys who decide to open a supplement company. It’s funny, disturbing and not so far-fetched.

And, when all else fails, as Michael Pollan says, “Eat Real Food. Not Too Much. Mostly Plants.” You may not need to waste your money on supplements!

How does nutrition research actually work?

Posted by happyhealthytasty in Research and tagged with

Given that I’m up to my eyeballs in scientific literature at present, I thought this might be a good topic for a post. It’s funny, how each day we are bombarded with articles in the new media and social networks about that “studies report that people who eat chocolate are leaner than those who don’t” (my personal favorite) or studies that “demonstrate that a Mediterranean-style diet can reduce risk for chronic disease, such as type 2 diabetes or heart disease.” BUT, as consumers of mass media, we don’t always get the full picture or know what’s behind the study.  So, here’s a little food for thought as you read up on “the latest and greatest” – whether it’s in the New York Times, Journal of the American Medical Association, Eating Well Magazine, or People Magazine (Yes, I read all of these…).

1. What kind of study was it? The best sort of study is a randomized control trial (RCT), where every aspect of the research is controlled, down to what people eat, how much and when. These are awfully expensive to conduct, especially for diet-related concerns, so cohort studies (large groups of people followed for a significant period of time to see whether a disease or outcome develops) are also good choices. When you see something like “cross-sectional” or “ecologic” study in the news article, you may want to be slightly more wary of that the data is indicating.

2. Size. Was it a large study (e.g. 100s or 1000s of participants) or was it small (perhaps less than 30 participants)? Size, in a really well run study, doesn’t always matter, but it’s usually pretty darn important. You really can’t learn a lot about something that you want to apply to an entire population from a study of just 10 people.

3. How did the researchers get the data on what people ate? For nutritional studies, this is often the “smoking gun.” Food intake and nutritional information can be collected in a number ways, including actual monitoring (e.g. in the case of an RCT), via 24-hour food recalls (either phone/in-person interviews or survey-based) or via things like a food diaries/food records and food frequency questionnaires. The latter is largely self-reported and can be fraught with error. After all, can you recall how many times you ate chicken food in the last 6 months? Me neither. People also often under-report for various reasons (umm, that cupcake I just ate? Do I have to tell?!). Understanding what is collected, by whom and how often is important to deciphering how clear the results of the study truly may be.

4. How long was the study run? Most nutritional influences on health are not immediate (unless you’re looking at foodborne illness, ugh), so a fairly lengthy period of study is often best. It’s hard to see the benefits of Vitamin D supplementation on prevention of Alzheimer’s in a couple of weeks, for example. Depending on the topic under study, several weeks, months or years are most appropriate to draw valid conclusions that can then apply to future nutritional strategies.

5. Read closely for words like “association,” “correlation,” and “causal.”  Things like “can lead to” are not bullet-proof by any means. But, it’s also important to remember that causality, in the most scientific sense, is extremely difficult to demonstrate. What we eat also interacts with our genetics, our environment and our other healthy (or not-so-healthy) habits – so it’s not always a clear 1:1 path from food to a disease (or lack of). For the most part, we will see things like, “Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality.”  This doesn’t necessarily mean that red meat causes CVD, but in a number of well-conducted studies, a large number of people who died from CVD (or cancer, etc.) were also major consumers of red meat. Gives you something to consider, for sure.

6. Where you read it counts. If you read about a study in People Magazine, that doesn’t automatically mean it’s full of hot air (but really, this shouldn’t be your first source of nutrition info, for obvious reasons). If the study referenced in a news article was: (a) conducted by well-known scientific researchers (ideally at a major university or government agency) and (b) was originally published in a scientific journal, such as JAMA, Lancet, American Journal of Epidemiology, or other similar lofty (and peer-reviewed) publications, you can be generally confident it’s of high-caliber. Your best bet for solid nutrition data is this sort of scientific literature, or well-known news publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. Some fitness magazines also do a good job of covering research, but “sound bytes” often prevail over complete coverage of the ins and outs of a study.

That said, there are some really crappy studies that are published, so here’s my final advice: DO READ carefully, DO ASK QUESTIONS, DO READ MORE, and yes, it’s ok to be a little cynical! But please, try to be a bit OPEN MINDED too. We can all learn something new about the stuff we eat every day. And, it might one day save your life.