PSA: Link between HFCS and Liver Disease? Did you know this?

[Amy in NH]

I've known for quite a while that HFCS is unhealthy, and done my utmost to remove it from our regular diet.  But I was recently made aware of the link between fructose and liver disease, which has struck me since we have members here on the forum with family who have been suffering with liver problems.  Apparently it's not just HFCS, but fructose in general that is harmful.  Here is some info on the metabolic science of fructose from Mercola:

• After eating fructose, 100 percent of the metabolic burden rests on your liver. But with glucose, your liver has to break down only 20 percent.
• Every cell in your body, including your brain, utilizes glucose. Therefore, much of it is "burned up" immediately after you consume it. By contrast, fructose is turned into free fatty acids (FFAs), VLDL (the damaging form of cholesterol), and triglycerides, which get stored as fat.
• The fatty acids created during fructose metabolism accumulate as fat droplets in your liver and skeletal muscle tissues, causing insulin resistance and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Insulin resistance progresses to metabolic syndrome and type II diabetes.
• Fructose is the most lipophilic carbohydrate. In other words, fructose converts to activated glycerol (g-3-p), which is directly used to turn FFAs into triglycerides. The more g-3-p you have, the more fat you store. Glucose does not do this.
• When you eat 120 calories of glucose, less than one calorie is stored as fat. 120 calories of fructose results in 40 calories being stored as fat. Consuming fructose is essentially consuming fat!
• The metabolism of fructose by your liver creates a long list of waste products and toxins, including a large amount of uric acid, which drives up blood pressure and causes gout.
• Glucose suppresses the hunger hormone ghrelin and stimulates leptin, which suppresses your appetite. Fructose has no effect on ghrelin and interferes with your brain's communication with leptin, resulting in overeating

 

[Tammyla]

Thanks for posting this.  I'm coming to believe the stuff is plain old toxic.

 

Dh just had a distant cousin 50 who died from liver cancer.   

[nmoira]

 

fructose in general that is harmful.  Here is some info on the metabolic science of fructose from Mercola:

 

You'd better stop eating fruit then (and a fair number of vegetables). And anything with table sugar, honey, or molasses.

 

ETA: Or just stop reading Mercola. Just a thought.

[Dandelion]

I knew about some of this, but hadn't heard about the specific connection to liver disease.  Thanks for posting.

 

We've been avoiding HFCS for a few years now.  It's nasty, dangerous stuff.  

[gardenmom5]

I have another one for you - I went running to do research when I heard.   HFCS uses caustic soda to extract the sugar from the corn.  you want to know what they use to make caustic soda?  MERCURY.   ds was drinking rootbeer right before a blood draw.  (it was a bribe to get him to cooperate).  his blood mercury level on that test was 7.6.   his ND stated, and I quote "that's the equivalent of swallowing a thermometer". 

 

you really have to read labels to avoid the stuff.

[gardenmom5]

You'd better stop eating fruit then (and a fair number of vegetables). And anything with table sugar, honey, or molasses.

 

ETA: Or just stop reading Mercola. Just a thought.

there are a lot of different forms of sugar.  the fructose in HFCS must be extracted from the corn, and then concentrated.  it undergoes molecular changes from it's natural state.  that's why it's such a problem.  it's unnatural and the body can't adequately cope. 

 

same thing with folic acid. (it taxes the liver.)  it occurs no where in nature, and can cause problems in the body by derailing the methylation cycle.  (folinic acid is what is natural, and what people should be ingesting.  molecularly they are NOT the same thing - those I've often seen the names used interchangeably.)

[Amy in NH]

You'd better stop eating fruit then (and a fair number of vegetables). And anything with table sugar, honey, or molasses.

 

ETA: Or just stop reading Mercola. Just a thought.

 

Actually, I was googling for information on the link between corn and liver disease and came up with the metabolic information on fructose.  The Mercola site seemed to have some interesting science.

[nmoira]

there are a lot of different forms of sugar.  the fructose in HFCS must be extracted from the corn, and then concentrated.  it undergoes molecular changes from it's natural state.

 

These sugars break down rapidly in the digestive system. Fructose is fructose. 

 

From the OP:

"Apparently it's not just HFCS, but fructose in general that is harmful."

[gardenmom5]

These sugars break down rapidly in the digestive system. Fructose is fructose. 

 

From the OP:

 

not according to the blood work we have done regularly.

[nmoira]

not according to the blood work we have done regularly.

 

Your bloodwork says that fructose is not fructose?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I have another one for you - I went running to do research when I heard. HFCS uses caustic soda to extract the sugar from the corn. you want to know what they use to make caustic soda? MERCURY. ds was drinking rootbeer right before a blood draw. (it was a bribe to get him to cooperate). his blood mercury level on that test was 7.6. his ND stated, and I quote "that's the equivalent of swallowing a thermometer".

 

you really have to read labels to avoid the stuff.

Wait...you think drinking a root beer right before a blood draw put mercury in his system equivalent to swallowing a thermometer?

[Amy in NH]

These sugars break down rapidly in the digestive system. Fructose is fructose. 

 

From the OP:

"Apparently it's not just HFCS, but fructose in general that is harmful."

 

http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/nutrition/a/fructosedangers.htm

 

Fruits and vegetables have relatively small, "normal" amounts of fructose that most bodies can handle quite well. The problem comes with added sugars in the modern diet, the volume of which has grown rapidly in recent decades.

[nmoira]

http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/nutrition/a/fructosedangers.htm

 

Fruits and vegetables have relatively small, "normal" amounts of fructose that most bodies can handle quite well. The problem comes with added sugars in the modern diet, the volume of which has grown rapidly in recent decades.

 

As a general statement, I won't argue with this. However, there's no good evidence at this point that HFCS is any more dangerous than other added sugars (all of which contain fructose, BTW), of which we as a society eat far too much.

[nmoira]

Just to help put things in perspective, HFCS is called such not because it's high in fructose in as absolute sense (HFCS-42 and HFCS-55 proportionally have a little less and a little more fructose proportionately than table sugar, which is 50%), but rather because corn syrup has very little fructose. Since fructose is "sweeter" to the taste, the higher the fructose, the sweeter the syrup.

[Firefly]

Doesn't surprise me.  I'll take my fructose sans the caustic soda and hydrochloric acid, thanks.  :ack2:

[nmoira]

This stuff makes my head spin.  I don't know who/what to believe anymore.  I read some crazy conflicting things!

 

Minimize added sugars. :D

[FaithManor]

This stuff makes my head spin.  I don't know who/what to believe anymore.  I read some crazy conflicting things!

Exactly this.

 

So, my take is this...probably the way nature grew it is pretty safe. I'm going to continue eating blueberries for the anti-oxidants and citrus for the vitamin C, or my green apples with unsweetened peanut butter.

 

But, man-made frankenfoods...I don't think we naturally possess the enzymes needed to digest these bizarre aberrations created to turn food into plastic so the shelf life is long and it's extra sweet so you get addicted to it and want more. Same for artificial sweeteners and a host of food additives.

 

No thanks. Keep it simple, don't add chemistry experiments to my food.

 

Faith

[Halcyon]

Again, I refer all of you to Robert Lustig, md's video on youtube called The Bitter Truth. He clarifies all of this.

[Catwoman]

Thank you for posting this, Amy!!!

 

I don't generally trust much of what I read on Mercola, but since my dh has cirrhosis, you can bet I will be checking into this more closely. I hadn't heard anything about this possible connection before now, so I really appreciate it that you took the time to post about it. We are trying to do anything we can to slow the progression of my dh's liver disease, so if there is even a small chance that avoiding HFCS could help, it's worth finding out more about it.

 

Thanks again!!!!

[Dandelion]

 

You'd better stop eating fruit then (and a fair number of vegetables). And anything with table sugar, honey, or molasses.

 

 

Fruits and vegetables have relatively small, "normal" amounts of fructose that most bodies can handle quite well. The problem comes with added sugars in the modern diet, the volume of which has grown rapidly in recent decades.

 

The difference between the fructose found in fruit/vegetables and HFCS is the nutritional/chemical composition.  Even though HFCS consists of fructose and glucose, our bodies can't digest it the same way as naturally occurring fructose and glucose.  Aside from the fact that HFCS is synthetically manufactured and heavily chemically processed, one of the biggest differences is that fruits and vegetables naturally contain the necessary amount of fiber to counteract the noxious effects of the fructose - HFCS does not.  

 

The manufacturing of HFCS is also concerning, as previous posters pointed out.  It is highly mechanically and chemically processed.  There is nothing "natural" about it. The manufacturing of HFCS uses caustic soda and hydrochloric acid, both of which can contain traces of mercury. Here's a link to a peer-reviewed research study published in Environmental Health (abstract here; PDF here) that found detectable levels of mercury in 9 of 20 samples of commercial HFCS. 

 

According to the USDA, by the end of 2012 88% of the corn grown in the U.S. was genetically modified.  It's highly unlikely that HFCS manufacturers are using organic corn in their product.  So essentially, HFCS is genetically modified corn that has been put through a long series of  mechanical processes and chemical reactions, and possibly contains mercury.  That's a far cry from ingesting the fructose found in a bowl of blueberries. 

 

Again, I refer all of you to Robert Lustig, md's video on youtube called The Bitter Truth. He clarifies all of this.

 

I agree.  It's an excellent video.  He really lays it all out in a very accessible and thorough manner.

 

[Tammyla]

Well said.

 

Ime, I live in a city that brews up monster batches of HFC-syrup and the stuff stinks like crazy.  The smell alone would turn most any stomach.

 

 

Exactly this.

 

So, my take is this...probably the way nature grew it is pretty safe. I'm going to continue eating blueberries for the anti-oxidants and citrus for the vitamin C, or my green apples with unsweetened peanut butter.

 

But, man-made frankenfoods...I don't think we naturally possess the enzymes needed to digest these bizarre aberrations created to turn food into plastic so the shelf life is long and it's extra sweet so you get addicted to it and want more. Same for artificial sweeteners and a host of food additives.

 

No thanks. Keep it simple, don't add chemistry experiments to my food.

 

Faith

 

[nmoira]

The difference between the fructose found in fruit/vegetables and HFCS is the nutritional/chemical composition. Even though HFCS consists of fructose and glucose, our bodies can't digest it the same way as naturally occurring fructose and glucose. Aside from the fact that HFCS is synthetically manufactured and heavily chemically processed, one of the biggest differences is that fruits and vegetables naturally contain the necessary amount of fiber to counteract the noxious effects of the fructose - HFCS does not.

Yes to the fiber, a big no to the rest. Glucose is glucose. Fructose is fructose. There is no difference in chemical composition, no special "natural" fructose. These are very simple organic molecules.

 

Minimize intake of added sugars, no matter what kind. :)

[Dandelion]

Yes to the fiber, a big no to the rest. Glucose is glucose. Fructose is fructose. There is no difference in chemical composition, no special "natural" fructose. These are very simple organic molecules.

 

Minimize intake of added sugars, no matter what kind. :)

 

We agree on the fiber aspect and on the importance of minimizing sugar.   :)

 

When I say "natural", I mean fructose as it occurs in nature.  Unadulterated by the kind of processing, chemical additives, etc. that are part of HFCS manufacturing.

 

And yes, glucose molecules and fructose molecules are simple.  But HFCS combines them in a way that is different from regular sugar.  In HFCS, the glucose and fructose molecules are not bonded together like they are in sugar.  Since they are not bound, the body does not process them the same way that it breaks down the sugar molecule.  More research is needed on this, but there is some research that claims that the extra unbound fructose can cause problems on a molecular level (such as the effects on the liver noted in the OP).  The difference seems minor, but our bodies are complex and often respond adversely to even minor chemical or nutritional imbalances.

 

IMO, there are enough other reasons to avoid HFCS even if the research isn't conclusive yet. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

There is a link between obesity and fatty liver disease, which can end up in cirrhosis (though other things can end in that as well).  

There is a link between HFCS and other sugar intake and obesity.

There is a link between diabetes and fatty liver disease as well. 

 

I have fatty liver disease.  Eating a low glycemic diet is recommended both for weight loss and for controlling how your body stores food as fat.  

[nmoira]

And yes, glucose molecules and fructose molecules are simple.  But HFCS combines them in a way that is different from regular sugar.  In HFCS, the glucose and fructose molecules are not bonded together like they are in sugar.  Since they are not bound, the body does not process them the same way that it breaks down the sugar molecule.  More research is needed on this, but there is some research that claims that the extra unbound fructose can cause problems on a molecular level (such as the effects on the liver noted in the OP).  The difference seems minor, but our bodies are complex and often respond adversely to even minor chemical or nutritional imbalances.

 

The study "cited" (kinda) by Mercola didn't even look at HFCS vs other sugars, but rather a high fructose diet specifically. Here's an article about the original Times of London report about the study. Factual errors have been corrected, and there's some great discussion in the comments section.

http://grist.org/article/draft-new-research-links-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-diabetes-heart-diseas/

 

I agree that there are plenty of reasons to avoid foods with HFCS... the added sugars of course :) and the other ingredients being big ones. Foods with HFCS tend to be highly processed and about as far from whole foods as one can get. In many ways manufacturers are doing us a favour by using HFCS because it's like waving a flag to identify problematic foods.

[Dandelion]

The study "cited" (kinda) by Mercola didn't even look at HFCS vs other sugars, but rather a high fructose diet specifically. Here's an article about the original Times of London report about the study. Factual errors have been corrected, and there's some great discussion in the comments section.

http://grist.org/article/draft-new-research-links-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-diabetes-heart-diseas/

 

I agree that there are plenty of reasons to avoid foods with HFCS... the added sugars of course :) and the other ingredients being big ones. Foods with HFCS tend to be highly processed and about as far from whole foods as one can get. In many ways manufacturers are doing us a favour by using HFCS because it's like waving a flag to identify problematic foods.

 

Thanks for the link.  I'll check it out.

 

I haven't clicked through to the Mercola article linked by the OP, so I don't know what study he cited.  I'm just spouting off in this thread based on my own findings.  ;)

 

Totally agree with your comment that HFCS is like a flag identifying problematic foods.  That's a great way to look at it.

[grantmeawish]

Mercola is a quack

[nmoira]

Yeah, but even some very basic foods that I wouldn't put in the same poo pile as overly processed are being made with HFCS and too much sugar in general.  It just drives me nuts.  I mean take ketchup.  I'm not under any allusion it's a health food, but they could make it with less sugar and without all the funk.  KWIM?  I mean trying to make something like ketchup yourself is a real pain.  And while I won't die without ketchup, I rather like a bit on my burger. 

 

Although I am seeing more and more products like that available without the funk.  So that's good.

 

I thought Hunt's was HFCS free, and Heinz organic? We don't use enough ketchup for me to bother making it we use WH 365 brand because it's cheapish, though honestly, I'm not too bothered by the thought of a little HFCS containing ketchup every couple of weeks.

 

I was soooo excited when a local restaurant had HP sauce that I slopped it all over my burger, big grin on my face. Yuck. The stuff was unbearably sweet... sure enough, it's formulated differently in the States and has HFCS. Ugh.

[Dandelion]

Yeah, but even some very basic foods that I wouldn't put in the same poo pile as overly processed are being made with HFCS and too much sugar in general.  It just drives me nuts.  I mean take ketchup.  I'm not under any allusion it's a health food, but they could make it with less sugar and without all the funk.  KWIM?  I mean trying to make something like ketchup yourself is a real pain.  And while I won't die without ketchup, I rather like a bit on my burger. 

 

Although I am seeing more and more products like that available without the funk.  So that's good.

 

Heinz Organic as well as Heinz "Simply Heinz" are both HFCS-free.  

[nmoira]

Yeah I buy Hunts.  I don't eat much ketchup, so yeah it probably doesn't matter all that much.

 

What is HP sauce?

 

Steak sauce. I don't like it on steaks, but it's great on burgers.

 

About 20 years ago, it had the best ad campaign ever... I'll see if I can find a commercial on YouTube.

[nmoira]

Here:

 

 

[Laura Corin]

As a general statement, I won't argue with this. However, there's no good evidence at this point that HFCS is any more dangerous than other added sugars (all of which contain fructose, BTW), of which we as a society eat far too much.

 

Yes.  I'm not convinced the HFCS is a specific risk - what causes damage is the highly sweetened, very processed, animal fat laden Western diet.

 

L

[nmoira]

I've never been crazy about steak sauce, but maybe it would be good on a burger.  It's definitely ridiculous for a good steak.

 

I hear ya. I don't mind a pan sauce... but that's as far as I'll go.

[Snickerdoodle]

I have replied to this thread mentally several times already. 

 

[LisaKinVA]

Here is what I can say about my family since going to full fat, and eliminating hydrogenated and other oils (we use Coconut oil, lard, olive oil and butter here...not that we *never* have anything else, but this is what we use regularly).

 

Since going back to whole milk, real cheese, real butter, real grains (the kind we mill), and real fruits/veggies:

 

1) Kids don't need to snack as much (including the teenager)

2) Weight issues (especially for my 11yo dd) have disappeared)

3) DH and I can eat one or two good meals a day and not be hungry for hours

4) Desire for junk food diminishes.

5) I sleep better and have more energy to get things done.

 

However, if we get out of routine...and we wind up eating processed foods we are hungrier all the time...desire to snack increases...and my energy tanks...

 

4 years ago, I learned I was in the early stages of fatty liver disease (no dx...just liver enzymes were off, my own research told me what was going on). The better part of the previous 20+ years was lived with non-fat dairy (if any dairy), low-fat, margarine, skinless chicken, lean, lean meat, turkey bacon/sausage...etc. I tried to eat salad (low-fat dressings...) and fresh veggies. I was seriously addicted to sugar (hey, it's LOW FAT). So, any link between high-fat and fatty liver disease was not due to the high amounts of fat in my diet. Going back 20 years, following the strict LOW-Cholesterol guidelines -- for well over 2 years -- my good cholesterol was low and my bad cholesterol was high. Knowing how I ate, I was absolutely in shock. HOWEVER, now seeing the linkage between processed carbohydrates, sugar and understanding that the liver converts those sugars into cholesterol (the bad kind), it's no wonder my cholesterol was out of whack.

 

My biggest problem right now, is that I am in a high-stress period of life...something that is not conducive to really keeping up with food preparations the way I would like (yes, Hamburger Helper is in my pantry...first time in 4 years) I'm trying to do what I can, but July is always crazy -- and we just added an international move into the mix -- and I have a freelance job to finish in these next two weeks too!

 

So yeah...I'm so not buying the fatty diet is the cause of these problems. Zero clinical studies to prove that one.

[nmoira]

I was under the impression that the problem with red meats is its association with cardiovascular disease rather than obesity. A proposed mechanism explaining at least part of the link is the metabolism of l-carnitine by microbes in the intestines to produce a molecule that promotes atherosclerosis. 

 

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v19/n5/full/nm.3145.html

 

While the study is preliminary, the link between red meats and CVD is well supported.

[nmoira]

Talk about timely. :D
 
Just posted today in Brainwaves at Scientific American, a good overview of the different scientific positions staked out and the current research on fructose vs glucose, etc. Nothing new, just lots of links in one place.
 
Is Sugar Really Toxic? Sifting Through the Evidence
 

[Laurie4b]

There is a link between obesity and fatty liver disease. So to the extent that people who are obese might contain relatively more processed foods, which is where you find HFCS , that might be the link. Not the HFCS itself, but the whole shebang that leads to obesity. Then the changes in abdominal fat from obesity that leads to metabolic changes and round and round it goes.

[nmoira]

Where?  I'm dead serious. Everything I've read has shot major holes in the very few studies done on the topic.  Not saying I believe anything I read, but I often get the impression that we are told stuff and at the end of the day it isn't based much on anything.  It's more like, "Well because everyone knows that right?" 

 

These look at mortality:

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1134845

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=414881

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20100816/red-meat-raises-heart-attack-risk

 

None of these show causality, but the link is enough for me to moderate our red meat intake. Sure, the people in these studies aren't for the most part eating grass fed beef, but we don't have the data on whether it's actually healthier -- we only suppose it is. Since most chicken is raised on much the same crap most beef is and chicken doesn't show the same links, I'm hesitant to eat more beef, even if I could afford grass fed.

[gardenmom5]

Your bloodwork says that fructose is not fructose?

molecularly high fructose corn syrup is not the same thing as regular fructose.  what they call it is irrelevant.   folic acid and folinic acid are frequently used interchangeably even by medical professionals.  molecularly they are not the same thing.

 

My daughter played with this type of stuff in the lab her senior year with research funding from NIH.  moving the arrangement of molecules around so the body wouldn't recognize the "molecule", because it was now different.

[nmoira]

molecularly high fructose corn syrup is not the same thing as regular fructose. what they call it is irrelevant. folic acid and folinic acid are frequently used interchangeably even by medical professionals. molecularly they are not the same thing.

 

My daughter played with this type of stuff in the lab her senior year with research funding from NIH. moving the arrangement of molecules around so the body wouldn't recognize the "molecule", because it was now different.

Perhaps you could share a link with information showing *how* fructose in HFCS differs chemically from "regular" fructose?

[Laura Corin]

Ok, but another area not well proven.  Where is the evidence of animal fats being bad?

 

People consume very little animal fat compared with in the past.  In the past, baked goods were often made with lard.  Grocery stores didn't cut all the fat off meats.  French fries were fried in beef fat.  People didn't live on boneless skinless chicken breast which is extremely low in fat.  They didn't have 100s of fangled vegetable oils like they do now.

 

And then what cracks me up is that people scream about saturated fats.  Saturated fats are the enemy.  And then in the next breath they praise the healthiness of coconut oil which has more saturated fat than even butter.

 

Yes - I'm aware of the controversy.  For me, it's more that the body can cope with a certain amount of most things.  It's just that the balance is completely out of whack.  Some animal fats and sugars?  Fine.  The way that modern processed foods are made with an overdose of both plus a bunch of nameless chemicals?  Well, looking around me, that doesn't seem to be working that well.  

 

I eat meat.  But after my experience seeing how the food mix in China directly affected health and wellbeing (having lived there in 1985/6 and again from 2004 to 2008)  I'm definitely in the: 'eat veg and whole grains and a bit of meat if you want' group.

 

L

[Laura Corin]

Modern processed foods are not made with animal fats.  They are made with transfats generally (which are most of the time vegetable oils).  I cannot remember the last time I saw a product made with an animal fat.

 

I had things like sausages/ready meals in my head at that point in my sentence: there's a big difference between a piece of pork and a sausage/ready meal bulked out with extra animal fats.

 

I know that previous generations used a lot of animal fats.  It's common in traditional societies as a way to increase calorie loads: China in 1985 cooked lumps of pork fat with vegetables; in the UK of my childhood, there were a lot of buttery sauces.  The problem comes when this is combined with the ready availability of cheap meat as well: the calories get doubled and tripled.

 

For comparison: when I was small, my mum would cook a joint of meat on Sunday and we would eat some version of it all through the week.  There wasn't a large amount of meat, but there might well be butter or cheese (cheaper at the time) to make up the difference.  Similarly, in China in 1985, meat was a garnish rather than the main course.

 

Then you look at today, and people still add lots of fats to all their dishes, in addition to being able to afford meat.  It's not moderate, and as I said, I think our bodies appreciate moderation.

 

L

[FaithManor]

I had things like sausages/ready meals in my head at that point in my sentence: there's a big difference between a piece of pork and a sausage/ready meal bulked out with extra animal fats.

 

I know that previous generations used a lot of animal fats.  It's common in traditional societies as a way to increase calorie loads: China in 1985 cooked lumps of pork fat with vegetables; in the UK of my childhood, there were a lot of buttery sauces.  The problem comes when this is combined with the ready availability of cheap meat as well: the calories get doubled and tripled.

 

For comparison: when I was small, my mum would cook a joint of meat on Sunday and we would eat some version of it all through the week.  There wasn't a large amount of meat, but there might well be butter or cheese (cheaper at the time) to make up the difference.  Similarly, in China in 1985, meat was a garnish rather than the main course.

 

Then you look at today, and people still add lots of fats to all their dishes, in addition to being able to afford meat.  It's not moderate, and as I said, I think our bodies appreciate moderation.

 

L

I agree, our bodies appreciate moderation. However, I'd like to point out that with grocery prices skyrocketing the past few years, people are consuming less meat and dairy across the board here. Yet, no one is getting healthier. The statistics just keep getting worse.

 

Most of the families I know in this area eat very sparingly of pork and red meat because it's so expensive compared to 10 years ago and wages have been stagnant here for a decade. Venison is common and how much a family eats depends on how good dad's hunting was last season. Most meals are heavy in grains and heavier in veggies than meat though most people do not seem to know what an actual serving size of veggies really is and eat WAY too many grains. Meatless spaghetti and lasagna has become very popular along with dishes in which only a half lb. of any kind of meat is added to the casserole for a family of 5...less than 2 oz. per person. With milk now $4.00 a gallon, and a half lb. of the cheapest, worst cheese you can buy except processed cheese slices, at $6.00 a lb., those processed cheese slices are the bulk of the dairy and many families that had used real butter, have converted back to cheap hydrogenated margarines. When I see grocery cart after grocery cart after grocery cart laden with breads, pastas, rice, potatoes, oats, and some fresh produce, a tiny bit of dairy, and very little meats of any kind, then I just can't believe that the animal fat connection can be made to deteriorating health. We have restaurants in the area going out of business due to low consumption of restaurant food. People aren't eating around here as much as outsiders might assume and yet, heart disease and diabetes reigns supreme. I know that is not representative of all counties in America, but I do find it interesting that the county commissioners in conjunction with the two county hospitals decided to take a look at the medical statistics for this county and heart disease and diabetes is rising rapidly, but the sale of meat and dairy is WAY down over the last ten years.

 

I truly believe we've tanked our internal organs with the chemicals. John Hopkins - well known around the world for it's medical research - came out over a decade ago against Big Ag and the FDA stating their long terms studies show no safe level of consumption of HFCS and hydrogenated oils. They linked these oils to liver failure, heart failure, pancreas failure, digestives track disorders of every kind, and even some neurological problems and NOTHING was done. They even tested the "cholesterol"/clogs of many patients who died of heart disease to see the actual make-up of the deposits that had ultimately destroyed those arteries. Guess what they found? Hydrogenated oil. I read an entire book on it, which I have since given away, but if I can find the title, I'll link it. They specifically said they did not find animal fat deposits in these arteries...it was the actual chemical compound hydrogenated oil. That's what killed them. Around that same time they came out against HCFS as the number one enemy in the fight against diabetes. Yet, when my mom, a diabetic, was hospitalized for knee surgery, she was served numerous items high in HCFS. The reason I know is that since I suspected these items were not HCFS free, I demanded that the kitchen read the labels and get back to me. Yes, we the medical hospital will feed your diabetic mother canned veggies with HCFS in them, and salad dressing with HCFS in it, and .....same for my dad, he was in there for a quadruple bypass and the nutritionist came to see him with a handout about how dangerous hydrogenated oils were to his health. At every meal, he was served a butter substitute with hydrogenated oil in it!

 

It's the chemicals, from the BPA in our cans, the chemicals in the plastics that our foods are packaged in...even the organic ones are not safely packaged, the food additives (try taking a stick of margarine and leaving it uncovered in a window for two years...it will melt, but it won't attract anything more than dust...the bugs won't eat it and they are smart to refrain, it also won't go rancid or mold. It's nothing more than food grade plastic and your body can't break that down), the hormones, the antibiotics...the human body in America is nothing more than a testing ground for every kind of chemical that Big Ag/Big Pharma/Big Food Conglomerates can think of to make the food cheaper and raise their profits, or trick your brain into addiction so you'll crave more and more and more of it.

 

Eating healthy is so darn hard here. I can go into the average supermarket, look around, and realize that 85% of what is sold is basically dangerous for human consumption. Milk from cows hopped up on hormones and antibiotics that are then passed on to the human - but, organically raised milk is $12.00 a gallon (yep, $6.00 per half gallon so how many families can afford that???), margarines, corn oil, genetically modified grains/corns for which people do not possess the requisite enzymes to adequately digest and whose seeds were allowed on the market without any testing for safety since our system says it is basically the burden of the consumer to prove a food is unsafe, not the manufacturers job to prove that it is indeed safe, produce sprayed with pesticides most of which are estrogens that are endocrine disrupters to the bugs and no thought that possibly lifetime exposure to this stuff might mean it ends up disrupting endocrines of people too, it goes on and on and on.

 

The average conventionally grown strawberry crop receives 200 lbs. of pesticide per acre two or three times per season. Over your strawberry eating life, how much endocrine disrupting hormone did you consume? A LOT and that's just one crop with soy being the most oversprayed crop in the United States and it is added to nearly every processed, pre-made item you can buy in a grocery store, bread products, you name it. When the American Heart Association allowed soy producers to claim it as the ultimate heart healthy protein source, it became the hallowed additive to everything.

 

I truly believe that America's big health problems are not caused by foods the way nature created them eaten in healthy, moderate doses. I believe that they are caused by the chemical additives and genetic modifications to what were once natural substances.

 

But, moderation is an important concept. That old saying, too much of even a good thing is too much, is absolutely true. Our bodies need a very wide variety of vitamins, minerals, amino acids/omega oils, and fiberous sources and it will not get these necessary nutrients if the diet is overly heavy in one food group.

 

 

Faith

[gardenmom5]

Perhaps you could share a link with information showing *how* fructose in HFCS differs chemically from "regular" fructose?

 

Regular fructose

 

High fructose corn syrup

 

I'm going to have to work on this to get the pictures to show up.  they changed the system. sigh.

 

in the meantime - you might find this interesting reading.

[FaithManor]

Here is the link to one of the books I read that cited the John's Hopkins study - if memory serves. I had a sea of books on heart topics due to ds's recent diagnosis way back then (2003/2004) and for a couple of years did a LOT of reading. But, I finally got rid of my books and decided to live life with some joy instead of constant anxiety, so I don't own this particular one anymore. I'm relying totally on memory here. Hopefully, I'm linking the correct one.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Trans-Fats-Judith-Shaw/dp/0743491831/ref=sr_1_30?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373984599&sr=1-30&keywords=hydrogenated

 

Faith

[Erin]

Seriously?  This is news?
I thought it was a well-known thing that the increase of HFCS has led to a rise in fatty liver disease.

 I mean, if the liver is the only place fructose is broken down, and nearly everything out there has HFCS (not to mention the stuff we deliberately ingest like candy and pop!) it stands to reason the overload is going to take a toll on the liver...

 

To our health issues, I think people are having a really hard time letting go of the "fat" thing.  
It's not animal fat.  It's not red meat. 

It's SUGAR.  Sugar is cheap, accessible, and in everything.   Our consumption of meat hasn't really gone up a lot...  Our consumption of animal fat has probably gone down. 

But our consumption of sugars (and cheap starches) in the last century or so has increased exponentially! 

[nmoira]

These sugars break down rapidly in the digestive system. Fructose is fructose. 

 

From the OP:

"Apparently it's not just HFCS, but fructose in general that is harmful."

 

 

not according to the blood work we have done regularly.

 

 

Your bloodwork says that fructose is not fructose?

 

 

molecularly high fructose corn syrup is not the same thing as regular fructose.  what they call it is irrelevant.   folic acid and folinic acid are frequently used interchangeably even by medical professionals.  molecularly they are not the same thing.

 

My daughter played with this type of stuff in the lab her senior year with research funding from NIH.  moving the arrangement of molecules around so the body wouldn't recognize the "molecule", because it was now different.

 

 

Perhaps you could share a link with information showing *how* fructose in HFCS differs chemically from "regular" fructose?

 

 

Regular fructose

 

High fructose corn syrup

 

I'm going to have to work on this to get the pictures to show up.  they changed the system. sigh.

 

in the meantime - you might find this interesting reading.

 

 

OK, now I'm a little confused as to what you are asserting. 

 

Your blood work says that fructose from HFCS is not the same as fructose from other sources? If so, how is this shown and who is interpreting this? Or are you saying that HFCS is not the same as fructose (which it isn't, as one is a mixture and one is a molecule)? I'm saying that fructose is fructose, no matter the source. The only point of consideration is the ratio of fructose to other monosaccharides. There is no "regular" fructose or "artificial" fructose from the body's POV.

 

I'm familiar with both how cane and beet sugars and HFCS are refined, and where HFCS is used, but that's not what we're talking about. :)

[nmoira]

But like the first one was based entirely on the results of surveys.  I don't find that convincing at all.

 

Also, they are naming what they consider a culprit (red meat).  It has been argued elsewhere that they ignored stuff like transfats (margarines) because it's assumed those are healthier than animal fats.

 

They're all based on surveys, at least until death. :D

 

But these are *big* surveys, and done over a considerable amount of time. Just because there's a link doesn't mean it's not coincidental, because a link in the presence of other variables and without a demonstrated mechanism can't definitively show cause. However, IMHO this is better data to start with than, say, "Don't eat eggs because cholesterol is bad and they are high in cholesterol." [This type of nutrition "science" is little better than homeopathy.  :tongue_smilie: ] The question to be answered is WHY is there a link. 

 

My very general take is that we're omnivores and are adapted to eating to a varied diet. Throughout most of our evolutionary history (in most cultures/geographical areas) we've eaten diets that are high in fiber, and by default, minimally processed foods. If Jared Diamond is to be believed, one of our biggest dietary challenges was getting sufficient protein, and the cultures that overcame this (via agriculture, primarily wheat... whether or not you buy the argument that beer was first, which I do :tongue_smilie:  ) are the ones that increased dramatically in density. Civilization as we know it wouldn't have been possible without it. So we eat a varied diet... something very easy to do where we live. That's the best I've got. :)

[Wildiris]

Even though it is anecdotal, I found LisaK in VA's response interesting. I also thought FaithManor's response worth reading too. 

 

Interesting topic.

 

Moderation seems to be the key whether one is trying to curb sugars of any kind or salt. Cooking from scratch still seems to be the best for ones diet. At least you know what went into the meal you're eating.