Q&A: High-fructose corn syrup vs. white sugar

Is high-fructose corn syrup better or worse for you than regular white sugar? —S.H., Nipomo,Calif.

Probably neither. The two sweeteners are almost identical chemically, both about half fructose and half glucose. Manufacturers began substituting high-fructose corn syrup for white sugar in the 1970s, mainly in beverages and processed sweets, because it costs less and helps extend a product's shelf life. While high-fructose corn syrup has been implicated in a rise in type 2 diabetes, obesity, and other health problems, there's no clear evidence that it increases their risk more than regular sugar does. Instead, the association may simply reflect the fact that we consume so much of it. Limit consumption of foods with added sugar. Sweeteners of any kind (except blackstrap molasses, which contains some calcium, iron, and other nutrients) provide empty calories and show up in foods that aren't very nutritious to begin with.

Read more on the whole truth about high-fructose corn syrup, and see our recent report on cereals for kids and our cereal Ratings (subscribers only).

Comments

[joe]

Chemically and nutritionally they may be similar.
What is not being mentioned is the byproducts or contaminants.
HFCS, high fructose corn syrups rely on LYE as an ingredient, used in the separation process of starch from the kernel.Some companies produce lye by pumping salt through "mercury" Need I say more?! Many others may or may not admit to it. See MOTHER JONES MAGAZINE, July / August edition, 2009.
Just as there was concern that margarine was worst then butter. HFCS's have the potential to be worse than natural sugars.When we fool mother nature, the joke is on us.

[Marc Brazeau]

@Ronald.
The statement of S.H., Nipomo "The two sweeteners are almost identical chemically, both about half fructose and half glucose" is completly untrue. Both cane and beet sugars are composed almost completely of sucrose.
And sucrose is a glucose molecule bonded to a fructose molecule. 50/50. HFCS is about 55% fructose and 45% glucose. The statement that they are both about half fructose and half glucose is true. The statement that they are almost identical chemically is false.

What's amazing is how long the nutritional "scientific" community has been saying that they are roughly the same thing so that there is no value in looking at the differences in how HFCS works on the body.

HFCS has over 20% more fructose than glucose that's huge difference to anyone with a remotely scientific bent. A difference in of 2.4% in body temperature is the difference between healthy and a fever of 101.

Fortunately, studies are starting to look at the differences as Bill King pointed out.

[Ronald]

The statement of S.H., Nipomo "The two sweeteners are almost identical chemically, both about half fructose and half glucose" is completly untrue. Both cane and beet sugars are composed almost completely of sucrose.

[Pat]

Scott, I don't see your point, the study Bill King references compares how fattening the additives in the article, sucrose(table sugar) and HFCS(high fructose corn syrup) are, in addition to straight fructose. So in essence, Bill Kings' post IS about HFCS vs. sugar, making your statement false Scott Gifford.

[Scott Gifford]

Bill,

Your statements are very interesting, but they are about sucrose vs. fructose, not HFCS vs. sugar. The article says that both sugar and HFCS have about the same proportion of sucrose and fructose. Do you take issue with that? Or are you suggesting that neither should be used as a sweetener?

[Bill King]

The observations of SH are at least 30 years old, and reflect assumptions that have only recently been challenged scientifically. While they seem logical on the surface, there is apparently a huge difference in how the brain reacts to fructose vs other sugars, perhaps due to evolutionary responses to preparing for a long, hungry winter.

Earlier this year, a study was released comparing colas sweetened with sucrose, HFCS, and straight fructose on overall metabolic pathway expression. For those consuming 6 colas a day with sucrose, 12.5% of their overall calories were turned to fat (lipogenesis). For the subjects consuming HFCS (50% fructose, 50% glucose), the lipogenesis rates were 25%. For those consuming straight fructose sweetened colas, the lipogenesis rate was 40%!!! All treatments were calorically equivalent. This means that fructose apparently changes our metabolism in a way that leads to the body storing more fat rather than burning via glycolysis or storing as glycogen.

UC Davis Nutrition Center is working on a much larger study on the effect of fructose on metabolism and fat deposition. So far, they have found a substantial increase in adipose tissue increase with the fructose fed group vs. sucrose, plus they have confirmed the increase in fat production with fructose. This data will shake the Fructose industry to its core, explaining why they are mounting a desparate last ditch marketing campaign to portray fructose as safe and suitable. It will also help to explain some of the increase in obesity in our country since HFCS was introduced into practically every cola, baked product, and dessert product in the late 1970's.

Reminds me of the tobacco companies desperate surge in advertising just before they were forced to stop advertising their false claims and images in the late 1990's.

[Allen]

Doesn't honey have a bit more than just empty calories?