Is High Fructose Corn Syrup Worse Than Regular Sugar?

A recent study out of Princeton University has the high-fructose corn syrup alarmists out in full force.  This study compared the effects of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) to regular table sugar (sucrose), looking at their effects on body weight, body fat, and triglycerides (fats that float around in your blood).  The study found that the rats fed HFCS gained more weight and abdominal fat than the rats fed sucrose.  This study has strengthened the belief of some people that HFCS is contributing to obesity in our society, and that it is worse than regular sugar.  But is it really?

To answer this question, we need to take a close look at this study.  The researchers performed 2 experiments.  In the first experiment, male rats were divided into 4 groups.  Group 1 (the control group) was fed a regular diet.  Group 2 was fed the same diet, with the addition of 24-hour access to water sweetened with HFCS.  Group 3 had the regular diet with 12-hour access to the HFCS-sweetened water.  Group 4 had the regular diet, with 12-hour access to sucrose-sweetened water.  The rats were tracked for 8 weeks; weight was measured, along with food, sucrose, and HFCS intake.

You can see the results for experiment 1 in the following chart:

The rats who got HFCS for 12 hours gained significantly more weight than the other 3 groups.  At first glance, this would make you believe that HFCS makes you gain more weight than sucrose, even if you are eating the same number of calories.  However, there is a problem with these results.  Take a look again at the chart above.  If the rats fed HFCS for 12 hours gained more weight, why didn’t the rats fed HFCS for 24 hours also gain more weight?  They got HFCS for a full 12 hours more, yet didn’t gain more weight.  This is a glaring inconsistency in the results…an inconsistency that the researchers never tried to explain.

Rather than some unique effect of HFCS, a more likely explanation is one of chance.  Put on your math hat, because we need to talk about some statistics.  Researchers use statistics to get an idea of the probability that their results are due to chance.  When the scientists run their stats, they get what is known as a P value.  The P value tells you the probability that the results are not due to chance.  Usually, if the P value is less than 0.05, a scientist will call the results “significant.”  In other words, if you did the experiment 100 times, you would only see these results less than 5 times if there wasn’t a true effect.

The above only holds true if you’re doing a single comparison.  If you start comparing a bunch of groups all to each other, the probability of a fluke result dramatically increases.   The Princeton study is a perfect example.  There are 4 groups all being compared to each other.  That makes for 6 total comparisons (group 1 to group 2, 1 to 3, 1 to 4, 2 to 3, 2 to 4, and 3 to 4).  Each one of these comparisons is being tested against that 5% level.  To calculate the probability of a fluke result in this case, we calculate 1 – (0.95x0.95x0.95x0.95x0.95x0.95) = 26%.  In other words, there is a 1 in 4 chance that the greater weight gain in the HFCS-fed rats is a fluke.  I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t put too much faith in results that have a 1 in 4 chance of being wrong.  There are ways that scientists can adjust for this, but the Princeton researchers didn’t appear to make those adjustments.  Thus, it is not surprising that there was a significant result observed in 1 out of the 4 groups…you would expect this to happen based on random chance alone.

In Experiment 2, the researchers divided male rats into 3 groups:  12-hour HFCS, 24-hour HFCS, and control.  They tracked the rats for 6 months.  Both HFCS-fed groups gained more weight and fat than the control, and also had higher triglycerides.  However, the researchers didn’t compare HFCS to sucrose in this group, so this experiment doesn’t’ say anything about whether HFCS is any worse than sucrose.  The researchers also didn’t say anything about food intake and whether the HFCS-fed rats ate more than the control rats. 

Experiment 2 also featured female rats on one of the 4 diets used in Experiment 1.  These rats were tracked for 7 months.  The following chart shows the results of the experiment:

The female rats fed HFCS for 24 hours a day gained significantly more weight than the other groups.  Now compare these results to the chart for Experiment 1 earlier.  Do you see the disparity?  In Experiment 1, the rats fed HFCS for 12 hours per day gained the most weight.  However, in Experiment 2, the rats fed HFCS for 24 hours per day gained the most weight, and the female rats fed HFCS for 12 hours didn’t gain any more weight than the other groups.  Why did the 12-hour group gain the most weight in one experiment, but the 24-hour group gain the most weight in a nearly identical experiment?  This is a glaring contradiction in the results, and a problem which the researchers did not discuss.  We also have the same statistical problem that we did with Experiment 1.  Since there are 6 comparisons, there is a 1 in 4 chance that the results are wrong (and ironically, we have 1 out of the 4 groups showing a significant result).  In fact, when we take both experiments combined, we have at least a 50% chance that the results of one of the experiments are wrong.  Out of all the comparisons being made, we would expect to see a couple groups show a significant result based on random chance…and that’s exactly what happened in this study.

The bottom line is that there is no valid reason for HFCS to be any different than sucrose in the way that it affects your body.  They are both nearly identical in their composition, containing roughly half fructose and half glucose.  They are both nearly identical in the way they are metabolized by your body.  There is no practical difference between the two as far as your body is concerned.  Now, I’m not saying that you should go out and consume all the HFCS that you want.  The point is that there is nothing uniquely “bad” about HFCS compared to regular sugar.  HFCS is not uniquely responsible for weight gain as some people would have you believe.

If you see a product with HFCS and a similar product with natural table sugar, don’t assume the product with natural sugar is any better.  Rather than worrying about whether something contains HFCS, you should strive to reduce your intake of all types of added sugar and refined carbohydrates in your diet.  It is much more important to look at the big picture;  keep your physical activity high, manage your overall food intake, make sure most of your food is from minimally refined sources, and keep your protein intake high.  This is what will help you lose weight and keep it off, rather than singling out HFCS in your diet.  Don’t let the fructose fear-mongerers fool you.

REFERENCE:  Bocarsly, M.E., et al.  High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristics of obesity in rats:  Increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride levels.  Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior (published ahead of print; available online February 26, 2010)

44
Leave a Reply

avatar
27 Comment threads
17 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
26 Comment authors
Big Macs Will Not Kill You!!! (Even If They’re Nasty) |What Carbohydrate Source Is Best?! | Wings n Fitnessgraine de cannabis femelle haut rendementAnn Sandersfree adult video sharing sites Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
graine de cannabis femelle haut rendement
Guest

I would really like to be able to go to a cannabis social
association while visiting, so please let me know what I should do!

Ann Sanders
Guest
Ann Sanders

I boycotted HFCS many years ago because I read that it made you fat. I wanted to lose weight and protect my heart because of the large number of heart attacks on my side of the family. Imagine my surprise upon returning home from work one day to find my active healthy-looking trim husband, who’d had no heart problem history, in the beginning stages of a massive heart attack. He had 90% blockage in the artery known as the “widow-maker” and his triglycerides were off the chart. He survived. That led me to question our diets, the major difference of… Read more »

free adult video sharing sites
Guest

Hello to all, how is the whole thing, I think every one is getting
more from this web page, and yoour views are pleasant designrd for new users.

certificate of use inspections miami fl
Guest

This site was… how do you say it? Relevant!! Finally I have found something which helped me.
Thank you!

My website; certificate of use inspections miami fl

Gabrielle Bauer
Guest
Gabrielle Bauer

I tend to agree that there is no single culprit — and by the same token, no single cure — for obesity. Two generations ago children grew up on sweetened cereal, but were able to stay slimmer than their counterparts today.

I’ve lost 50 pounds and maintained the loss on a high-carb diet (with most of my carbs in the form of whole grains), while people all around me are demonizing carbs. Carbs make me feel uniquely satisfied, both physically and psychologically, so I see no reason to give them up if what I’m doing is working.

tomas
Guest
tomas

James,
you said:
” If the rats fed HFCS for 12 hours gained more weight, why didn’t the rats fed HFCS for 24 hours also gain more weight? They got HFCS for a full 12 hours more, yet didn’t gain more weight.”

this is how they explain it in the full text:

“We selected these schedules to allow comparison of intermittent and continuous access, as our previous publications show limited (12-h) access to sucrose precipitates binge-eating behavior”

However it does not make sense anyway, as their own long-term study shows the opposite

bob
Guest
bob

James,

I am not familiar with the statistics terms, so this comment is based solely on the information in your article. based on my understanding from your article, the pair wise-calculated p-value of ~0.25 in dictates that one of the four sample groups could have happened by chance. is it possible that the 24-hour group in Experiment 1 was low by chance and that the 12-hour group was correct? If so, then wouldn’t the results be inconclusive of the presence or absence of effect from HFCS?

Walter Paget
Guest
Walter Paget

I think everyone has forgotten that fructose is MUCH sweeter than glucose or sucrose. So any mixture with free – and an excess – of fructose is more likely to be addictive (sugar sure seems to act in the same centres as cocaine and nicotine doesn’t it? Is that glucose or fructose?) in well formulated food and drink. When HFCS was developed, the big food companies did not do an equivalent sugar substitution based on sweetness did they? They INCREASED the dose (because it was cheaper) because it increases addiction – and sales. Sweetness is perceived in the mouth. So… Read more »

rkeinc
Guest
rkeinc

I appreciate your being the Devil’s advocate regarding Dr.Lutig’s “Sugar: The Bitter Truth” above. I’ve always been an advocate of Mark Twain’s “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics”… Your final comments are key to your rebuttal, i.e. ” It is much more important to look at the big picture; keep your physical activity high, manage your overall food intake, make sure most of your food is from minimally refined sources…” How do we convince people to do that?

Lillea
Guest

Hi James, The study below indicates a possible reason why HFCS might be more fattening – some of it may have much higher levels of carbohydrate (thus calories) than labels claim. Dr. Ray Peat sent this to me. What do you think? * FASEB Journal 2010 PN Wahjudi Carbohydrate Analysis of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) Containing Commercial Beverages Paulin Nadi Wahjudi1, Emmelyn Hsieh1, Mary E Patterson2, Catherine S Mao2 and WN Paul Lee1,2 1 Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA 2 Pediatric, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA The carbohydrate analysis of HFCS is based on methods which first… Read more »

LeonRover
Guest
LeonRover

Good old Fisher developed the use of P values for statistical inference, mainly for agricultural research. It is said that he himself supported the the notion of adopting a value of P=2.5% as providing an inference of “not due to chance”. In my own personal decision making I pay no attention to results which do not reach a level of P=1% – but then I also ignore results have Risk Ratios less than 500% or Numbers to Treat less than 15. I have a view that I should be persuaded that my current practice should change – so I prefer… Read more »

Paul Skavland
Guest
Paul Skavland

@Daniel … I watched “King Corn,” it was an interesting documentary. I didn’t get any evidence from it that HFCS was bad or unhealthy, simply that it is in a lot more foods than we think. It is a valid point that people wanting to watch their intake of sugars will have to read labels very carefully, but that’s always been the case. “Chemicals destroy the brain and body but cause cancer” … you’d have to state which chemicals specifically, and how they destroy what. Note there are chemicals that we use to treat diseases and help people with brain… Read more »

DANIEL FLORES
Guest
DANIEL FLORES

its clear so damn clear that that chemicals not only destroy the brain and body but cause cancer and so many other diseases high fructose corn syrup is a chemical people, not natural the ingredient they use to make it has a (skull and bone sign) watch king corn and do some research on it

vic305
Guest
vic305

“Since there are 6 comparisons, there is a 1 in 4 chance that the results are wrong (and ironically, we have 1 out of the 4 groups showing a significant result)” You should learn the meaning of the word “irony” before using it. Right now, even Alanis Morissette could teach you a thing or two about the word “irony.” There can be no irony when the outcome EXACTLY meets your expectations, as is the case with this study. I’ll give you an example of proper usage: “It is ironic that the biggest defenders of HFCS (James Krieger and Alan Aragon)… Read more »

Josh R.
Guest
Josh R.

Good article. For further reasons why this study shows crap, read Alan Aragon’s april research review for an article about rats and how their carbohydrate metabolism differs from humans.

Kevin
Guest
Kevin

I’m sorry, but much of what you state about p-values here is incorrect – for example, “The P value tells you the probability that the results are not due to chance” is wrong – and you’re using a p of 0.05 when the study only says that p < 0.05. Their p value could easily have been 0.00001.

Cord
Guest
Cord

Great article, James.

I will echo Julie’s post – I love the way your break the math and science down into something easily digestible for us layfolk. You don’t dumb it down – you make it accessible.

I have been reading your stuff on the BS Detective for some time now, and will happily follow along with you here.

Ken Leebow
Guest

James,

You might also want to review and comment on Dr. Lustig’s commentary about HFCS. His position is contrary to what you state. Since over 400,000 have viewed this video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM – it might be worth a critical review on your part.

On my end, I try to avoid all processed sugars.

Looking forward to reading your blogs.

Ken Leebow
http://www.FeedYourHeadDiet.com

Julie
Guest
Julie

WOW this was very interesting. Nice that someone finally was honest about how research is swayed to the highest bidder. The best part about the article is that it was very easy for the average person to read. Thanks and keep them coming.