By Dr. Mercola
A staggering two-thirds of Americans are overweight, and
about one-quarter to one-third of adults fall into the obese
category and it is
projected to go to FIFTY percent by 2030.
Obesity is now so common that it leads to more doctor visits
than smoking1
– and rates have been on the rise for decades now.
The fact that obesity is now an epidemic is not up for
debate. What's causing it, however, is.
One of the forerunning theories is that dramatic changes in
our dietary patterns such as the extensive use of sugar,
primarily in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which
is added to virtually all processed foods, is prompting
metabolic dysfunction that is making people gain weight.
Now a new study has come out claiming it has "proof" that
HFCS is not to blame… but wouldn't you know it, the study's
authors were funded by, or have links to, the corn industry.
No Link Between High Fructose Corn Syrup and Obesity?
The new report, published in the International Journal of
Obesity, says there is no evidence to suggest that the U.S.
obesity epidemic can be blamed on HFCS consumption.2
The authors reviewed existing HFCS research and concluded that
there are no short-term health differences (such as weight gain,
appetite, insulin or glucose levels) between the use of HFCS and
sugar (sucrose), noting that both are similar in composition and
absorbed identically in the GI tract.
This is the most common argument used by the corn industry to
support their agenda that HFCS is safe. Sucrose (table sugar) is
50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose. High fructose corn
syrup (HFCS) is anywhere from 42 to 55 percent fructose
depending on which type is used.
While it's true that they are similar in composition – their
parts are metabolized very differently in your body.
Because high-fructose corn syrup contains free-form
monosaccharides of fructose and glucose, it cannot be considered
biologically equivalent to sucrose, which has a glycosidic bond
that links the fructose and glucose together, and which slows
its break down in the body.
Even if this obvious metabolic difference were not present,
it is important to point out that glucose is the form
of energy your body is designed to run on. Every cell in your
body uses glucose for energy, and it's metabolized in every
organ of your body; about 20 percent of glucose is metabolized
in your liver. Fructose, on the other hand, can only be
metabolized by your liver, because your liver is the only organ
that has the transporter for it.
Fructose is the Real Culprit
Since all fructose gets shuttled to your liver, and, if you
eat a typical Western-style diet, you consume high amounts of
it, fructose ends up taxing and
damaging your liver in the same way alcohol and other toxins
do. And just like alcohol, fructose is metabolized directly into
fat – not cellular energy, like glucose.
While in times of complete glycogen depletion (i.e. post
work-out or true hunger), fructose can be used to replenish
these stores, any excess will mostly be converted to fat. So,
eating fructose in excess of the very small amount our body can
handle is really like eating fat – it just gets stored in your
fat cells, which leads to mitochondrial malfunction, obesity and
obesity-related diseases.
So both sugar and HFCS play a role in the obesity
epidemic, but it's important to understand that the claim you
hear on TV, that "sugar is sugar" no matter what form it's in,
is a misstatement that can, quite literally, kill you – albeit
slowly.
The more fructose a food contains, and the more total
fructose you consume, the worse it is for your health.
It's important to note that both sugar and HFCS are
problematic, as they both contain similar amounts of fructose,
the true culprit. But the reason why HFCS may, in fact, be even
worse than table sugar, despite having similar fructose content,
is both due to the aforementioned difference in metabolizing it
(sucrose's glycosidic bond) and due to its liquid form.
When you consume fructose in liquid form, such as drinking a
soda, it places an even more intense burden on your liver. The
effect on your liver is not only sped up but also
magnified.
Cost Is King
Even if one were to ignore the evidence reviewed above and
accept the corn industry's argument that there is no significant
biochemical difference between the fructose in HFCS and regular
table sugar, one can't escape the quantity argument. There is
simply no defense against it. In the mid '70s, Japanese
scientists discovered how to manufacture HFCS cheaply from corn.
Because it is so cheap it is used in massive quantities.
Fructose in small quantities is relatively harmless. Our
ancestors would typically consume some on a regular basis,
typically in the form of fruits, but they would rarely consume
it in quantities greater than 15 grams (one tablespoon) a day.
Now the average intake is FIVE times that at 75 grams and some
people consume more than 10 times that amount. At those levels
fructose becomes a pernicious liver and metabolic toxin.
Another Case of Industry-Funded Propaganda?
But here is where it gets really interesting. There are
actually clever forces at work behind the scenes that have
carefully orchestrated this information to deceive you and the
rest of the public. So why does this new study make it sound
like HFCS has been nothing more than an unfortunate scapegoat in
this whole scenario?
As I have
explained in a previous video, it is usually helpful to
examine who authored the study, and where their funding and true
loyalties lie. And in this case, doing so proved to be very
revealing. Research shows that industry funding of
nutrition-related scientific articles may bias conclusions in
favor of sponsors' products, with potentially significant
implications for public health.3
This is now becoming widely accepted, so much so that still
more research found physicians are less likely to believe and
act on research findings when they are industry-sponsored.4
If that's the case, many may have a hard time believing the
featured HFCS/obesity study. There are four authors to the
featured study: lead author James M. Rippe and co-authors David
M. Klurfeld, John Foreyt, and Theodore J. Angelopoulos. Each one
has his own ties to industry, making for a very concerning
conflict of interest:
- Rippe: Disclosed in the journal that he
and his Rippe Lifestyle Institute had received research
grants and consulting fees from a variety of companies and
organizations including ConAgra, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo,
Weight Watchers and the Corn Refiners Association. He also
disclosed in other research completed in 2012 that he has
received funding from the Corn Refiners Association.5
Rippe also is an advisor to the food and beverage
industry. On his health website he lists ConAgra and PepsiCo
as two of several "partners." He also disclosed in a press
release on this most recent study that he is an advisor to
the food and beverage industry including the Corn Refiners
Association, "which funded this research with an
unrestricted educational grant."
- Foreyt: Disclosed in the study that he
is a member of the scientific advisory panel of the Corn
Refiners Association.6
- Klurfeld: Is a scientific and policy
advisor on the American Council on Science and Health
(ACSH),7
which has published material criticizing the "demonizing of
high fructose corn syrup."8
- Angelopoulos: Is the author of at least
one other study vindicating HFCS – which was funded by
PepsiCo.9
Plus he got a $200,500 research grant from Rippe
Health and Lifestyle Institute for "consulting services."10
How Sensitive are You to Fructose?
Some people may be able to process fructose more efficiently
than others, and the key to assess this susceptibility to
fructose-induced damage lies in evaluating your uric acid
levels. The higher your uric acid, the more sensitive you are to
the effects of fructose. The safest range of uric acid appears
to be between 3 and 5.5 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl), and
there appears to be a steady relationship between uric acid
levels and blood pressure and cardiovascular risk, even down to
the range of 3 to 4 mg/dl.
Dr. Richard Johnson suggests that the ideal uric acid level
is probably around 4 mg/dl for men and 3.5 mg/dl for women. I
would strongly encourage everyone to have their uric acid level
checked to find out how sensitive you are to fructose.
Many people who are overweight likely have uric acid levels
well above 5.5. Some may even be closer to 10 or above.
Measuring your uric acid levels is a very practical way to
determine just how strict you need to be when it comes to your
fructose consumption.
The major problem with fructose lies in the excessive amounts
so many people consume. And fructose has actually been linked to
over 70 health conditions in the biomedical literature,
indicating that this is far bigger than just a "weight problem."11
It's no secret that we are eating more sugar than at any
other time in history. In 1700, the average person ate four
pounds of sugar a year. Today, about 25 percent of all Americans
consume over 134 grams of fructose a day, according to Dr.
Johnson's research.
For most people, including if you're overweight or obese, it
would actually be wise to limit your fruit fructose to 15 grams
or less, as you're virtually guaranteed to get "hidden" fructose
from just about any processed food you might eat, including
condiments you might never have suspected would contain sugar.
Keep in mind that fruits also contain fructose, although an
ameliorating factor is that whole fruits also contain vitamins
and other antioxidants that reduce the hazardous effects of
fructose. Again, one way to determine just how strict you need
to be in regard to fruit consumption is to check your uric acid
levels. If your levels are outside the healthy ranges listed
above, then I strongly suggest you listen to your body's
biochemical feedback and reduce your fructose consumption,
including that from fruit, until your uric acid levels
normalize.
Bonus Weight Loss Tips You Might Not Have Heard of
For the majority of people, severely restricting
non-vegetable carbohydrates such as sugars, fructose, and grains
in your diet will be the key to weight loss. Refined
Carbohydrates like breakfast cereals, bagels, waffles, pretzels,
and most other processed foods quickly break down to sugar,
increase your insulin levels, and cause insulin resistance,
which is the number one underlying factor of nearly every
chronic disease and condition known to man, including weight
gain.
As you cut these dietary villains from your meals, you need
to replace them with healthy substitutes like vegetables and
healthy fats (including natural saturated fats!). You will
probably need to radically increase the amount of high-nutrient,
low-carbohydrate vegetables you eat, as well as make sure you
are also consuming protein and healthy fats regularly.
I've detailed a step-by-step guide to this type of healthy
eating program in my
comprehensive nutrition plan, and I urge you to consult this
guide if you are trying to lose weight.
Next, you'll want to add in proper exercise. The key to
boosting weight loss and getting the most out of your exercise
routine is to make sure to incorporate high-intensity,
short-burst-type exercises, such as my
Peak Fitness Program, two to three times per week. Several
studies have confirmed that exercising in shorter bursts with
rest periods in between burns more fat than exercising
continuously for an entire session.
Now here's the bonus: A growing body of research suggests
that intermittent fasting may in fact be a key weight loss tool.
It appears particularly powerful when combined with exercise –
i.e.
working out while in a fasted state. Intermittent fasting is
not the same thing as starving yourself; it can be as simple as
skipping breakfast. You can find more
details on intermittent fasting here.
This content may be copied in full, with
copyright, contact, creation and information intact, without specific
permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. If any other
use is desired, permission in writing from Dr. Mercola is required.
© Copyright 1997-2012 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.