High fructose corn syrup: A recipe for hypertension—Elevated dietary fructose linked to high blood…

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-10/ason-hfc102009.php

Public release date: 29-Oct-2009

Contact: Shari Leventhal
[e-mail]
202-558-8423
http://www.asn-online.org/">American Society of Nephrology

High fructose corn syrup: A recipe for hypertension

Elevated dietary fructose linked to high blood pressure

A diet high in fructose increases the risk of developing high blood pressure (hypertension), according to a paper being presented at the American Society of Nephrology's 42nd Annual Meeting and Scientific Exposition in San Diego, California. The findings suggest that cutting back on processed foods and beverages that contain high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) may help prevent hypertension.

Over the last 200 years, the rate of fructose intake has directly paralleled the increasing rate of obesity, which has increased sharply in the last 20 years since the introduction of HFCS. Today, Americans consume 30% more fructose than 20 years ago and up to four times more than 100 years ago, when obesity rates were less than 5%. While this increase mirrors the dramatic rise in the prevalence of hypertension, studies have been inconsistent in linking excess fructose in the diet to hypertension.

Diana Jalal, MD (University of Colorado Denver Health Sciences Center), and her colleagues studied the issue in a large representative population of US adults. They examined 4,528 adults 18 years of age or older with no prior history of hypertension. Fructose intake was calculated based on a dietary questionnaire, and foods such as fruit juices, soft drinks, bakery products, and candy were included. Dr. Jalal's team found that people who ate or drank more than 74 grams per day of fructose (2.5 sugary soft drinks per day) increased their risk of developing hypertension. Specifically, a diet of more than 74 grams per day of fructose led to a 28%, 36%, and 87% higher risk for blood pressure levels of 135/85, 140/90, and 160/100 mmHg, respectively. (A normal blood pressure reading is below 120/80 mmHg.)

"These results indicate that high fructose intake in the form of added sugars is significantly and independently associated with higher blood pressure levels in the US adult population with no previous history of hypertension," the authors concluded. Additional studies are needed to see if low fructose diets can normalize blood pressure and prevent the development of hypertension.

Study co-authors include Richard Johnson, MD, Gerard Smits, PhD, and Michel Chonchol, MD (University of Colorado Denver Health Sciences Center). Dr. Richard Johnson reports a conflict of interest as the author of "The Sugar Fix". The authors report no other financial disclosures.

###

EDITOR: The study abstract, "Increased Fructose Intake is Independently Associated with Elevated Blood Pressure. Findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2006)," (TH-FC037) will be presented as part of a Free Communications Session during the American Society of Nephrology's 42nd Annual Meeting and Scientific Exposition on Oct. 29 at 4:24 pm in Room 2 of the San Diego Convention Center in San Diego, CA and on Oct. 30 at 12:30 pm in Room 12.

ASN Renal Week 2009, the largest nephrology meeting of its kind, will provide a forum for 13,000 professionals to discuss the latest findings in renal research and engage in educational sessions related to advances in the care of patients with kidney and related disorders. Renal Week 2009 will take place October 27 – November 1 at the San Diego Convention Center in San Diego.

Founded in 1966, the American Society of Nephrology (ASN) is the world's largest professional society devoted to the study of kidney disease. Comprised of 11,000 physicians and scientists, ASN continues to promote expert patient care, to advance medical research, and to educate the renal community. ASN also informs policymakers about issues of importance to kidney doctors and their patients. ASN funds research, and through its world-renowned meetings and first-class publications, disseminates information and educational tools that empower physicians.

[Auggie]

1. Meanwhile, we've built entire industries on the junk

[tridim]

2. Quitting Dr. Pepper was one of the best things I've ever done.

I was never overweight, but my digestive system was a mess.

[Sinti]

3. I wonder if eating fructose in whole fruit has the same potential side effect n/t

[still_one]

6. Consuming excess of both fructose and glucose and good for you /nt

[kestrel91316]

4. I'm on the Pollan diet: Eat "food". Not too much. Mostly plants.

HFCS isn't "food" in his book, or mine.

[still_one]

5. Can you even get anything sweet today without fructose? /nt

[no_hypocrisy]

8. Boylan's sodas made in NJ are made with cane sugar.

Cost more and worth it. Even in glass bottles and terrific flavors.

[bbinacan]

7. Let's go back to

plain sugar.

[salvorhardin]

9. You do realize that plain sugar (sucrose) is 50% fructose? The other 50% is glucose.

Meanwhile there are three basic types of HFCS:
HFCS 55 used primarily in soft drink: 55% fructose, 45% glucose
HFCS 42 used primarily in foods and baked goods: 42% fructose, 58% glucose
HFCS 90 used to belnd with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55: 90% fructose, 10% glucose

So, we've known for a long time that high levels of fructose consumption cause health problems. No doubt about it.

But why would HFCS be causing problems when what's in our food and drinks is pretty much the same ratio of fructose to glucose as regular sugar?

[trotsky]

10. Don't confuse them with facts. HFCS is the enemy.

You Monsanto shill, you.

[salvorhardin]

13. On the face of it, thinking that HFCS might be causing problems isn't so bad of an idea

After all, practically everything is sweetened with the stuff these days. But when one looks at specific claims objectively they just don't hold up. So then they try to use fearmongering to strengthen their claims. For instance, take this passage from one website:

HFCS has the exact same sweetness and taste as an equal amount of sucrose from cane or beet sugar but it is obviously much more complicated to make, involving vats of murky fermenting liquid, fungus and chemical tweaking, all of which take place in one of 16 chemical plants located in the Corn Belt. Yet in spite of all the special enzymes required, HFCS is actually cheaper than sugar. It is also very easy to transport--it's just piped into tanker trucks. This translates into lower costs and higher profits for food producers.
http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html

Ooo... Murky fermenting liquid, fungi and chemicals, oh my! Spooky! But production of table sugar is as much a chemical process as HFCS. http://www.dansukker.com/Default.aspx?ID=717 (I love the illustrations on that site. They're like something out of a 1950s-1960s children's book.)

[trotsky]

17. Oh absolutely.

Seems like a convenient demon, you bet. I even bought into the hype for awhile. But as you say, the claims just aren't holding up at this time, so I can't go along with the blaming of everything from obesity to ingrown toenails on it. Overconsumption of ANY sweetener is the real problem.

[Dorian Gray]

21. You are right in that

it's calories (regardless of HFCS or regular old table sugar) that is the culprit, for the most part. Despite knowing this, I still stay away from HFCS as best I can. Why? I don't know... they are in overly processed foods (there are certain buzzwords that I try -- for the most part -- to avoid on ingredient lists, and those are one of them. Trans-fats and enriched bleached flour are others.)

But I do try to buy all natural products (with my admitted addiction to diet drinks. I like the sweet!).

I think that people are quick to blame HFCS because they are so prominent in our diet these days. But if you drink two big gulps of HFCS Coke or two big gulps of regular old cane sugar Coke a day, it won't matter. You're still going to get something like 1500 calories in SODA only. That's a problem no matter which way you slice it. And that's only in two drinks. Add a ham sandwich and a banana to that, and, as a female, no more food for the day for me if I want to maintain my weight.

[trotsky]

22. "But if you drink two big gulps of HFCS Coke or two big gulps of regular old cane sugar Coke a day"

BINGO! Liquid sugar down the gullet, totally empty calories. We evolved to crave sweet, because in nature, sweet stuff means ENERGY. (And usually nutrition, too!) Now we have more food available to us than our ancient ancestors could ever have imagined, but we still have their taste preferences and capacity for appetite. It's a dangerous mix.

[Dorian Gray]

25. Definitely

We need to use our heads when we choose foods. I have a male friend who is constantly complaining about his (growing) gut, but every time we go to a movie (once a week), he orders a large Cherry Coke and a large buttered popcorn. Ugh.... that's something like 1700 calories right there. Back in the day, I would have joined him. Now I"m more aware. And if you are going to eat that way constantly, you can't blame it on the HFCS. You have to look at the number of calories you are taking in. And foods like that, as you've said, are often empty calories. They're not particularly filling, they have little nutritional value, and they don't provide much energy throughout the day.

[salvorhardin]

23. Dead on

A 20 oz. bottle of pop has the equivalent of 16-18 teaspoons of sugar in calories. That's 240-270 calories in a single drink. And while that might not sound like much, if you add a single 20 oz. bottle of pop into your diet every day without increasing your activity level it can translate to an extra 28 pounds gained in a year's time.

I think there is a good reason to avoid foods containing HFCS. Not because HFCS is some silent killer stalking the nation, but because those foods containing HFCS tend to be, as you said, overly processed and the most caloric. It's stunning to see how many calories are in some prepared/processed/restaurant foods.

My favorite example from my own life that I discovered just this past year was Marie Calendar's creamy parmesan chicken pot pie. Now, I'd expect anything with a name like creamy parmesan pot pie to be caloric, but the package said 530 calories which is fine for dinner. But then you notice the package says it has two servings. Who eats just half of a pot pie!? That's 1,060 calories in a single entree. It also has 1,440 grams of sodium and 64 grams of fat (24 of them from saturated fat)! Good lord, eat just one of those and you've blown your diet for the entire day! And I loved those things. They were really affordable too (on sale) on my tight food budget.

BTW: I wasn't sharp enough to notice the servings on the package. I first read about it here: http://eatthis.womenshealthmag.com/content/20-worst-supermarket-foods-america?article=1&page=1 Normally I don't like those "Bad food", "Good food" lists. I think all food is good in moderation. However, you can be sure that I haven't bought a single Marie Calendar pot pie since then. It's hard enough to eat a nutritious diet and keep calories to a reasonable level. If I'm going to consume that many calories in a single sitting I'm going to wait until I can afford to go out to a nice restaurant and treat myself to a meal that's going to take more than ten minutes to scarf down.

[Dorian Gray]

24. It's so important to look at the label

to see the numbers of servings each package actually contains. Soup for instance. Many cans of soup are actually TWO servings. I eat V-8 Broccoli soup a lot. It's an easy lunch, and add to it a veggie burger patty, and it's filling and easy to prepare. the small package is two servings. (I believe each serving is only 80 calories, though!) But it certainly doesn't feel like two servings. It fills up a bowl.


I say this because I've spent the last three years losing weight and reading labels. It's second nature to me now. But four years ago? I'd have a Grande Vanilla Latte (no whip), regular coke each day, and lots of other little things that loaded the calories into my diet that I didn't even consider. They were mostly drinks, to be honest. I suppose if I were to have a regular coke, I'd prefer the kind made with sugar to the kind made with HFCS. But, I don't really drink either of them anymore. Ever.

I'd rather eat my daily allotment of 1700-1800 calories!

[trotsky]

26. Ooh, I hate that "serving size" trick.

They do the same thing with bottles of milk and juice. A 20 oz. bottle with an 8 oz. serving size. Bastards!

[mike_c]

11. ding ding ding--- the winning response, IMO....

I don't doubt that HFCS is unhealthy stuff, but WHY it's unhealthy is not as obvious as it sounds, I think.

[Jim__]

12. Yes, it's the same ratio of glucose to fructose, but it's not the same ...

... molecular composition.

From wikipedia:

Cane sugar and beet sugar are both relatively pure sucrose. While the glucose and fructose, which are the two components of HFCS, are monosaccharides, sucrose is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose linked together with a relatively weak glycosidic bond. A molecule of sucrose (with a chemical formula of C12H22O11) can be broken down into a molecule of glucose (C6H12O6) plus a molecule of fructose (also C6H12O6 — an isomer of glucose) in a weakly acidic environment. Sucrose is broken down during digestion into fructose and glucose through hydrolysis by the enzyme sucrase, by which the body regulates the rate of sucrose breakdown. Without this regulation mechanism, the body has less control over the rate of sugar absorption into the bloodstream.

The fact that sucrose is composed of glucose and fructose units chemically bonded complicates the comparison between cane sugar and HFCS. Sucrose, glucose and fructose are unique, distinct molecules. Sucrose is broken down into its constituent monosaccharides – namely, fructose and glucose – in weakly acidic environments by a process called inversion.<13> This same process occurs in the stomach and in the small intestine during the digestion of sucrose into fructose and glucose. People with sucrase deficiency cannot digest (break down) sucrose and thus exhibit sucrose intolerance.<14>

Sucrose has approximately 4 kcal of energy per gram, while HFCS has approximately 3 kcal per gram. This is because HFCS contains roughly 25% water.

This can have effects on the body. One study indicates it does have effects:

Chi-Tang Ho at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and his colleagues found that adding the syrup to fizzy drinks makes them up to 10 times richer in harmful carbonyl compounds - elevated in people with diabetes and blamed for causing diabetic complications such as foot ulcers and eye and nerve damage - than fizzy drinks containing cane sugar.

The most harmful compound, called methylglyoxal, is known to damage cells directly. "The link between methylglyoxal and diabetic complications is well documented," says Ho, whose team found carbonyl compounds in 11 popular brands of soft drink sweetened with the syrup.

High-fructose corn syrup is popular in the US, where import tariffs make cane sugar relatively expensive. It is made by treating corn starch with enzymes that transform some of the glucose into fructose. Ho says these free-floating monosaccharides can undergo the so-called Maillard reaction, which converts them into carbonyl compounds. By contrast, cane sugar consists almost entirely of pure sucrose, a disaccharide.

While Ho stresses that consuming carbonyl compounds has not been shown to cause diabetes, he urges a switch away from the syrups as a precaution. The results were presented at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in Boston last week.

The study mentioned in the OP indicates HFCS also has effects with respect to hypertension.

[salvorhardin]

15. Beware of articles that express relative numbers

"Ten times richer in harmful carbonyl compounds"

Sounds scary, but we (the readers) don't know what that actually means. If the amount of carbonyl compounds in pop sweetened with cane sugar is extremely low to begin with, then a 10X increase may be insignificant. And though the article says methylglyoxal is the most harmful, it doesn't say that specific carbonyl compound is what there's ten times more of. Further, the researcher quoted states that carbonyl compounds are not shown to cause diabetes. So the evidence for harm is rather thin indeed.

As for whether or not HFCS is metabolized differently than regular sucrose, the evidence just isn't there. Here's just two studies in reputable journals showing no appreciable difference in metabolic response to HFCS versus sucrose.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 May;87(5):1194-203.
Twenty-four-hour endocrine and metabolic profiles following consumption of high-fructose corn syrup-, sucrose-, fructose-, and glucose-sweetened beverages with meals.

Stanhope KL, Griffen SC, Bair BR, Swarbrick MM, Keim NL, Havel PJ.

Department of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Davis, CA 95616-8669, USA.

BACKGROUND: We have reported that, compared with glucose-sweetened beverages, consuming fructose-sweetened beverages with meals results in lower 24-h circulating glucose, insulin, and leptin concentrations and elevated triacylglycerol (TG). However, pure fructose and glucose are not commonly used as sweeteners. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has replaced sucrose as the predominant sweetener in beverages in the United States. OBJECTIVE: We compared the metabolic/endocrine effects of HFCS with sucrose and, in a subset of subjects, with pure fructose and glucose. DESIGN: Thirty-four men and women consumed 3 isocaloric meals with either sucrose- or HFCS-sweetened beverages, and blood samples were collected over 24 h. Eight of the male subjects were also studied when fructose- or glucose-sweetened beverages were consumed. RESULTS: In 34 subjects, 24-h glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and TG profiles were similar between days that sucrose or HFCS was consumed. Postprandial TG excursions after HFCS or sucrose were larger in men than in women. In the men in whom the effects of 4 sweeteners were compared, the 24-h glucose and insulin responses induced by HFCS and sucrose were intermediate between the lower responses during consumption of fructose and the higher responses during glucose. Unexpectedly, postprandial TG profiles after HFCS or sucrose were not intermediate but comparably high as after pure fructose. CONCLUSIONS: Sucrose and HFCS do not have substantially different short-term endocrine/metabolic effects. In male subjects, short-term consumption of sucrose and HFCS resulted in postprandial TG responses comparable to those induced by fructose.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18469239?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Nutrition. 2007 Feb;23(2):103-12.
Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin and on appetite in normal-weight women.

Melanson KJ, Zukley L, Lowndes J, Nguyen V, Angelopoulos TJ, Rippe JM.

Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Fructose has been implicated in obesity, partly due to lack of insulin-mediated leptin stimulation and ghrelin suppression. Most work has examined effects of pure fructose, rather than high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), the most commonly consumed form of fructose. This study examined effects of beverages sweetened with HFCS or sucrose (Suc), when consumed with mixed meals, on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and appetite. METHODS: Thirty lean women were studied on two randomized 2-d visits during which HFCS- and Suc-sweetened beverages were consumed as 30% of energy on isocaloric diets during day 1 while blood was sampled. On day 2, food was eaten ad libitum. Subjects rated appetite at designated times throughout visits. RESULTS: No significant differences between the two sweeteners were seen in fasting plasma glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin (P > 0.05). The within-day variation in all four items was not different between the two visits (P > 0.05). Net areas under the curve were similar for glucose, insulin, and leptin (P > 0.05). There were no differences in energy or macronutrient intake on day 2. The only appetite variable that differed between sweeteners was desire to eat, which had a higher area under the curve the day after Suc compared with HFCS. CONCLUSION: These short-term results suggest that, when fructose is consumed in the form of HFCS, the measured metabolic responses do not differ from Suc in lean women. Further research is required to examine appetite responses and to determine if these findings hold true for obese individuals, males, or longer periods.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17234503?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

[Jim__]

18. Beware of studies funded by the American Beverage Institute and the Corn Refiners Association.

Like Melanson's. Again wikipedia:

Several studies funded by Tate & Lyle, a large corn refiner, the American Beverage Institute and the Corn Refiners Association,<39><40> have defended HFCS. Forshee et al. concluded "that HFCS does not appear to contribute to overweight and obesity any differently than do other energy sources."<41> Melanson et al. (2006), studied the effects of HFCS and sucrose sweetened drinks on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels. They found no significant differences in any of these parameters.<42> Monsivais et al. (2007) compared the effects of isocaloric servings of colas sweetened with HFCS 42, HFCS 55, sucrose, and aspartame on satiety and subsequent energy intake.<43> They found that all of the drinks with caloric sweeteners produced similar satiety responses, and had the same effects on subsequent energy intake.

Stanhope agrees that fructose is a problem and we need to cut down on fructose - processed foods with HFCS - as per the OP.

[salvorhardin]

19. So what?

First of all, the Wikipedia article states "several studies". Which ones? The wiki article only references two.

Is there evidence that the research was compromised as the result of that funding? Not that I'm aware of.

Are the results counter to the overall body of research on HFCS? No.

Are reputable scientists decrying the results of those studies as bogus? No.

Did I reference any Tate & Lyle funded studies? Not that I'm aware of, and I don't think it would matter if I did.

[Jim__]

20. Right I always trust a study funded by companies with a vested interest. - n/t

[BadgerKid]

14. The ratio is half the story.

The liver can process only so much fructose (say, per day) before starting to convert the remainder into fatty acids.

HFCS consists of single sugar molecules (monosaccharides) where is sucrose is a disaccharide. In the case of disaccharides, the body has a mechanism to regulate the rate of fructose metabolism in the liver. Of course, the mechanism goes only so far because you can get fat overeating sucrose.

While there is a personal responsibility issue with regard to amount of food eaten and how and where it's prepared, there's theoretical support for people having to go an extra step to monitor their HFCS fructose intake because HFCS is much more prevalent than decades ago.

[salvorhardin]

16. Yet the research shows that HFCS doesn't affect metabolic response.

See studies I referenced above.

I'm really open on this. HFCS is much more prevalent today than it was just twenty years ago. Like I said above, thinking that HFCS might be a factor in the obesity epidemic is not such a bad idea. Thinking that monosaccharides might affect metabolic function is not crazy. The evidence just isn't there though. Yet. However, if further research does show that HFCS is significantly different/more harmful than sugar consumption then I'll certainly change my mind.

Until then, what does cause me concern is the degree to which almost everything is sweetened these days and the tremendous amounts of sweetened drinks that we consume relative to yesteryear. Calories are calories and if people are unintentionally consuming even an extra 500 calories a day in the form of soft drinks then that's going to have a large impact on obesity rates.