And now having read through the study (not that I've given it a deep read).
GD's post is still correct. This study did not use HFCS. It gave people additional amounts of pure glucose or pure fructose (they continued to eat just as they had before entering the study so they were likely still consuming plenty of sucrose and HFCS).
The study notes that in other research both sucrose (cane sugar) and HFCS have shown similar elevations of some bad things as they're seeing with fructose.
So, this actually does not provide any evidence against using sucrose over HFCS, to the extent that HFCS is condemned so is regular sugar. It does provide evidence for using glucose over fructose but that is not a choice we're presented with in the current marketplace.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by From the Study, bolding mine
While this study was designed to compare the biological effects of glucose and fructose consumption on lipid and carbohydrate metabolism, the potential implications of the results on public health is of interest. Foods and beverages in the US are typically sweetened with sucrose (50% glucose and 50% fructose) or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is usually 45%–58% glucose and 42%–55% fructose, rather than pure glucose or fructose. We have reported in a short-term study that the 23-hour postprandial TG profiles in male subjects consuming 25% energy as HFCS (55% fructose) or sucrose were elevated to a degree similar to that observed when pure fructose–sweetened beverages were consumed (19). Therefore, it is uncertain whether the adverse effects of sucrose and HFCS consumption are “diluted” by their lower fructose content relative to pure fructose. Additional studies are needed to compare the long-term effects of consuming HFCS and/or sucrose with 100% fructose. |