On-Demand Supplier Webinar
Clinical study
Yogurt Formulations with Clarinol® CLA for Weight Management
Stepan Lipid Nutrition
A new study provides “compelling” evidence that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and table sugar (sucrose) do not increase fat levels in the liver when consumed in ‘real-world conditions’, says it co-author Dr James Rippe.
Critics of HFCS in particular have repeatedly claimed that it increases fat levels in the liver and muscle tissue, increasing the risk of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and contributing to insulin resistance, a key factor in the development of type 2 diabetes.
The argument also features heavily in the CSPI's new petition urging the FDA to reassess the GRAS status of sugar and HFCS in beverages .
However, the studies supporting this hypothesis have subjected volunteers “to unrealistically high levels of fructose or had subjects consume fructose independent of glucose, which is just not how fructose is consumed in our daily diet”, said Dr Rippe, director of the Rippe Lifestyle Institute and Professor of biomedical sciences at the University of Central Florida.
“Using real world conditions [in which glucose and fructose are typically consumed together in the form of sucrose or HFCS], we find that HFCS and other caloric sweeteners do not appear to increase liver fat or contribute to insulin resistance.”
The first study of its kind to test effects of HFCS and sucrose on liver fat levels in humans using real world conditions
The new study , published online ahead of print in the Journal of Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, also adds to a growing body of evidence showing that HFCS and table sugar are metabolically equivalent, claimed Dr Rippe, who received a grant from the Corn Refiners Association to conduct it.
“The study’s results are compelling because this is the first study of its kind to test the effects of HFCS and sucrose on liver fat levels in humans using real world conditions.”
There is no significant liver fat infiltration or increase in intramuscular adipose tissue
Dr Rippe: 'To the best of our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial to compare fat deposition in the liver and muscle utilizing the two main sources of fructose in the human diet, HFCS and sucrose, delivered at doses within the normal range consumed.'
In the 10-week study, 64 healthy individuals aged 20-60 with a BMI of 23-35 drank low-fat milk sweetened with either HFCS or sucrose, with the added sugar matching the 25th, 50th and 90th percentile population consumption levels of fructose.
They were required to consume one of three different levels of sucrose (which contains 50% glucose and 50% fructose) or HFCS 55 (which contains 55% fructose, 42% glucose and 3% other carbohydrates) at 8%, 18% or 30% of the calories required for weight maintenance. (These consumption levels are equivalent to the 25th, 50th, 90th percentile for fructose consumption respectively.)
The fat content of their livers was measured using unenhanced CT Imaging, while the fat content of their muscle was assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
The results showed that “at normal levels of consumption of the most common fructose containing sugars over a 10-week period, there is no significant liver fat infiltration or increase in IMAT [intramuscular adipose tissue]”, said the authors.
“Furthermore, our results demonstrate that there are no differences between HFCS and sucrose related to these two parameters.
“These data suggest that when fructose is consumed as part of a typical diet in normally consumed sweeteners such as sucrose or HFCS, ectopic fat storage in the liver or muscles is not promoted."
Triglyceride levels rose, but remained well within population norms
While there were no changes in total cholesterol, LDL or HDL there was a small increase in triglycerides for the entire cohort (1.11 ± 0.46 vs 1.27 ± 0.73 mmol/L, p<0.05). However, this was comparable among the 6 groups (interaction p>0.05), said the authors.
“While the increases in triglycerides in the current study are not clinically important, this issue remains one of scientific discussion and debate. It should be pointed out that both the pre and post intervention triglyceride levels in the current study are well within population norms.”
Was the study long enough?
However, one possible drawback of the study was that it wasn’t long enough, conceded the authors.
“Our findings must be treated with caution since the duration of the study may not have been long enough to demonstrate accumulation of liver or muscle fat.
“Studies of longer duration utilizing commonly consumed sugars at normal consumption levels are clearly warranted.”
Source: Journal of Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism 10.1139/apnm-2012-0322
Title: ‘Consumption of sucrose and high fructose corn syrup does not increase liver fat or ectopic fat deposition in muscles’
Authors: Stephen Bravo, MD; Joshua Lowndes, MA; Stephanie Sinnett, MS RD; Zhiping Fullerton, PhD RD; and James Rippe, MD.
42 comments (Comments are now closed)
Onion Article at Best
CNN.com had this link as a "From around the Web" article. What a piece of junk "science". I am flabbergasted anyone would publish this paper or regurgitate the complete garbage on the web. It's so clear this is bogus -- perhaps it was meant for the Onion. HFCS is not good for you or even benign; it's bad. A 10 week study? Almost laughable. My husband is a biochemist and won't waste the time to comment about this article -- he just rolled his eyes -- but I just couldn't help it.
Report abuse
Posted by WeAreNotLambs
19 April 2013 | 15h59
10 week trial does not match real world conditions
How can the author of this study complain about "real world conditions" when fructose and sucralose are critiqued, when his own very brief study only lasts 10 weeks? Mr Rippe might want to think a real-world challenge. How about a study that lasts a year as minimum? Americans surely do not drink sweetened drinks for only 10 week durations, habits are developed over years and I think that a 10 week study is pointless if he wants to look at real world results.
Report abuse
Posted by Victor Lavigne
18 April 2013 | 01h16
10 weeks?
Really? this study is pure nonsense. I'm sure the Corn Refiners Association are happy with their results. Why would you even do such a short study and then end it with "longer tests are warranted." This is junk science, sold to thehighest bidder.
Report abuse
Posted by Anon
18 April 2013 | 00h15
all you need to know
this study is sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association
Report abuse
Posted by right..sure its safe
16 April 2013 | 22h53
Nonsense
First of all it's noteworthy that this study is sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association. The test is not adequate to answer the question of whether HFCS and sugar cause fatty infiltration of the liver. The small but significant rise in triglycerides is also concerning. The best predictor of CVD we currently have is the TGL/HDL ratio and even at 10 weeks this modest amount of sugar was causing an increase in TGL. No one should take this biased blip of a study as counterbalance to the mountain of evidence condemning sugar and HFCS.
Report abuse
Posted by AZM
16 April 2013 | 04h28
Really
I hope this researcher is downing the stuff!
Report abuse
Posted by Patricia DISANTIS
15 April 2013 | 19h43
Real World?!?
In the real world, two 15-year old boys (each weighing 400 pounds), had liver transplants after destroying their liver with (presumably HFCS) soda pop.
Source: Robert H. Lustig, M.D. (Professor of Pediatrics, UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital; Author of "Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease") in his 1/24/13 presentation at the Commonwealth Club of California. Listen to talk <a href="http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/fat-chance-beating-odds-against-sugar-processed-food-obesity-and-disease-1241">here</a>.
Also, you can stream his terrific 7-part video series <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL39F782316B425249">"The Skinny on Obesity"</a>.
Report abuse
Posted by Jimbo
13 April 2013 | 15h39
HFCS and sucrose;bad study
What if you used raw milk, not pasteurized, and raw sugar in one group, and raw milk and honey in another, against the ones you already did? The results might astound the eggheads trying to sell the cheap junk we are forced to eat.
Report abuse
Posted by oily
12 April 2013 | 18h35
The real story of HFCS
Suggest that you view the video titled' Sugar the Bitter Truth" it is on YouTube.Reviews the History, Politics, economics and Biochemistry of HFCS.
Gout is caused by high uric acid levels. HFCS's metabolism produces a lot uric acid, just like alcohol. Study was done by Dr at UCSF who is also a Phd in biochemistry.
Report abuse
Posted by witch doctor
12 April 2013 | 12h59
HFCS and Sucrose: Study Flawed
This is without a doubt more lies from those who are benefiting from all the obese, sick children and adults. Come on. Get real.
Report abuse
Posted by Jana Pendragon
11 April 2013 | 23h19
HFCS and sucrose: a study in confusion
This study is fundamentally flawed, with 6 different dietary catagories and no control group.That means about 10 patients per group. The study is run poorly, and 10 weeks is way too short. Using fatty liver and muscle fat measurements are not adequate, and measurements always vary between observers. This is not research, but simply paid for propaganda for the industry.
Report abuse
Posted by P. Nefcy, PhD MD, Board certified Radiologist
08 April 2013 | 19h29
Conflicts of Interest and Funding Disclosure:
"Steve Bravo: Has received consulting fees and quipment support from Siemens Inc.
James M. Rippe: Dr. Rippe’s research organization has received funding and Dr. Rippe has received consulting fees from ConAgra Foods, PepsiCo International, Kraft Foods, the Corn Refiners Association and Weight Watchers International. "
Stephen Bravo, Joshua Lowndes, Stephanie Sinnett, Zhiping Yu, James Rippe. Consumption of sucrose and high fructose corn syrup does not increase liver fat or ectopic fat deposition in muscles. Published online 12 February 2013. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 10.1139/apnm-2012-0322
Report abuse
Posted by readtheresearch
07 April 2013 | 00h20
FoodNavigator-USA reponse
As Senior Editor for FoodNavigator-USA, I am compelled to respond to the comments being posted in response to the above article. FoodNavigator-USA is owned by William Reed Business Media, a business-to-business publisher with offices in London, New York and Montpellier, France. We write about the food industry for the food industry. The article above is part of our ongoing coverage of the high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) debate. Our editorial content is independent of our advertisers, and we always emphasize where the funding comes from for research studies that we report on, be it the Corn Refiners’ Association (as stated clearly in this article), the CSPI, FDA, or an independent university. If readers would take the time to explore the site they will find ample evidence of articles that voice both sides of this debate. We remain committed to reporting on both sides, and to allowing readers to express their opinions, but we would urge readers to exercise restraint when commenting.
Report abuse
Posted by Stephen Daniells, Senior Editor, FoodNavigator-USA
03 April 2013 | 00h10
Let's stop playing semantics
High fructose corn syrup is NOT sugar, no matter how many times one attempts to conflate the two.
HFCS is NOT metabolized; it turns into FAT.
Sugar is metabolized, but if one is sedentary, a percentage of that will not translate into carbohydrates, but rather into fat deposits.
I would like for these studies to separate the two, and then to provide the results.
I'll bet we'd see a different outcome for the two.
I've written about the scourge of HFCS at Room Eight - visit my blog at http://r8ny.com/blog/vincent_nunes
Report abuse
Posted by Vincent Nunes
02 April 2013 | 14h06
Huh?
The test used normal ingestion levels and after ten weeks, concluded that there would be no effects is HFCS was consumed over a lifetime. I expected the use of elevated levels to accelerate the effects, but the study didn't even do that.
Lame.
Report abuse
Posted by Steven Colo
01 April 2013 | 17h59
WAY too small a sample
With only 64 subjects, if we assumed each person was a coinflip, the standard deviation would be about 8, and statistically significant would be about 3 standard deviations above norm. In other words, unless you got at least 56 of 64 showing the effect you're testing for, you wouldn't call it statistically significant. And to make it worse, the 64 are divided into 10 groups. This study looks like it was intentionally designed to produce a "not significant" result by simply having far too few subjects to get a good answer.
Report abuse
Posted by Howard A. Landman
01 April 2013 | 17h21
Get rid of it
Get rid of not only HFCS, but also get rid of Bromine in all foods, too. FDA is nothing more than a paid-off joke these days.
Report abuse
Posted by Tom
01 April 2013 | 12h47
Study from the HFCS producers!
Isn't it hilarious how the producers of HFCS keep announcing "studies" showing its as fine as mother's milk, yet independent studies all seem to contradict that?
Report abuse
Posted by martaban
31 March 2013 | 20h57
Look Who Funded the Study
The Corn Refiners Association paid for this. Enough said.
Report abuse
Posted by Donna Buell
25 March 2013 | 13h44
More Propaganda from Big Brother
Well the natives are restless again! Lets get a study saying how healthful HFCS is and they'll settle down!
Report abuse
Posted by Aldo Chumley
22 March 2013 | 13h08
Another Genetically Modified Organism
Researchers Say 17 Products Tested Had Some Mercury; Industry Group Says Syrup Is Safe By Miranda Hitti
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Jan. 27, 2009 -- Some foods and drinks rich in high-fructose corn syrup may contain detectable levels of mercury, a new report shows.
The report, published on the web site of the Minneapolis-based nonprofit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), shows detectable levels of mercury in 17 out of 55 tested products rich in high-fructose corn syrup.
But the researchers aren't telling people to avoid those products or other items containing high-fructose corn syrup, and they aren't sure what form of mercury those products contained. If you consider how HFCS is actually made, you might be surprised that highly processed corn products can be considered safe to consume, let alone “natural.” In the documentary King Corn, the process of making HFCS is demonstrated. According to this documentary, after the kernels are heated to140 degrees Fahrenheit, a small amount of sulfuric acid is added. It is then soaked for 16 hours to soften and separate the starch from the fiber. Enzymes are then added to convert the glucose into fructose.
Pure sulfuric acid is not found naturally on earth. This highly hazardous and corrosive mineral acid is used in vehicle batteries, oil refining and wastewater processing. Yet, this acid is used to create HFCS, and HFCS is in the majority of processed foods that so many Americans consume every single day.
Report abuse
Posted by Infowarrior
15 March 2013 | 12h42
Mmmmm.... Sweet Results!
Splenda! I mean splendid! Of course the results are proof that sucrose doesn't cause obesity, heart disease, liver disease, diabetes, etc. in a 10 week period! This cracks me up.
Report abuse
Posted by Brian
12 March 2013 | 13h11
And now a word from our sponsors:
oh wait, that WAS a word from our sponsors! hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Report abuse
Posted by mrfixr
11 March 2013 | 17h25
Laughing Hard!
"Dr." Rippe is an advisor and consultant to the Corn Syrup Industry.
Huge Conflict of interest here, but a great headline
Report abuse
Posted by Dave
10 March 2013 | 22h04
Follow The Money Trail
All you have to do is look at who sponsored the so-called "research." When they funded his research, was the Corn Refiners Association looking for any results except what he gave them?
Report abuse
Posted by BAW
08 March 2013 | 17h08
Trade journal
I admit that I've never been to this site before, but it sure smells like an industry trade site.
Who funds it?
Report abuse
Posted by Nicolas
05 March 2013 | 19h14
problem with HFCS
But the problem with High Fructose Corn Syrup is that it is ingested in higher than "normal" levels, in massive quantities in shakes, ice cream, etc. So over time at ABOVE NORMAL LEVELS, it would contribute to a fatty liver. Duh.
Report abuse
Posted by Moira
05 March 2013 | 16h51
Any pure substance
I have been a foodie all my life and my philosophy is simple: eat as many plants as you can, and the closer to the ground and the sooner after harvest the better. If you are concerned about any single pure substance that you consume then you are not eating right. Avoid anything that has ingredients you can't pronounce or was obviously made in a factory.
Report abuse
Posted by Fladabosco
05 March 2013 | 16h06
fat and more fat
I'm always amazed at how when people stop drinking their 5 or 6 sodas a day or a half gallon of ice cream after super or (dinner) they all seem to loose weight,so that or any other foods that are consumed in large unhealthy amounts are bad for you.Imagine that
Report abuse
Posted by rick
04 March 2013 | 18h33
Be aware of this stuff
I was told by a hospital pharmacist to stay away from ALL foods and drinks containing this stuff. My cholesterol levels have fallen many points and I have lost 30 pounds over 2 years, just by eleminating this crap from my diet.Read the labels and don't fall prey to it..or ANY sugar substitutes.
Report abuse
Posted by Randy Oehmig
03 March 2013 | 23h46
Who paid for it, indeed...
I wonder not just who paid for this study, but who paid for this news article and this website. Never heard of it before… it was a paid link from another site was visiting.
Corporate propaganda is everywhere.
Report abuse
Posted by Shannon
02 March 2013 | 21h33
And the new 'evidence' of Innocuousness was funded by which interest?
I agree with others posting here: Verify the funding source for the study. I would not care to be a scientist in today's world unless my research could be completely independent of vested interests. Too much struggle between conscience, science, and income.
Report abuse
Posted by Naomi Bigelow
02 March 2013 | 17h32
I've lost 20 pounds...
... just by eliminating high fructose corn syrup from my diet.
I'm eating just as much as I did before.
I wonder how the scientists would explain that!
Report abuse
Posted by Ben
02 March 2013 | 16h38
My Study is the correct one
Nice how the good Dr just groups all the other studies into a group and says they force feed hi doses of the bad stuff. If they are fed limited amounts of course it is going to take time to build up. Problem is that most people who eat this shit don't eat just small quantities. He is right about one thing refined table sugar is just like HFCS on the body. Always look who is paying for the research.
Report abuse
Posted by Keith Milby
28 February 2013 | 23h52
Bogus Study
It was paid for by the Corn (Sugar) Refiners Association. They are the HFCS producres and have the most to lose if HFCS is shown to be hazardous to health, which it is. Follow the Money. What the article doesn't say is how the data was cherry-picked from the sample space to fit their predetermined conclusion.
And of course they are going to complain that previous studies were flawed; they were flawed because they didn't match up to the CRA's econimic and political world views--meaning those which make them the most money, our health be damned.
Report abuse
Posted by Tannim
28 February 2013 | 18h53
paid for by...
Who care who it's paid for. In reality, these kinds of studies have to be paid for by someone. Of course the Sugar Corn people would want a study to disprove the other study, because as was stated, that other study was flawed.
It's like feeding lab rats 10x their body weight of carrots then watching them get cancer. Does that mean carrots are bad? No. But the Carrot Coalition of America, might fund a study to see if a normal amount of carrots eaten by a lab rat causes cancer.
And if it doesn't? Would you say that it was paid for by Big Carrot and can't be believed?
These aren't infomercial people pushing snake oil by using a side by side comparison, instead of a double blind study.
Report abuse
Posted by Bugs Bunny
28 February 2013 | 00h32
study
Would be interested to see if producers of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup contributed funding for the study.
Report abuse
Posted by David Oates
27 February 2013 | 13h33
This is a misleading study - caution!
This study misleads by looking only at Liver Fat. The horrific metabolic changes that HFCS AND Sucrose make to the body, as in acidosis (making the body more acid) and pre-diabetic insulin levels, still say no no no to HFCS. Was this article paid for by one of the HFCS producers?
Report abuse
Posted by robert schickling
26 February 2013 | 15h39
Food Studies
Let's see, we give test subjects an abnormal high level of some ingredient or componenet of an ingredient and wonder why there is an adverse reaction so we run screaming 'the sky is falling, the sky is fallin'.
But when we conduct another test using normal usage rates and get no reaction, it is considered a conspiracy because the ingredient industry sponsered the test.
When you subject anything to high levels of a substance it will have an adverse reaction because you have overloaded the body's ability to handle it.
A person needs oxygen to survive but if you give a person too much, there is an adverse reaction. It is all about the dose.
Report abuse
Posted by Mike
18 February 2013 | 19h43
Short-Term Study?
"why would we believe that a short term study done at "normal" consumption levels would not cause the same effect if studied over a longer time."
It may, but the study that brought up the issues - Stanhope 2009 from the Journal of Clinical Investigation was also 10 weeks!
Report abuse
Posted by David M Driscoll
17 February 2013 | 14h02
Answering the question
The difference is one study used JUST fructose and showed problems, but what we take in despite the name of HFCS is not JUST fructose it is only a slightly higher concentration of fructose than is present in sucrose. The point being that when you compare HFCS to Sucrose there is no difference and no significant side effect in the short-term of increased fat in the liver or muscles (comparing apples to apples), and as yet no study has been done comparing fructose and HFCS or sucrose (which would be comparing apples to oranges).
Report abuse
Posted by Wendy Repovich
15 February 2013 | 02h18
Fructose
If studies isolating fructose and given in large quantities over time show increase in liver fat and non-alcoholic liver disease, why would we believe that a short term study done at "normal" consumption levels would not cause the same effect if studied over a longer time. Maybe they should study the dietary habits of people with these issues and find out what they do differently.
Report abuse
Posted by Janice
14 February 2013 | 21h22
Read all comments (42)