HFCS Study...on rats page

**mcallit** · 03-25-2010, 09:31 PM

Who would have thought that HFCS causes more belly fat than plain sugar? Of course, HFCS is terribly difficult to avoid (pre-primal, of course, but I find myself still being vigilant). Here's the news story for those interested:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/25...ex.html?hpt=T2

**EGYnutrition** · 03-25-2010, 10:25 PM

Of course it does. HFCS uses a strain of Fructose called D-fructose while the strain in most whole foods is L-fructose. D-fructose in the abundance that comes in HFCS seems to interfere with the krebs cycle, preventing it from being converted to glucose. Because of this, HFCS is much more likely to be converted into triglyceride than regular sugar.

Not to mention the mercury, non-effect on satiety hormones, and processed nature of the food...

**Stabby** · 03-25-2010, 10:37 PM

While it's nice to know these things for the sake of knowledge, I can't help but predict that this is just going to give people an excuse to eat regular sugar. "HFCS is worst than table sugar therefore table sugar is fine lalala". Same goes for the honey, agave, fruit juice "it's fine because it's natural" crowd.

Now all the HFCS producers need is something that is worse than HFCS to make HFCS all right.

**mcallit** · 03-26-2010, 12:40 AM

But doesn't the HFCS crowd already having something worse? Fat, at least according to CW! Just joking, of course!

I would hope this wouldn't result in a chain reaction on a slippery slope: HFCS is worse than sugar, so pure cane sugar is the best to eat (it gives me strong teeth!). Since reading the PB and MDA, I'm amazed at the news stories that come out regarding health news.