(A look at Eating Well’s October Issue, Article Titled: “13 Biggest Myths Busted”)
Added sweeteners are bad for your health. Really bad. They increase risk of “fatty liver disease, insulin resistance, heart disease and type 2 diabetes,” writes Joyce Hendley, contributor to Eating Well’s October 2010 edition. Score one for Joyce Hendley. Too bad Hendley couched this statement in a feature on corn syrup that was based on, well, a premise that any gifted Googler with five minutes and a set of keys could debunk.
Hendley’s article, “The 13 Biggest Myths Busted” says that the notion high fructose corn syrup is any worse for you than other sugar additives (meaning table sugar, raw sugar, honey, agave, and maple syrup as opposed to sugars eaten as part of foods in which they naturally occur—like apples, oranges, corn, etc.) is an urban legend. Her basis for this? A statement pulled directly from the website of the Washington, DC based nutrition group, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).
It took me approximately thirty seconds on the CSPI website to locate the source of Hendley’s assertion. It sounds like a long time, but typing corn syrup into the site’s search function, hitting enter, selecting the first item that came up and then scrolling down to the link for more information (which takes you to an article on chemical foods additives), was pretty hard work. In my editing days, I might have had to skip such a long arduous process in favor of another cup of coffee and one of those rum balls they used to leave in the break room. Thankfully I have given up coffee and rum balls, so I suffered no distractions. There, right on my browser, was this statement:
HFCS [high fructose corn syrup] has been blamed by a few people for the obesity epidemic, because rates of obesity have climbed right along with HFCS consumption. But that's an urban myth. HFCS and sugar are equally harmful. We're consuming way too much of both. (See http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm#hfcs)
“OK,” I thought, “That sounds pretty promising. I agree, from what I know about American eating habits, we are consuming way too much of both. Maybe Hendley has the sugar scoop on something so many health conscious people are getting wrong. Maybe I’m wrong. So where are people getting the idea that this stuff is any worse for you than other sugar?”
I returned to Google, contemplative. How do you find a reliable source on the issue of corn syrup? I looked at Hendley’s article again. She quotes Kimber Stanhope, PhD and RD at UC Davis. If you read carefully, you’ll notice that Stanhope's statement does not say that the evidence supports corn syrup as being equally as bad for you as other sugars. What she does say is that we shouldn’t be fixated on corn syrup, because all sugars are bad for us. Fair enough. But who is Stanhope? A quick typity-tap into Google and I got my results. My first thought? “How does the scientist whose study was the first to find corn syrup has negative effects on humans above and beyond that of other sugar additives get quoted in Handley's article in support of the claim that corn syrup isn't any worse than other sugar additives? And then, I wondered, how does she also appear in the July 23, 2010 edition of the Charlotte Observer (speaking about her May 2009 article in the Journal of Clinical Investigation) as saying:
"This is the first evidence we have that fructose increases diabetes and heart disease independently from causing simple weight gain," said Kimber Stanhope, a molecular biologist who led the UC Davis study, adding, "We didn't see any of these changes in the people eating glucose." (see article, reposted on the UC Davis website, here: http://news.ucdavis.edu/in_the_news/full_text/view_clip.lasso?id=32290)
Anyone can take a quote out of context, so I dug a little further. A few tap tap taps later and Google took my “Stanhope Journal of Clinical Investigation May 2009” entry and gave me the entire article, for free. (Don’t you just love the World Wide Web!!!) (See http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385). The abstract, which summarizes the study’s findings, is pretty scientific reading, so I can almost forgive Hendley and editor for skipping it. Almost. Here’s my summary: In a 10 week study, one group of human subjects got 25% of their caloric needs from fructose sweetened beverages and one group got the same percentage from glucose sweetened beverages. Both groups exhibited weight gain, but when compared to the glucose group, the fructose group had significantly higher increases in belly fat (the researchers use the term visceral adiposity—very scientific) and had disrupted lipid metabolism (read problems with their cholesterol) plus significant increases in triglycerides. What’s more, the fructose (but not glucose) subjects had elevated sensitivity to insulin. The sucrose folks? Decreased sensitivity to insulin!
But, that sounds like a myth to me. I read the rest of the study just to make sure. It sounds like somebody, either Hendley and Eating Well, or the Journal of Clinical Investigation took Stanhope out of context.
Not one to rely on a single study alone, I did my own search, and found a report on a Princeton Neuroscience Institute study that showed rats fed high fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than rats fed table sugar. (See http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/). I love the quote from the research scientist and am reprinting it here:
“Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight." (This is a quote from the Princeton website. See above link for original source of this quote.)
A quick review of the actual Princeton study, published online by the Journal of Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior (abstract available from the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health) shows that when researchers fed one group of rats high fructose corn syrup and one group table sugar (each group got the same number of calories), the rats that got the HFCS gained more weight. And this study does not stand alone in a sea of contradictory evidence. The site links to several other studies with similar findings. Stanhope and colleagues’’ article lists at least four animal studies as precursors to her own. Clearly, scientific studies, done by researchers at well-respected universities, published in respectable journals, are urban legend.
And, looking back at Hendley’s work, even the CSPI information seems taken out of context. While the CSPI is incorrect that it is urban myth that corn syrup is any worse for you than plain old fashioned sugar, the CSPI does say that corn syrup as a chemical food should be limited or avoided. They also heavily criticise the recent ad campaigns saying corn syrup has the same components as regular sugar.
Maybe I’m just splitting hairs here, but it seems to me that people are going to use added sweeteners, at least some of the time. And yes, as Hendley’s article says, it’s a good idea to cut them down to a minimal level. They aren’t good for us. Not even the so called natural kind—except arguably when it’s still part of a fruit or vegetable. But, if we accept that people are going to use sugar additives at least some of the time, isn’t it just responsible journalism to get our facts straight? There is at least some evidence that it is better to choose less refined sugar over corn syrup, although the idea that one would simply substitute a natural sugar beverage for syrupy sodas is abhorrent in the eyes of good nutritionists (and nutri-nuts like me) everywhere. That evidence was available at the time Eating Well went to print—even well before, and seems pretty well established. The sidebar feature on corn syrup almost makes the manufactured sweetener derived from corn startch seem, well, as friendly as my grandmother’s old syrup-using candy recipes. And that was not well done on the part of Eating Well.
Am I cancelling my subscription? Not yet. I get too much good information out of it to quit reading at this point. And at the very least, I get some good blog inspiration. Is the image of the magazine tarnished in my eyes? You bet. I really thought this magazine was different in its standards of reporting on nutrition and I was sorely disappointed to see them use the corn syrup debate to develop a sensational, inaccurate, attention grabbing article.
On the subject of added sugars in the diet, it’s pretty much common knowledge that sugar is addictive and linked to an array of health problems. If the article had stuck to that point, they probably wouldn't have strayed too far from the facts. While we're on the subject, I think it’s time for journalists to start trusting Americans with articles that contain more complex nutrition advice. We’re all big boys and girls and I think we could handle an article that both advises us to stay away from sugar as much as possible and also helps us weigh the pros and cons of using different sources of sweetness in our diet. (And though I didn't look it up, I'm sure Eating Well, a generally good magazine, has done this in the past.) I think we should stop trying to give everyone quick, incomplete nutritional sound bites that ultimately contradict each other and do nothing to further progress towards a healthier average diet.
Sarah
(Note: I’m not a nutritionist. I’m not a journalist—anymore. I’m just a stay-at-home-mom, a hard core cook, and a blogger with a passion for nutrition. If you are looking for advice on diet and nutrition, please see a qualified medical professional.)
No comments:
Post a Comment