Ray Peat On The Fattening Component Of Soft Drinks With High Fructose Corn Syrup

[seeyeff]

I've been absorbing Peat info for years but I somehow missed this little gem, so I thought I'd highlight it:

And it turns out that the reason people get fat on soft drinks that contain HFCS is that it contains a huge amount of calories that are neither fructose nor glucose. It’s the syrupy component, basically a type of corn starch or corn syrup, which they don't count because it isn’t fructose or glucose. But, it’s there, as calories.

So it was never the sugar that was the problem, nor is it the fructose and glucose component of HFCS, it's the starchy byproduct of HFCS that they don't even tell you about!

Quoted from this Peat interview on Eluv Radio @ 11:50 :



Transcript here: Effects of Stress and Trauma (Eluv Radio, 2014)

 

[zztr]

There was I think one study claiming to have found a bunch of starch in HFCS samples. Nobody else found it when they looked. If you want to spend extra money avoiding HFCS to seek out cane sugar that's your business, but I don't think there's any scientifically verified reason. Some have claimed there's a tendency for metals to be in the HFCS from processing, but again, nobody has shown any proof.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

So it was never the sugar that was the problem, nor is it the fructose and glucose component of HFCS, it's the starchy byproduct of HFCS that they don't even tell you about!

1. Never forget that obese people do not just drink sugary soda and eat sugary candy. The idea that it's just sugar thats making and keeping people obese completely ignores all of the fat those very same people eat alongside the sugar. It's not the actual sugar they are ingesting thats being converted into triglycerides and stored as fat tissue. It's the fat. The fat they eat comes from mainly two sources; veg. oil in condiments and soaked up by fried foods and dairy fat. All of the fat that people eat doesn't magically just disappear. It' get stored inside fat cells. The idea that obese people purposely eat low fat is so laughable. Go talk to them. Ask them what they love to eat. None of them are going to say they like low fat foods outside of candy and soda.

2. Peat's wording "basically a type of corn starch or corn syrup" is strange because it's either starch or its not and I don't see how the liquid of a soda is "starch." Starch is fibrous, not syrup-y. It's a weird comment.

3. He said the same thing about grape juice once. There's no starch in grape juice, pure sugar.

"Grape juice is very good as long as you consider the calories. It has more concentrated calories than orange juice. Some tropical fruits are very good. Guava, for example."

4. Peat recently said "but you still need a few hundred grams of carbohydrate as either starch or sugar everyday.." so it's not simply "starch" thats "the problem." Please be specific about specific things.



.

 

[Tarmander]

I had heard this quote before. I think its one of those answers from Peat that does not quite hit the spot on explaining something.

 

[jitsmonkey]

I think he's speaking to a problem with hfcs itself. the amount used in a soda isn't enough to matter.
the excessive starch is a SUBSTANTIAL thickener. So even to have enough starch in a coke to matter you'd notice a substantial thickening.
So the take home lesson is as a sweetner you might use A LOT of its probably not ideal however the amount of starch you're dealing with even in a few cokes a day is really a non issue.

the soda causes obesity is nonsense.
pufa, excessive starch/fat, anti nutrients, etc cause obesity.
obese people are not just drinking soda
every meal is a full on multi variate biologic assault.
Classic example of correlation does not equal causation
(unless you have an agenda)

 

[seeyeff]

Peat's wording "basically a type of corn starch or corn syrup" is strange because it's either starch or its not and I don't see how the liquid of a soda is "starch." Starch is fibrous, not syrup-y. It's a weird comment.

I think what Peat is referring to here is the "dextrinization" process he discusses in this clip. He explains that this is how they make corn syrup like the "Taro" brand you see in stores. He says that the sweetness and viscosity depends on how far you carry the breakdown reaction from the original starch. And that "broken up starch turns the solid starch into a semi-liquid gummy material."

 

[Remedy]

1. Never forget that obese people do not just drink sugary soda and eat sugary candy. The idea that it's just sugar thats making and keeping people obese completely ignores all of the fat those very same people eat alongside the sugar. It's not the actual sugar they are ingesting thats being converted into triglycerides and stored as fat tissue. It's the fat. The fat they eat comes from mainly two sources; veg. oil in condiments and soaked up by fried foods and dairy fat. All of the fat that people eat doesn't magically just disappear. It' get stored inside fat cells. The idea that obese people purposely eat low fat is so laughable. Go talk to them. Ask them what they love to eat. None of them are going to say they like low fat foods outside of candy and soda.

2. Peat's wording "basically a type of corn starch or corn syrup" is strange because it's either starch or its not and I don't see how the liquid of a soda is "starch." Starch is fibrous, not syrup-y. It's a weird comment.

3. He said the same thing about grape juice once. There's no starch in grape juice, pure sugar.

"Grape juice is very good as long as you consider the calories. It has more concentrated calories than orange juice. Some tropical fruits are very good. Guava, for example."

4. Peat recently said "but you still need a few hundred grams of carbohydrate as either starch or sugar everyday.." so it's not simply "starch" thats "the problem." Please be specific about specific things.



.

Actually, he's right...about the "starch", at least. Starches are chains of glucose, and there are, from what I recall, very small length starches that compose a significant amount of corn syrup and other similar syrups. I'm limited to such syrups for sweeteners, and the starch element is evident on the nutrition labels:

 

[zztr]

The HFCS sweetener used in sodas and such is not "corn syrup" like Taro. The HFCS has no starch in it. It is eliminated by processing. And even if some starch remained in sweetened beverages there's no way that would constitute a significant factor in obesity. It would be a tiny, tiny fraction of total starch and calorie intake.

 

[Remedy]

The HFCS sweetener used in sodas and such is not "corn syrup" like Taro. The HFCS has no starch in it. It is eliminated by processing. And even if some starch remained in sweetened beverages there's no way that would constitute a significant factor in obesity. It would be a tiny, tiny fraction of total starch and calorie intake.

I highly doubt they bother removing the starch element, or that the process is so efficient that all the starting starch is converted. If you have a source, give it.

As for obesity, yeah, you're probably right.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Again, he's said the same thing about grape juice, in the quote I posted above. No starch.

Also, it's called high fructose corn syrup, not high glucose corn syrup. If anything, the "effects" are from fructose, and in lab rats.

But wait, here's another Peat quote where he said that there isn't much of a difference:

"Q: Someone told me you drink HFCS coke regularly? do you think it is not that harmful if someone is healthy?

"A: I prefer Mexican coke with real sugar (it tastes very different), but metabolically there isn't much difference."-RP

So metabolically not much difference from cane sugar Coke vs. HFCS Coke.

.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

I think what Peat is referring to here is the "dextrinization" process he discusses in this clip. He explains that this is how they make corn syrup like the "Taro" brand you see in stores. He says that the sweetness and viscosity depends on how far you carry the breakdown reaction from the original starch. And that "broken up starch turns the solid starch into a semi-liquid gummy material."

Ok but thats not the same thing as consuming amylose or amylopectin, which is real starch, though the process of hydrolysis cooked in/with water and then swallowed by a high amylase secreting human, in the context of many other lifestyle factors. To say that soda causes obesity because it has starch is very unscientific. But of course, always blame the starch because starch is such a bad word in the health world.

.

 

[seeyeff]

So I think I found what Peat was referring to in his article Sugar Issues:

Much of the current concern about the dangers of fructose is focussed on the cornstarch-derived high fructose corn syrup, HFCS. Many studies assume that its composition is nearly all fructose and glucose. However, Wahjudi, et al. (2010) analyzed samples of it before and after hydrolyzing it in acid, to break down other carbohydrates present in it. They found that the carbohydrate content was several times higher than the listed values. "The underestimation of carbohydrate content in beverages may be a contributing factor in the development of obesity in children," and it's especially interesting that so much of it is present in the form of starch-like materials.

Which is a reference to this study which says:

The carbohydrate contents in commercial beverages determined without acid hydrolysis were in agreement with the carbohydrate contents provided on the food labels. However, the carbohydrate contents of beverages determined after acid hydrolysis were substantially (4–5 fold) higher than the listed values of carbohydrates. As fructose and glucose in HFCS may exist as monosaccharides, disaccharides and/or oligosaccharides, analysis of the carbohydrate content of HFCS containing samples may yield widely different results depending on the degree of hydrolysis of the oligosaccharides. With inclusion of mild acid hydrolysis, all samples showed significantly higher fructose and glucose content than the listed values of carbohydrates on the nutrition labels. The underestimation of carbohydrate content in beverages may be a contributing factor in the development of obesity in children.

But then I also found this which seems to suggest the methods of the Wahjudi study might have been problematic:

Caution must also be exercised in interpreting the results of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analyses of HFCS, sucrose and other sugars where acid hydrolysis is used. Although its stated purpose is to hydrolyze di- and oligosaccharides to constituent monosaccharides before analysis, acidification can readily degrade fragile sugars and create a host of artifacts not present in the original sample. In addition, the elevated column and pre-column temperatures inherent in gas chromatography-mass spectrometry separations accelerate sugar degradation reactions. These factors are likely explanations for differences in HFCS composition reported by Wahjudi et al.,46 based on gas chromatography-mass spectrometry comparisons with and without acid pretreatment.

Perhaps the explanation for the following quote was that Ray Peat revised the view in his "Sugar Issues" article and the aforementioned audio clip after learning that the Wahjudi study was misleading.

But wait, here's another Peat quote where he said that there isn't much of a difference:

"Q: Someone told me you drink HFCS coke regularly? do you think it is not that harmful if someone is healthy?

"A: I prefer Mexican coke with real sugar (it tastes very different), but metabolically there isn't much difference."-RP

So metabolically not much difference from cane sugar Coke vs. HFCS Coke.

 

[cyclops]

Hmmm thinking about switching to HFCS coke. I eat a ton of starch anyway. Also most here aren't afraid of calories from carbs and if you eat some starch anyway then its like your getting two for one.

 

[yerrag]

So I think I found what Peat was referring to in his article Sugar Issues:



Which is a reference to this study which says:



But then I also found this which seems to suggest the methods of the Wahjudi study might have been problematic:



Perhaps the explanation for the following quote was that Ray Peat revised the view in his "Sugar Issues" article and the aforementioned audio clip after learning that the Wahjudi study was misleading.

Nice of you to dig deep into this.

I'm just not convinced how the Wahjudi study could be considered misleading. So what if acidification can degrade fragile sugars? Isn't that the intention, to break down more complex sugars into simple sugars? What artifacts would there be other than simple sugars that came out of the complex sugars? If there were artifacts other than simpler sugars, why would they matter if they weren't sugars and hence has no caloric value? Would the higher carbohydrate values in the order of multiples over the non-acidified measurement method simply come out of thin air, simply on account of acid hydrolysis?

I did a google search "wahjudi high fructose corn syrup" and guess what came out on top of the search. Not the Wahjudi study, but the study that "cautions," the study that debunks the Wahjudi study.

 

[lvysaur]

HFCS tastes like ****, that's reason enough to avoid it

Unless you're part of the growing segment of the population who enjoys that taste

 

[yerrag]

HFCS tastes like ****, that's reason enough to avoid it

Unless you're part of the growing segment of the population who enjoys that taste

I'm terrible with telling the difference between the taste of HFCS and cane sugar, much less between Coke and Pepsi, or even RC Cola. Maybe because when it's sweet and cold it numbs my taste bud.

 

[InChristAlone]

I have tried plain corn syrup and yes it does taste gross. But I can't tell the difference in soda.

 

[Lord Cola]

Has anyone spoken to Peat about whether there are metabolic differences between HFCS and sugar recently?

 

[Sapien]

Nobody else found it when they looked

Care to link studies where they looked and didn’t find it?

 

[Sapien]

What’s the consensus on HFCS in the community; I hear some say it’s not a problem and some citing it as the cause of obesity. I don’t know what to think.