With new JAMA study, fructose subjected to renewed scrutiny

by Josh Sosland
Share This:
Search for similar articles by keyword: [High Fructose Corn Syrup], [Sugar], [Sweeteners]

CHICAGO — The corn sweetener and sugar industries were put on the defensive again this week when a study linking fructose intake and obesity was published by the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The study, which suggested glucose intake triggers appetite regulation in the brain in a way that fructose does not, generated a critical response from the Corn Refiners Association.

The C.R.A. noted that the study involved 20 people “who were fed massive doses of sugars in a manner that people do not consume in real life.”

“Effects of fructose versus glucose on regional cerebral blood flow in brain regions involved with appetite and reward pathways” was published by a team including Kathleen A. Page, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California.

The researchers subjected volunteers to two magnetic imaging sessions at Yale University in conjunction with fructose or glucose drink ingestion in a blinded, random study.

The researchers were looking for changes in the hypothalamic regional cerebral blood flow “to explore correlations between the hypothalamus and other brain region responses, and hormone responses to fructose and glucose ingestion.”

The researchers’ findings suggested that glucose, but not fructose, has the ability to reduce blood flow in areas of the brain that regulate appetite, helping curb the desire to eat more.

James Rippe, a consultant of the C.R.A. and a professor at the University of Central Florida, said it is important that studies focusing on obesity and food consumption mirror real world experiences.

“By failing to do so, we really gain very little practical insight,” Dr. Rippe said.

In particular, Dr. Rippe was critical of the consumption of fructose and glucose in isolation, the quantities consumed and the fact subjects fasted before ingesting the sugar.

“When consumed together, as they almost always are, fructose and glucose balance each other out and would likely have no effect on normal hypothalamic blood flow,” he said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, writers for JAMA described the research as a proof-of-concept study, which they said involves using “experimental conditions that provide maximal contrast between the intervention and control conditions so as to increase the likelihood of finding differences.”

The editorial said additional studies are needed to “refine the experimental conditions to detect more subtle differences.”

Cane and beet sugar as well as high-fructose corn syrup contain a mixture of glucose and fructose.

Comment on this Article
We welcome your thoughtful comments. Please comply with our Community rules.

 

 


The views expressed in the comments section of Food Business News do not reflect those of Food Business News or its parent company, Sosland Publishing Co., Kansas City, Mo. Concern regarding a specific comment may be registered with the Editor by clicking the Report Abuse link.
   

READER COMMENTS (1)

By David Driscoll 1/5/2013 3:40:08 AM
You missed the part of the study where they actually surveyed the people on satiety, fullness and hunger - here is the quote from the study (have removed the numbers to make it easier to read, emphasis mine) - "There was NO significant difference between glucose vs fructose ingestion on predrink-postdrink changes in hunger, fullness or satiety". Considering that HFCS and sucrose actually contain (almost) equal amounts of glucose and fructose - it is a little hard to extrapolate this study, even if there was differences in the actual physical outcomes. Also consider the serving sizes used, 75g of glucose would require drinking 150g of sucrose or slightly less HFCS (we also don't know if there would be any effect in solid vs liquid food) A little early to take anything from a study that really only showed changes in blood flow but NOT in actual measures of hunger, fullness and satiety! What is the point of inferring things from bloodflow, when they actually measured the outcomes and there was no significant difference between the groups?