ADDED SUGAR FRIEND OR FOE? Jim Painter PhD, RD, Eastern Illinois University Professor Kelly Apfel BS, Graduate Assistant

ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS HEREDITY Determines range of health Clean Air & Water Exercise Peace of Mind Spiritual Contentment Polluted Air & Water Sedentary lifestyle Psychological “Stress” Pride, fear, Anxiety Secondary Elements: Health Supporting Diet RICH FOOD Primary Element: Health vs Disease

Dietary Guidelines Consequences of Consumption Sugar as a Friend Sugar as a Foe High Fructose Corn Syrup Added Sugar Friend or Foe

“ALTHOUGH A UL IS NOT SET FOR SUGARS, A MAXIMAL INTAKE LEVEL OF 25 PERCENT OR LESS OF ENERGY FROM ADDED SUGARS IS SUGGESTED BASED ON THE DECREASED INTAKE OF SOME MICRONUTRIENTS OF AMERICAN SUBPOPULATIONS EXCEEDING THE LEVEL.” Dietary Guidelines Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Food and Nutrition Board (2005). Dietary reference intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein, and amino acids. Washington, D.C. : The National Academies Press.

Dietary Guidelines Consequences of Consumption Sugar as a Friend Sugar as a Foe High Fructose Corn Syrup Added Sugar Friend or Foe

Reduction in Nutrients as Added Sugar Increases Marriott, B. P., Olsho, L., Hadden, L., & Connor, P. (2010). Intake of added sugars and selected nutrients in the united states, national health and nutrition examination survey (nhanes) Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition,50,

Reduction in Nutrients as Added Sugar Increases Marriott, B. P., Olsho, L., Hadden, L., & Connor, P. (2010). Intake of added sugars and selected nutrients in the united states, national health and nutrition examination survey (nhanes) Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition,50,

Reduction in Nutrients as Added Sugar Increases Marriott, B. P., Olsho, L., Hadden, L., & Connor, P. (2010). Intake of added sugars and selected nutrients in the united states, national health and nutrition examination survey (nhanes) Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition,50,

Effect of Caloric Restriction Conducted on male mice Divided into 4 groups  Ad libitum, 85 kcal/wk, 50 kcal/wk, 40 kcal/wk Initiated at 1 month of age  Body weight and life span Weindruch, Sohal, 1997

Survival % mo10 mo20 mo30 mo40 mo50 mo60 mo Ad libitum 85 kcal/wk 50 kcal/wk 40 kcal/wk Weindruch, Sohal, 1997

Retardation Growth Hypothesis Four groups of male F344 rats  Fed ad libitum throughout life  CR initiated at 6 weeks of life  CR initiated 6-26 weeks of life  CR initiated from 26 weeks of life Findings  When CR limited to rapid growth period, it did not substantially change the age of the 10 th percentile survivors  CR initiated after rapid growth was almost as effective in increasing the age of the 10 th percentile survivors as CR initiated at 6 weeks of age Masoro, 2005

Yu et al., 1985 Age of Initiation and Time Period of CR and Longevity in Rats Median Survival 10 th Percentile Survival CR (None) From 6 weeks 6-26 weeks From 26 weeks Days Masoro, 2005

Dietary Guidelines Consequences of Consumption Sugar as a Friend Sugar as a Foe High Fructose Corn Syrup Added Sugar Friend or Foe

Vegetable% RDA in 1 NLEA Serving Tomato (148 g)Vitamin A: 25% Vitamin K: 14% Vitamin C: 31% Carrot (85 g)Fiber: 10% Vitamin K: 10% Vitamin A: 234% Broccoli (148 g)Fiber: 15% Vitamin A: 18% Vitamin K: 158% Vitamin C: 220% Riboflavin: 10% B6: 13% Folate: 23% Phosphorus: 10% Manganese: 16% Potassium: 10%

Vegetable% RDA in 1 NLEA Serving Potato (Baked with skin, 148 g)Fiber: 13% Vitamin C: 24% Niacin: 10% B6: 23% Folate: 10% Manganese: 16% Phosphorus: 10% Magnesium: 16% Potassium: 17% Romaine Lettuce (85g)Vitamin A: 99% Vitamin K: 107% Vitamin C: 33% Foltae: 29%

Fruit% RDA in 1 NLEA Serving Apple (154g)Fiber: 15% Vitamin C:12% Banana (126 g)Fiber: 13% Vitamin C: 18% B6: 23% Manganese: 17% Potassium: 10% Orange (1- Medium)Fiber: 14% Vitamin C: 105%

Fruit% RDA in 1 NLEA Serving Pear (166 g)Fiber: 21% Vitamin C: 12% Strawberry (147 g)Fiber: 12% Vitamin: 143% Manganese: 28%

Meat% RDA Beef (3 oz, 95% lean, ground, crumbles, pan cooked) Protein: 50% Riboflavin: 10% Niacin: 31% B6: 18% B12: 37% Iron: 15% Phosphorus: 23% Zinc: 40% Selenium: 26%

Meat% RDA Chicken (4 oz, Breast, Baked, or Broiled) Protein: 70% Niacin: 38% B6: 34% Phosphorus: 26% Selenium: 45% Pork (1 chop, 150g, lean only, bone in, broiled) Protein: 38% Thiamin: 46% Riboflavin: 15% Niacin: 16% B6: 20% Phosphorus: 17% Zinc: 12% Selenium: 51%

Sugar in Yogurt

1

Dietary Guidelines Consequences of Consumption Sugar as a Friend Sugar as a Foe High Fructose Corn Syrup Added Sugar Friend or Foe

Grape Juice vs Grape Juice Drink Nutrient Comparison USDA Database

Orange Juice vs Orange Juice Drink Nutrient Comparison USDA Database

Gone Bananas (100g) Banana Banana Chips USDA Database

Air Crisped Banana Chips

% RDA Comparison Cranberries and Dried Cranberries

% RDA Comparison Raisins and Dried Cranberries

SOMETIMES PRUNES, RAISINS AND FIGS RANK THE HIGHEST. DRIED CRANBERRIES ALWAYS COME OUT LAST BECAUSE THEY ARE A HIGHLY PROCESSED FOOD. Nutrient comparison between dried fruits

Calcium

Iron

Phosphorus

Vitamin C

Potassium

Added Sugar (g)

RaisinsDried Cranberries Nuval Comparison

Guiding Star Comparison RaisinsDried Cranberries

Sugar: When does it change from a friend to a foe?

Sugar in Cereal Cheereos- 3g sugar/ 100 kcals (12%) Multi-grain Cheereos- 6g sugar/110 kcals (22%) Honey Nut Cheereos- 9g sugar/110 kcals (33%) Froot Loops- 13g sugar/120 kcals (43%) Apple Jacks-15g sugar/120 kcals (50%)

Dietary Guidelines Consequences of Consumption Sugar as a Friend Sugar as a Foe High Fructose Corn Syrup Added Sugar Friend or Foe

High-Fructose Corn Syrup: Harmless Sweetener or Liquid Death?

US Sweetener Consumption Wells & Buzby 2008

HFCS causes obesity Arguments for:  Increase in HFCS consumption corresponds to increase in obesity in US  Only data to support HFCS’s unique role in obesity  Fructose does not elicit insulin response, causing increased consumption  HFCS contains both fructose and glucose  Increased soft drink consumption  HFCS main sweetener in soft drinks

= HFCS = Obesity Bray et al. 2004

HFCS causes obesity Arguments against:  White article  Obesity is multifactoral  HFCS not significantly different from sucrose  HFCS consumption is low in other countries with obesity  HFCS has leveled off, but obesity has increased  Ecological study

SugarHoneyHFCS How sweet is it? Sugar is the benchmark Honey is as sweet as sugar There are two types: HFCS-55 as sweet as sugar; HFCS-42 about 92% as sweet How many calories per gram? 4/gram What's in it? 50% fructose 50% glucose 48% fructose 52% glucose HFCS-55: 55% fructose 45% glucose HFCS-42: 42% fructose 58% glucose Comparison of HFCS, sucrose, and honey Corn Refiners Association 2009

= HFCS = Obesity Bray et al. 2004

Obesity conclusion HFCS does not play a unique role in the obesity epidemic in the US

Dietary Guidelines Consequences of Consumption Sugar as a Friend Sugar as a Foe High Fructose Corn Syrup Added Sugar Friend or Foe