…at least to a study published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
From a news article in regard to this study:
The researchers investigated if there was any difference between commercial beverages containing sucrose or HFCS on hunger, satiety, and energy intakes by assigning 37 volunteers (18 women, age range 20 to 29) to consume cola beverages.
The drinks contained the same amount of calories (215 kcal) sweetened with sucrose, 42 per cent HFCS, or 55 per cent HFCS. The drinks were compared to three controls: diet cola (2 kcal), milk containing one per cent fat (215 kcal), and no beverage, and measurements taken at 20-minutes intervals after consumption.
“We found no differences between sucrose- and HFCS-sweetened colas in perceived sweetness, hunger and satiety profiles, or energy intakes at lunch,” wrote the researchers.
Now.. that being said, there’s a few things that still are true.
- There is a small percentage of people who react poorly to HFCS, most likely due to some allergy or other similar reaction to the product.
- The meme “HFCS is the root of the obesity problem” is still true, not because it’s less healthy than cane sugar, but because it’s in an obscene amount of processed foods.
- The Federal Government still subsidizes corn, and thus the production of HFCS.
- HFCS in soda, quite frankly,
tastes like ass, is inferior to the taste of soda that uses cane sugar.