3 ms·

This is further confirmation of a well-known phenomenon. If you want to watch a long presentation on what's going on, check this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?

This is further confirmation of a well-known phenomenon. If you want to watch a long presentation on what's going on, check this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM Short version: Fructose is metabolized by your liver, results in a lot of nasty byproducts, your liver stores the excess energy as fat, etc.

nas 17y ago
That doesn't explain why HFCS should be worse that sucrose. It contains about the same about of fructose and according to Dr. Lustig the bound is very easy for the body to break. Regarding "The Bitter Truth", it's amazing to me that the fact that fructose is processed by the liver is not widely known. How could the medical community not know this for so long?
- gte910h 17y ago
  Table sugar is sucrose. First off to turn sucrose into its component molecules, it must first undergo a reaction with a sucrase enzyme. So there is at least one metabolic step left out there. Studies are being done to test if Sucrase is actively regulated by the body or not. In either case, this metabolic step must occur, and can only occur so fast (limited by the amount of sucrase in your body), no matter how much sucrose you ingest. This means slower absorption of sucrose over HFCS as you get this with the whole load of glucose in HFCS instantly, but only see the sucrose's glucose released over time. Secondly, fructose has many forms. In sucrose, the fructose is often of the fructose-5 variety. In HFCS, it completely depends on the application, as any heat applied to a fructose-5 molecule upon separation from the glucose turns it into fructose-6. Fructose-6 is notably less sweet than Sucrose This means when used in heat processed goods, you use quite a bit more HFCS (including all baked goods, etc) then the equivalent amount of sucrose. This means more calories. Secondly, there are all different kids of HFCS. Notably, there is one with 38% less fructose than sucrose (HFCS 42), one with 22% more fructose than sucrose (HFCS 55) and one with 800% more fructose than table sugar (HFCS 90, often seen in diet foods I might add). They are all used for differing applications, but HFCS is not a single product, and most of the forms are likely metabolically worse in any amount of a single dose than the equivalent sweetness worth of sucrose. It is important you calculate your fractions correctly when realizing the differing amounts of fructose, as they're larger then they appear at first. One could say a steak and the meal in your small intestines are "about the same thing" but I doubt you'd want to eat it then, and you'd be as accurate as saying table sugar is basically HFCS 55 (all percentages are in terms of "per molecule of glucose", which is what appears to be important as per the evolving science of satiation)

nas 17y ago

That doesn't explain why HFCS should be worse that sucrose. It contains about the same about of fructose and according to Dr. Lustig the bound is very easy for the body to break. Regarding "The Bitter Truth", it's amazing to me that the fact that fructose is processed by the liver is not widely known. How could the medical community not know this for so long?

gte910h 17y ago
Table sugar is sucrose. First off to turn sucrose into its component molecules, it must first undergo a reaction with a sucrase enzyme. So there is at least one metabolic step left out there. Studies are being done to test if Sucrase is actively regulated by the body or not. In either case, this metabolic step must occur, and can only occur so fast (limited by the amount of sucrase in your body), no matter how much sucrose you ingest. This means slower absorption of sucrose over HFCS as you get this with the whole load of glucose in HFCS instantly, but only see the sucrose's glucose released over time. Secondly, fructose has many forms. In sucrose, the fructose is often of the fructose-5 variety. In HFCS, it completely depends on the application, as any heat applied to a fructose-5 molecule upon separation from the glucose turns it into fructose-6. Fructose-6 is notably less sweet than Sucrose This means when used in heat processed goods, you use quite a bit more HFCS (including all baked goods, etc) then the equivalent amount of sucrose. This means more calories. Secondly, there are all different kids of HFCS. Notably, there is one with 38% less fructose than sucrose (HFCS 42), one with 22% more fructose than sucrose (HFCS 55) and one with 800% more fructose than table sugar (HFCS 90, often seen in diet foods I might add). They are all used for differing applications, but HFCS is not a single product, and most of the forms are likely metabolically worse in any amount of a single dose than the equivalent sweetness worth of sucrose. It is important you calculate your fractions correctly when realizing the differing amounts of fructose, as they're larger then they appear at first. One could say a steak and the meal in your small intestines are "about the same thing" but I doubt you'd want to eat it then, and you'd be as accurate as saying table sugar is basically HFCS 55 (all percentages are in terms of "per molecule of glucose", which is what appears to be important as per the evolving science of satiation)