4 ms·

A basic explanation is that fructose is metabolized very differently from glucose. Glucose is absorbed from the digestive tract and directly enters the blood;

by riahi 17y ago

A basic explanation is that fructose is metabolized very differently from glucose. Glucose is absorbed from the digestive tract and directly enters the blood; fructose is routed to the liver and converted into fat. Considering the difference in these mechanisms, it isn't surprising that HFCS leads to higher weight gain, because it directly leads to increased synthesis of adipose tissue.

tcskeptic 17y ago
But sucrose is 50% fructose as well, the 5% difference in Fructose content between Sucrose and HFCS does not appear to be sufficient to explain the difference in weight gain, especially since overall HFCS calories consumed were lower. There is something weird going on here beyond just the fructose content of HFCS.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  Glucose enters the bloodstream directly where it is likely measured by our body (like everything is from blood salinity to oxygen and CO2 concentrations), a 5% reduction in glucose in a concentration of sucrose (IE natural sugar) would likely be misread by the body. If you get 50 calories of glucose in a set quantity of sucrose, your body expects there to be 50 calories of fructose. If you're getting 47.5 calories of glucose, your body expects you to be getting 47.5 calories of fructose not 52.5, this would mean your body interprets you eating an equal amount of calories as eating less calories. There's another reason I've read as to why we're naturally susceptible to high-fructose, which is that our direct ancestors are predominantly fruit-eaters. Humans, and many of our ancestors, are unable to produce Vitamin C directly because our food sources were high enough sources that our bodies didn't have to waste energy synthesising it. This means we have the instinct to pig out when we find high-fructose concentrations, our bodies cheaped out on a solution to ensure high Vitamin C intake. It only happens that we've recently began screwing around with our foods to a large enough degree that we're directly suffering from this short cut evolution took.

by riahi 17y ago

tcskeptic 17y ago

But sucrose is 50% fructose as well, the 5% difference in Fructose content between Sucrose and HFCS does not appear to be sufficient to explain the difference in weight gain, especially since overall HFCS calories consumed were lower. There is something weird going on here beyond just the fructose content of HFCS.

electromagnetic 17y ago
Glucose enters the bloodstream directly where it is likely measured by our body (like everything is from blood salinity to oxygen and CO2 concentrations), a 5% reduction in glucose in a concentration of sucrose (IE natural sugar) would likely be misread by the body. If you get 50 calories of glucose in a set quantity of sucrose, your body expects there to be 50 calories of fructose. If you're getting 47.5 calories of glucose, your body expects you to be getting 47.5 calories of fructose not 52.5, this would mean your body interprets you eating an equal amount of calories as eating less calories. There's another reason I've read as to why we're naturally susceptible to high-fructose, which is that our direct ancestors are predominantly fruit-eaters. Humans, and many of our ancestors, are unable to produce Vitamin C directly because our food sources were high enough sources that our bodies didn't have to waste energy synthesising it. This means we have the instinct to pig out when we find high-fructose concentrations, our bodies cheaped out on a solution to ensure high Vitamin C intake. It only happens that we've recently began screwing around with our foods to a large enough degree that we're directly suffering from this short cut evolution took.