4 ms·

Fruit tends to be healthy because the sugar (fructose) is wrapped in protein and fiber. In other words, it's very very distilled. That's the reason why eating a

Fruit tends to be healthy because the sugar (fructose) is wrapped in protein and fiber. In other words, it's very very distilled. That's the reason why eating an orange is a lot healthier than drinking orange juice. But we do know that fructose is VERY bad for you (high fructose corn syrup is much worse than sucrose alone).

JamesBarney 10y ago
I don't think there exists any evidence that high fructose corn syrup is much worse than sucrose. They are pretty close to the same thing. HFCS is 45-58% glucose, and 42-55% fructose, and sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. There is one more bond in sugar, but enzymes in your gut break that bond apart very quickly.
- overgard 10y ago
  Well, I'm not exactly saying your should eat a bunch of sucrose either, so I might have overstepped by saying it's MUCH worse. But I do think the evidence points to fructose not being good for you, and it's certainly not better than other sugars.
  - PepeGomez 10y ago
    Why are you lying like that? Are you trying to hurt people?
    - overgard 10y ago
      Huh? I'm a liar for saying "sugar is bad and certain sugars are worse"?
      - PepeGomez 10y ago
        So what is the evidence for fructose being bad for us?
        overgard 10y ago
        Fructose can only be metabolized by the liver (whereas glucose is useful in the rest of the body) so in terms of generating energy it's not particularly useful, but your liver has to deal with it. If your liver gets more fructose than it can use, it turns it into fat which is stored on the liver, leading to fatty liver disease and insulin resistance (same thing with alcohol).
        DanBC 10y ago
        You've stated all of that as fact, when there's some debate about some of it. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445503/SACN_Carbohydrates_and_Health.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... Page 209 onwards. It's worth reading those few pages, but here are some snippets. > Products sweetened with HFCS are not necessarily significantly higher in fructose than foods sweetened with sucrose as HFCS has a similar composition to sucrose, which is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. > The body absorbs free fructose and glucose, or the same sugars derived from sucrose and HFCS, in exactly the same way. Therefore it appears unlikely that fructose, as consumed as a component of most HFCS or other glucose-fructose syrups, causes metabolic abnormalities or promotes weight gain more than other sugars consumed in an isocaloric diet (Klurfeld et al., 2013). Especially this: > A3.10 Therefore on balance, it is considered that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that fructose intake, at levels consumed in the normal UK diet, leads to adverse health outcomes independent of any effects related to its presence as a component of total and free sugars.
        overgard 10y ago
        Well look, with something as complicated as metabolism you're likely to find evidence that goes both ways, but I don't think any sane doctor would object to "eat less sugar", whether that be fructose or glucose or whatever. From what I've read, I think fructose is worse for you, but I'm not going to claim that with 100% certainly. I will claim you'll be better off not eating sugar regardless.
        PepeGomez 10y ago
- hash-set 10y ago
  I'm also simply tired of the excuses fat people make "Muh HFCS did this." Yeah, that and drinking 4 2 liters a day.
sametmax 10y ago
I don't think it's the distilled part that is important. I doubt the quantity is as important as the other nutriments you get that makes your body functions well enough so that you can benefit from all the sugar.

JamesBarney 10y ago

I don't think there exists any evidence that high fructose corn syrup is much worse than sucrose. They are pretty close to the same thing. HFCS is 45-58% glucose, and 42-55% fructose, and sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. There is one more bond in sugar, but enzymes in your gut break that bond apart very quickly.

overgard 10y ago
Well, I'm not exactly saying your should eat a bunch of sucrose either, so I might have overstepped by saying it's MUCH worse. But I do think the evidence points to fructose not being good for you, and it's certainly not better than other sugars.
- PepeGomez 10y ago
  Why are you lying like that? Are you trying to hurt people?
  - overgard 10y ago
    Huh? I'm a liar for saying "sugar is bad and certain sugars are worse"?
    - PepeGomez 10y ago
      So what is the evidence for fructose being bad for us?
      - overgard 10y ago
        Fructose can only be metabolized by the liver (whereas glucose is useful in the rest of the body) so in terms of generating energy it's not particularly useful, but your liver has to deal with it. If your liver gets more fructose than it can use, it turns it into fat which is stored on the liver, leading to fatty liver disease and insulin resistance (same thing with alcohol).
        DanBC 10y ago
        You've stated all of that as fact, when there's some debate about some of it. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445503/SACN_Carbohydrates_and_Health.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... Page 209 onwards. It's worth reading those few pages, but here are some snippets. > Products sweetened with HFCS are not necessarily significantly higher in fructose than foods sweetened with sucrose as HFCS has a similar composition to sucrose, which is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. > The body absorbs free fructose and glucose, or the same sugars derived from sucrose and HFCS, in exactly the same way. Therefore it appears unlikely that fructose, as consumed as a component of most HFCS or other glucose-fructose syrups, causes metabolic abnormalities or promotes weight gain more than other sugars consumed in an isocaloric diet (Klurfeld et al., 2013). Especially this: > A3.10 Therefore on balance, it is considered that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that fructose intake, at levels consumed in the normal UK diet, leads to adverse health outcomes independent of any effects related to its presence as a component of total and free sugars.
        overgard 10y ago
        Well look, with something as complicated as metabolism you're likely to find evidence that goes both ways, but I don't think any sane doctor would object to "eat less sugar", whether that be fructose or glucose or whatever. From what I've read, I think fructose is worse for you, but I'm not going to claim that with 100% certainly. I will claim you'll be better off not eating sugar regardless.
        PepeGomez 10y ago
hash-set 10y ago
I'm also simply tired of the excuses fat people make "Muh HFCS did this." Yeah, that and drinking 4 2 liters a day.

sametmax 10y ago

I don't think it's the distilled part that is important. I doubt the quantity is as important as the other nutriments you get that makes your body functions well enough so that you can benefit from all the sugar.