3 ms·
It seems to me that "sugar" is a very vague term. Fructose and glucose are very different. For example their glycemic indices are 19 and 100 respectively, yet t
by abainbridge 9y ago
It seems to me that "sugar" is a very vague term. Fructose and glucose are very different. For example their glycemic indices are 19 and 100 respectively, yet they are both sugars.
Is it reasonable to talk about the health impact of sugar at all? For example, the article says:
> This link between sugar and cancer has sweeping consequences.
Does that refer to sugar I eat? Or sugar my body makes from carbohydrates I eat? And are glucose and fructose equally linked to cancer? What about all the other sugars?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tertius 9y agoRelated to the title of this article, cancer metabolizes the main sugar in the bloodstream, glucose, that all cells metabolize.
- DiThi 9y agoGI measures glucose, so it makes sense that a substance that is not glucose has less GI than glucose itself. However that doesn't mean fructose alone is better than glucose. In fact it's much, much worse.