3 ms·

300 calories of glucose is going to be far healthier than 300 calories of fructose, because of how they are metabolized by the body.

by Valmar 9y ago

rurban 9y ago
You mean obviously the other way round. It's the typical US/UK propaganda. Frucose doesn't go directly into blood as glucose (the basic energy form) and galactose (-> milk). Wikipedia: "The European Food Safety Authority stated that fructose is preferable over sucrose and glucose in sugar-sweetened foods and beverages because of its lower effect on postprandial blood sugar levels". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose "Fructose is often recommended for diabetics because it does not trigger the production of insulin by pancreatic β cells, probably because β cells have low levels of GLUT5, although the net effect for both diabetics and non-diabetics is debated. Fructose has a low glycemic index of 19 ± 2, compared with 100 for glucose and 68 ± 5 for sucrose. Fructose is also 73% sweeter than sucrose at room temperature, so diabetics can use less of it. Studies show that fructose consumed before a meal may even lessen the glycemic response of the meal. Fructose-sweetened food and beverage products cause less of a rise in blood glucose levels than do those manufactured with sucrose or glucose."
- orbifold 9y ago
  Glucose is harmless and can be metabolised by any cell in your body, while Fructose can only be metabolised by your liver and produced a bunch of undesirable metabolic end products in the process. It also blocks leptin, the antagonist of insulin and therefore messes with your metabolic regulation, while glucose does none of that. If you feed rats large amounts of glucose they will get a very big liver but stay otherwise healthy, if you feed them fructose they will develop diabetes... This is all very well known.
  - rurban 9y ago
    Glucose being harmless is the understatement of the year. In the end fructose and every other carb is split up to glucose. And glucose (the simple monosaccharide sugar) is one of the most powerful medicines and drugs, stronger, cheaper and better than cocaine, and responsible for many severe illnesses: * Retinal damage to the eye * Arterial blockage * Oxidative stress * Increased inflammation * Endothelial dysfunction * Reduced coronary blood flow * Increased cancer risk Let me just point to http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2011/1/glucose-the-silent-killer/page-01 http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2011/1/glucose-the-sil... or https://www.atkins.com/how-it-works/library/articles/10-ways-sugar-harms-your-health https://www.atkins.com/how-it-works/library/articles/10-ways... This is all very well known and ignored by the US sugar industry which rather blames other factors. If you feed americans large amounts of glucose (they do), they will get obese and die early. You cannot argue with the numbers, because it's mostly only affecting americans who do consume sugar levels above the health risk. Blaming fructose and the liver alone is dangerous. It's the end product, glucose, and the fat reserves, not the carb. metabolism.
- maloney 9y ago
  Fructose is metabolized almost entirly by the liver which might make it better for blood sugar levels but it’s signifacantly worse on the liver.
  - contravariant 9y ago
    Sure, but it's not like you have to choose one or the other. You can have the beneficial short term effects while avoiding the long term effects by using moderation (which is key in any diet).

300 calories of glucose is going to be far healthier than 300 calories of fructose, because of how they are metabolized by the body.

by Valmar 9y ago

300 calories of glucose is going to be far healthier than 300 calories of fructose, because of how they are metabolized by the body.

rurban 9y ago

You mean obviously the other way round. It's the typical US/UK propaganda. Frucose doesn't go directly into blood as glucose (the basic energy form) and galactose (-> milk). Wikipedia: "The European Food Safety Authority stated that fructose is preferable over sucrose and glucose in sugar-sweetened foods and beverages because of its lower effect on postprandial blood sugar levels". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose "Fructose is often recommended for diabetics because it does not trigger the production of insulin by pancreatic β cells, probably because β cells have low levels of GLUT5, although the net effect for both diabetics and non-diabetics is debated. Fructose has a low glycemic index of 19 ± 2, compared with 100 for glucose and 68 ± 5 for sucrose. Fructose is also 73% sweeter than sucrose at room temperature, so diabetics can use less of it. Studies show that fructose consumed before a meal may even lessen the glycemic response of the meal. Fructose-sweetened food and beverage products cause less of a rise in blood glucose levels than do those manufactured with sucrose or glucose."

orbifold 9y ago
Glucose is harmless and can be metabolised by any cell in your body, while Fructose can only be metabolised by your liver and produced a bunch of undesirable metabolic end products in the process. It also blocks leptin, the antagonist of insulin and therefore messes with your metabolic regulation, while glucose does none of that. If you feed rats large amounts of glucose they will get a very big liver but stay otherwise healthy, if you feed them fructose they will develop diabetes... This is all very well known.
- rurban 9y ago
  Glucose being harmless is the understatement of the year. In the end fructose and every other carb is split up to glucose. And glucose (the simple monosaccharide sugar) is one of the most powerful medicines and drugs, stronger, cheaper and better than cocaine, and responsible for many severe illnesses: * Retinal damage to the eye * Arterial blockage * Oxidative stress * Increased inflammation * Endothelial dysfunction * Reduced coronary blood flow * Increased cancer risk Let me just point to http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2011/1/glucose-the-silent-killer/page-01 http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2011/1/glucose-the-sil... or https://www.atkins.com/how-it-works/library/articles/10-ways-sugar-harms-your-health https://www.atkins.com/how-it-works/library/articles/10-ways... This is all very well known and ignored by the US sugar industry which rather blames other factors. If you feed americans large amounts of glucose (they do), they will get obese and die early. You cannot argue with the numbers, because it's mostly only affecting americans who do consume sugar levels above the health risk. Blaming fructose and the liver alone is dangerous. It's the end product, glucose, and the fat reserves, not the carb. metabolism.
maloney 9y ago
Fructose is metabolized almost entirly by the liver which might make it better for blood sugar levels but it’s signifacantly worse on the liver.
- contravariant 9y ago
  Sure, but it's not like you have to choose one or the other. You can have the beneficial short term effects while avoiding the long term effects by using moderation (which is key in any diet).