4 ms·

Fructose has proven to be particularly harmful - your liver shuts down while it's being processed, leading to all sorts of fun side effects. http://en.wikipedi

by nimai 16y ago

Fructose has proven to be particularly harmful - your liver shuts down while it's being processed, leading to all sorts of fun side effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Liver_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Liver_disease

tptacek 16y ago
And, like I just said, table sugar breaks down into fructose during digestion, and "HFCS" isn't "HF" compared to "all other sweeteners"; it's "HF" compared to plain corn syrup, which is unpalatable. HFCS alarmism is knee-jerk wishful thinking from people who want to blame some boogeyman industrial process for all the nation's health problems. The problem is our addiction to sweetness. HFCS obviously abets this by making it cheaper to sweeten things, but get rid of HFCS and it'll just get replaced with some other sugar. Sugar is bad for you. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/443/csaph3a08-summary.pdf http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/443/csaph3a08-sum... - The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  As I understand it, the complaint isn't over the "H" part, but the 'F'. Obviously nothing is going to be "higher" sugar than a spoonful of, um, sugar (setting aside issues of density). But I'd point out that you've taken a page from the corn industry and edited your previous words. You had said earlier "table sugar breaks down into glucose and fructose during digestion", but revised that to "table sugar breaks down into fructose during digestion". The controversy here is that (AFAIK) HFCS is all, or much more, fructose than glucuse, relative to table sugar; how does the body react to the difference between fructose and glucose?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    That last sentence is false. HFCS is not "much more" fructose than glucose relative to table sugar. It's "much more" fructose than other sugars relative to unpalatable plain corn syrup. Table sugar is metabolized very similarly to HFCS, with very similar (some sources would say nearly identical) fructose loads. The difference is that HFCS contains free-floating fructose, and sucrose is a disaccharide (of glucose and fructose) that is very quickly broken into plain 'ol glucose and fructose as soon as it hits your digestive system. 'carbocation may jump in here to set me straight (I'd be surprised but happy to have learned something), but my understanding here is that there is nothing more healthful about plain table sugar than HFCS. They are both very bad for you in the same way.
- Xurinos 16y ago
  The way I learned it from the nice professor in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM) was simply: fructose = bad, poison glucose = good sucrose = fructose + glucose, unsafe because the composition preserves the fructose portion HFCS = 25% fructose, not as bad as sucrose (IIRC) Mitigate fructose intake with fiber. apple juice = bad, but apple = good because of the fiber countering the effect of the poison at a higher point in our internal food processing chain. I noticed you were getting downvotes, and I suspect it is because of the general "Sugar is bad for you" statement, which is -- as far as the studies go -- half correct. The rest of your text makes the distinction, so I hope it is not wholly ignored. HFCS is a scapegoat, as you point out, and it would help if we focused on the one part that is important: fructose is poison. And it can be mitigated with fiber. But that's just what I learned from some video. One thing that always bugged me: glucose is known commonly as "grape sugar". Do grapes have fructose? Without any fructose added, is grape juice a healthy fruit juice?
  - gte910h 16y ago
    HFCS comes in varying F/G ratios. HFCS-55 is the most common, which is 55% fructose. The other two common varieties are HFCS-90 and HFCS-42. All HFCS starts at 90 then pure glucose corn syrup is added to dilute it down. HFCS-55 is about as sweet as sugar (unless heated, in which case it it significantly less so).
  - Xurinos 16y ago
    For my learning, aside from my 25% figure being misleading, can anyone explain their disagreement with my comment? Is the video a bad source?
    - gte910h 16y ago
      Sucrose in generally shown to be less harmful than HFCS in many tests, which in the alternative show at best it's only as harmful. Here is one study: We're talking pre-bloodstream, and the mechanism is understood science (everything does this process, it's a widely taught part of biology) It's how everything (bacteria to humans) digests all non single molecule sugars and starch (i.e. sucrose on up). Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase It is a non-instantaneous process which is limited by the reaction catalyzed by the enzyme. Some diabetic drugs work off this enzyme by inhibiting it's function (as do some antimicrobial drugs/substances). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose So I'm going to point at the existence of drugs working off this mechanism instead of finding the research that established them. As GH works off complex carbohydrates and HFCS is a mixtures of simple carbohydrates, it is not slowed by any inhibition of the GH reaction in the stomach. As my comment said: While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove significant. It appears to effect rats differently at least for instance: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0P-4XCYJF8-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12/07/2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=be4bafa9e6e6ee627dd7b21ec81f0d43&searchtype=a http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...
- gruseom 16y ago
  Don't disagree overall, but I have three reasons for thinking you might be oversimplifying a bit. Given how much sweeter HFCS is than sucrose, there's reason to believe that our addiction to sweetness is partly the work of that industrial process; there's a pretty big difference between HFCS and sucrose (the latter of course being "only" 50% fructose); and the correlation between the HFCS growth curve and the obesity growth curve is remarkable.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    The HFCS in processed food is also "only" 50% (45-55% depending) fructose. I've managed to position myself as the HFCS defender in this thread, and I'm anything but. HFCS is evil. But it's misleading to blame the "High Fructose" part of the acronym for the evil. Demonizing HFCS gives cover to every other food processor that adds sugars to increase palatability to earn extra sales at the expense of our health.
- gte910h 16y ago
  HFCS also hits you much faster than normal sugar. All the HFCS hits you at once, the sucrose does actually take a small amount of time. While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove signifigant. To me, people should have the labeling required to tell if this substance is in their food. I personally don't totally avoid it, nor do I look for it, but I feel people should have that ability.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Can you cite a peer-reviewed source that says that HFCS "hits you much faster" than sucrose? The sources I found suggest that the two are handled almost identically once in the bloodstream.
    - gte910h 16y ago
      We're talking pre-bloodstream, and the mechanism is understood science (everything does this process, it's a widely taught part of biology) It's how everything (bacteria to humans) digests all non single molecule sugars and starch (i.e. sucrose on up). Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase It is a non-instantaneous process which is limited by the reaction catalyzed by the enzyme. Some diabetic drugs work off this enzyme by inhibiting it's function (as do some antimicrobial drugs/substances). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose So I'm going to point at the existence of drugs working off this mechanism instead of finding the research that established them. As GH works off complex carbohydrates and HFCS is a mixtures of simple carbohydrates, it is not slowed by any inhibition of the GH reaction in the stomach. As my comment said: While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove significant. It appears to effect rats differently at least for instance: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0P-4XCYJF8-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12/07/2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=be4bafa9e6e6ee627dd7b21ec81f0d43&searchtype=a http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...
mambodog 16y ago
A study by UC Davis also found that fructose causes more intra-abdominal fat buildup (around the organs) relative to glucose. Apparently also causes man-boobs. The paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/?tool=pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/?tool=pu... highlights: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/goodbye-fructose.html http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/goodbye-fructose.h...

by nimai 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

And, like I just said, table sugar breaks down into fructose during digestion, and "HFCS" isn't "HF" compared to "all other sweeteners"; it's "HF" compared to plain corn syrup, which is unpalatable. HFCS alarmism is knee-jerk wishful thinking from people who want to blame some boogeyman industrial process for all the nation's health problems. The problem is our addiction to sweetness. HFCS obviously abets this by making it cheaper to sweeten things, but get rid of HFCS and it'll just get replaced with some other sugar. Sugar is bad for you. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/443/csaph3a08-summary.pdf http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/443/csaph3a08-sum... - The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
As I understand it, the complaint isn't over the "H" part, but the 'F'. Obviously nothing is going to be "higher" sugar than a spoonful of, um, sugar (setting aside issues of density). But I'd point out that you've taken a page from the corn industry and edited your previous words. You had said earlier "table sugar breaks down into glucose and fructose during digestion", but revised that to "table sugar breaks down into fructose during digestion". The controversy here is that (AFAIK) HFCS is all, or much more, fructose than glucuse, relative to table sugar; how does the body react to the difference between fructose and glucose?
- tptacek 16y ago
  That last sentence is false. HFCS is not "much more" fructose than glucose relative to table sugar. It's "much more" fructose than other sugars relative to unpalatable plain corn syrup. Table sugar is metabolized very similarly to HFCS, with very similar (some sources would say nearly identical) fructose loads. The difference is that HFCS contains free-floating fructose, and sucrose is a disaccharide (of glucose and fructose) that is very quickly broken into plain 'ol glucose and fructose as soon as it hits your digestive system. 'carbocation may jump in here to set me straight (I'd be surprised but happy to have learned something), but my understanding here is that there is nothing more healthful about plain table sugar than HFCS. They are both very bad for you in the same way.
Xurinos 16y ago
The way I learned it from the nice professor in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM) was simply: fructose = bad, poison glucose = good sucrose = fructose + glucose, unsafe because the composition preserves the fructose portion HFCS = 25% fructose, not as bad as sucrose (IIRC) Mitigate fructose intake with fiber. apple juice = bad, but apple = good because of the fiber countering the effect of the poison at a higher point in our internal food processing chain. I noticed you were getting downvotes, and I suspect it is because of the general "Sugar is bad for you" statement, which is -- as far as the studies go -- half correct. The rest of your text makes the distinction, so I hope it is not wholly ignored. HFCS is a scapegoat, as you point out, and it would help if we focused on the one part that is important: fructose is poison. And it can be mitigated with fiber. But that's just what I learned from some video. One thing that always bugged me: glucose is known commonly as "grape sugar". Do grapes have fructose? Without any fructose added, is grape juice a healthy fruit juice?
- gte910h 16y ago
  HFCS comes in varying F/G ratios. HFCS-55 is the most common, which is 55% fructose. The other two common varieties are HFCS-90 and HFCS-42. All HFCS starts at 90 then pure glucose corn syrup is added to dilute it down. HFCS-55 is about as sweet as sugar (unless heated, in which case it it significantly less so).
- Xurinos 16y ago
  For my learning, aside from my 25% figure being misleading, can anyone explain their disagreement with my comment? Is the video a bad source?
  - gte910h 16y ago
    Sucrose in generally shown to be less harmful than HFCS in many tests, which in the alternative show at best it's only as harmful. Here is one study: We're talking pre-bloodstream, and the mechanism is understood science (everything does this process, it's a widely taught part of biology) It's how everything (bacteria to humans) digests all non single molecule sugars and starch (i.e. sucrose on up). Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase It is a non-instantaneous process which is limited by the reaction catalyzed by the enzyme. Some diabetic drugs work off this enzyme by inhibiting it's function (as do some antimicrobial drugs/substances). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose So I'm going to point at the existence of drugs working off this mechanism instead of finding the research that established them. As GH works off complex carbohydrates and HFCS is a mixtures of simple carbohydrates, it is not slowed by any inhibition of the GH reaction in the stomach. As my comment said: While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove significant. It appears to effect rats differently at least for instance: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0P-4XCYJF8-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12/07/2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=be4bafa9e6e6ee627dd7b21ec81f0d43&searchtype=a http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...
gruseom 16y ago
Don't disagree overall, but I have three reasons for thinking you might be oversimplifying a bit. Given how much sweeter HFCS is than sucrose, there's reason to believe that our addiction to sweetness is partly the work of that industrial process; there's a pretty big difference between HFCS and sucrose (the latter of course being "only" 50% fructose); and the correlation between the HFCS growth curve and the obesity growth curve is remarkable.
- tptacek 16y ago
  The HFCS in processed food is also "only" 50% (45-55% depending) fructose. I've managed to position myself as the HFCS defender in this thread, and I'm anything but. HFCS is evil. But it's misleading to blame the "High Fructose" part of the acronym for the evil. Demonizing HFCS gives cover to every other food processor that adds sugars to increase palatability to earn extra sales at the expense of our health.
gte910h 16y ago
HFCS also hits you much faster than normal sugar. All the HFCS hits you at once, the sucrose does actually take a small amount of time. While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove signifigant. To me, people should have the labeling required to tell if this substance is in their food. I personally don't totally avoid it, nor do I look for it, but I feel people should have that ability.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Can you cite a peer-reviewed source that says that HFCS "hits you much faster" than sucrose? The sources I found suggest that the two are handled almost identically once in the bloodstream.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    We're talking pre-bloodstream, and the mechanism is understood science (everything does this process, it's a widely taught part of biology) It's how everything (bacteria to humans) digests all non single molecule sugars and starch (i.e. sucrose on up). Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase It is a non-instantaneous process which is limited by the reaction catalyzed by the enzyme. Some diabetic drugs work off this enzyme by inhibiting it's function (as do some antimicrobial drugs/substances). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose So I'm going to point at the existence of drugs working off this mechanism instead of finding the research that established them. As GH works off complex carbohydrates and HFCS is a mixtures of simple carbohydrates, it is not slowed by any inhibition of the GH reaction in the stomach. As my comment said: While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove significant. It appears to effect rats differently at least for instance: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0P-4XCYJF8-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12/07/2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=be4bafa9e6e6ee627dd7b21ec81f0d43&searchtype=a http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...

mambodog 16y ago

A study by UC Davis also found that fructose causes more intra-abdominal fat buildup (around the organs) relative to glucose. Apparently also causes man-boobs. The paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/?tool=pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/?tool=pu... highlights: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/goodbye-fructose.html http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/goodbye-fructose.h...