4 ms·
"Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical."
by teach 16y ago
"Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical."
I find this statement, as written, to be almost willfully misleading. In sucrose, the glucose and fructose molecules are bound by an acetal bond, which must first be broken. The bond is broken with water, which donates a hydroxide to the fructose molecule (and a hydrogen to the glucose, of course).
With HFCS 55, the fructose and glucose are unbound, so the fructose molecule can be absorbed without first being "broken off" and slightly changed via hydrolysis.
This almost certainly affects the metabolization of the fructose.
Source: my wife, who has a PhD in nutrition.
- teyc 16y agoThe assertion was about the chemical pathways. i.e. same enzymes, same intermediate products, same end products. But you are right. The physiological effects are generally identical, not exactly identical.
- hcurtiss 16y agoI suspect Lustig knows that (notwithstanding the fact he says something similar in his lecture, and Taubes repeats it), but decided it's not important for his thesis. Or, at the very least, he doesn't want to wade into the sucrose/HFCS debate. Evidently, he thinks the fructose is sufficiently available in both to be problematic. I'd be super interested in your wife thought something different. I suspect Lustig would too.
- hcurtiss 16y ago. . . IF your wife . . . !!
- rsheridan6 16y agoDoes this really matter? It's going to end up being essentially totally absorbed either way, I would think. Otherwise you'd be passing sweet candy poops every time you ate sucrose.