3 ms·
Fructose is much more damaging than glucose. So HFCS is much more damaging than regular sugar (glucose-fructose). And more importantly, the widespread use of
by grannyg00se 15y ago
Fructose is much more damaging than glucose. So HFCS is much more damaging than regular sugar (glucose-fructose).
And more importantly, the widespread use of HFCS is a major concern. It's too cheap, it's too legal, and it's a toxin. There's absolutely no use for it in our bodies.
Yes, obesity is the problem. HFCS can be blamed as a significant contributor to the obesity issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
- losvedir 15y agoAgreed on fructose being the more damaging component. However, sucrose (regular table sugar) is one glucose and one fructose, so 50% fructose. HFCS, however, is typically 55% fructose, and I believe used in about the same quantity. So not that different. The real issue is simply amount consumed, and not what form it was in.
- wycats 15y agoHFCS and regular sugar have a very similar proportion of glucose:fructose. The kind of HFCS used in soft drinks is 55% fructose and 42% glucose, while sucrose (sugar) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. The kind of HFCS used in baked products is 42% fructose and 53% glucose.