2 ms·
It matters how quickly it is absorbed and the actual -amount- as usual. Apple has far less "energy" per volume than a potato. You can't just look at ratios obvi
by stjohnswarts 4y ago
It matters how quickly it is absorbed and the actual -amount- as usual. Apple has far less "energy" per volume than a potato. You can't just look at ratios obviously. all that glucose gets broken down into sucrose and fructose and that's the point. Being toxic is a function of both "chemical" and amount. a potato will have a much higher amount of fructose per unit that an apple after it all gets broken down, an apple also has fiber that will slow down the absorption of the glucose/fructose.The ratio of fructose/sucrose in standard issue is such that it should be slightly worse than cane sugar, but not that much worse.
- oifjsidjf 4y agoWhat are you even talking about? You mixed many words + potato has practicaly 0 fructose compared to an apple.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- diroussel 4y agoWhen a potato is eaten, the amylase in the saliva mixes with the potato starch and starts breaking it down into sugars, some wil be glucose acording to [1]. You can test this yourself by eating a plain cracker. A plain cracker doesn't contain any sugar, but if you keep chewing it you will notice a sweet taste in the mouth. This is from the sugars released by amylase. There is no mention of fructose on the amylase wikipedia page. So maybe you are right. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylase