> Fructose is usually considered healthier than sucrose or glucose - the whole "natural fruit sugars are OK" premise - though that seems likely to be nonsense g

> Fructose is usually considered healthier than sucrose or glucose - the whole "natural fruit sugars are OK" premise - though that seems likely to be nonsense given it's immediately and easily converted to glucose after you eat it. I don't know of any argument that says it's poisonous, or in any sense worse than glucose. That also seems unlikely to be true for the same reason - it's immediately converted to glucose. Fructose is metabolized by the liver[0] ~identically to ethanol. This is why Robert Lustig (the Sugar: The Bitter Truth[1] dude) argues fructose is a poison, and taxing it like alcohol. AIUI it's arguably the cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-alcoholic_fatty_liver_disease#Fructose_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-alcoholic_fatty_liver_dise... Your comment strikes me as confusing several factors... fructose does not turn into glucose upon eating it. But something like that is applicable to Sucrose vs. HFCS, rendering them ~identical in consumption (a split of glucose and fructose). That's orthogonal to what the body does with the fructose though. Furthermore it's intact fruit that is seen as healthier because of the dietary fiber, not because of the fructose. The fructose is always a problem for the liver to deal with when absorbed. Fiber helps by slowing/preventing its absorption, in the best case letting it reach the large intestine to turn into flatulence via guttural flora before the body can absorb it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Fructose_metabolism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Fructose_metabolism [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM