5 ms·

> from the standpoint of human metabolism I mean ... is this serious? "Chemically identical" means something meaningful, but "from the standpoint of human meta

> from the standpoint of human metabolism I mean ... is this serious? "Chemically identical" means something meaningful, but "from the standpoint of human metabolism" does some heavy lifting. If you had said "from the standpoint of our current incomplete understanding of human metabolism" then fine. When you say "the only difference" do you mean "the only different in the way they are metabolized" or do you mean "the only chemical difference"? In short I think our understanding of human metabolism and especially long-term adaptation of metabolic pathways to diet is extremely poorly understood and I would be wary before accepting any blanket statements about where the truth lies. There are certainly papers in animals about preferences between sucrose and HFCS, for example [1], and just looking at the references indicate a number of human tests of a similar nature. I don't think the question is whether we can taste the difference or which one we prefer when blinded, or whether the difference in taste is consistent between people or stable for an individual. The question is if there are latent health issues associated with them, and I think the jury is still out; it's very hard to do large scale studies on long-term effects of these things because they can't be done in a controlled way. Many would argue that writ large we have undergone a significant study across the population of the United States and the results don't look great, although there are a ton of confounding variables. EDIT: Note that I am not claiming that HFCS is definitively bad, I do feel that confidently stating the opposite is also epistemically poor hygiene. If I had to weigh the evidence of "appears to trigger identical metabolic pathways" with the evidence of "societies with HFCS adoption have an obesity problem" I would tend to err on the side of "HFCS bad". [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938411000096 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00319...

ggm 2y ago
I was trying to find words to say much the same. 5% variance could in principle be enough to alter homeostasis reactions in the hormone system. Maybe I misunderstand but the self-regulation mechanisms inside the body can titrate inside this level can't they? So the question would be if 5% variance in some things could alter blood levels over time, or how the liver reacts. I don't live in a high corn syrup economy. I'm not exposed to the risk as much, I'd be blovating to say much here. I also wonder if the artificial sweeteners are bad, precisely because of biomimcry: Fooling the body into thinking it's ingested sugar could have perverse outcomes.
- nayuki 2y ago
  But don't forget that glucose is in everything else you eat. Did you have potato French fries with Coke? Boom, you've just changed the glucose-to-fructose ratio by a lot.
  - ggm 2y ago
    Yes. There's a lot in this. And I would think this predominates. Great counter-example.
tptacek 2y ago
Well, you're in trouble to begin with if you're making a case about "high fructose" corn syrup compared to sucrose, because they have essentially the same fructose content; it's "high fructose" compared to normal corn syrup, not to table sugar. If you're going to be making comparisons like this, you should be clear about which HFCS you're referring to. Is it HFCS 55, which is 5% higher in fructose than sucrose is? Or is it HFCS 42, which is 8% lower? If you look this up online, you'll see it summarized roughly as "food: HFCS 42, soda: HFCS 55". If that's the case: none of this matters; caloric soft drinks are poison regardless of how you sweeten them.
- andrewla 2y ago
  I’m going to confess to some aggressive ignorance here because I haven’t gotten a clear answer. Are HFCS (any variant!) chemically identical to sucrose or only “metabolically” identical. I don’t think they are chemically identical because at a minimum I’ve seen the result of freeze drying solutions of both and HFCS is liquid at STP while sucrose is solid. So if you’re going to make the argument that they are metabolically identical then go for it but be honest about what you are saying. They may be chemically similar, but so is cellulose.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Obviously they are different chemicals.
    - adrr 2y ago
      In soda because its acidic, sucrose breaks apart to fructose and glucose.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        Yes: the two sweeteners have exactly the same metabolic impact. There is no health advantage to sucrose over high-fructose corn syrup. Even outside of soda, your body is extremely efficient at breaking up sucrose; it happens within some number of seconds when your small intestine enzymes hit it. There's a folkloric belief that the sucrose bond gives your body meaningful time to more slowly metabolize the fructose; it does not.

ggm 2y ago

I was trying to find words to say much the same. 5% variance could in principle be enough to alter homeostasis reactions in the hormone system. Maybe I misunderstand but the self-regulation mechanisms inside the body can titrate inside this level can't they? So the question would be if 5% variance in some things could alter blood levels over time, or how the liver reacts. I don't live in a high corn syrup economy. I'm not exposed to the risk as much, I'd be blovating to say much here. I also wonder if the artificial sweeteners are bad, precisely because of biomimcry: Fooling the body into thinking it's ingested sugar could have perverse outcomes.

nayuki 2y ago
But don't forget that glucose is in everything else you eat. Did you have potato French fries with Coke? Boom, you've just changed the glucose-to-fructose ratio by a lot.
- ggm 2y ago
  Yes. There's a lot in this. And I would think this predominates. Great counter-example.

tptacek 2y ago

Well, you're in trouble to begin with if you're making a case about "high fructose" corn syrup compared to sucrose, because they have essentially the same fructose content; it's "high fructose" compared to normal corn syrup, not to table sugar. If you're going to be making comparisons like this, you should be clear about which HFCS you're referring to. Is it HFCS 55, which is 5% higher in fructose than sucrose is? Or is it HFCS 42, which is 8% lower? If you look this up online, you'll see it summarized roughly as "food: HFCS 42, soda: HFCS 55". If that's the case: none of this matters; caloric soft drinks are poison regardless of how you sweeten them.

andrewla 2y ago
I’m going to confess to some aggressive ignorance here because I haven’t gotten a clear answer. Are HFCS (any variant!) chemically identical to sucrose or only “metabolically” identical. I don’t think they are chemically identical because at a minimum I’ve seen the result of freeze drying solutions of both and HFCS is liquid at STP while sucrose is solid. So if you’re going to make the argument that they are metabolically identical then go for it but be honest about what you are saying. They may be chemically similar, but so is cellulose.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Obviously they are different chemicals.
  - adrr 2y ago
    In soda because its acidic, sucrose breaks apart to fructose and glucose.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Yes: the two sweeteners have exactly the same metabolic impact. There is no health advantage to sucrose over high-fructose corn syrup. Even outside of soda, your body is extremely efficient at breaking up sucrose; it happens within some number of seconds when your small intestine enzymes hit it. There's a folkloric belief that the sucrose bond gives your body meaningful time to more slowly metabolize the fructose; it does not.