7 ms·

Sucrose is exactly half-and-half fructose and glucose; it is composed of one of each, bound together. This is important because it means that it can't be immedi

Sucrose is exactly half-and-half fructose and glucose; it is composed of one of each, bound together. This is important because it means that it can't be immediately absorbed into the bloodstream. It has to be broken apart first, and the enzyme that does so is in the intestine. This means that its absorption rates and effect on the glycemic index are different from HFCS. Diabetics care about this. While I can't really argue against you, partially because you're tptacek and partially because you're not wrong here, it's quite irritating to see somebody have a good conclusion and faulty premises. Also, stop with the scare quotes.

tptacek 13y ago
Do you have a human study you can cite regarding the glycemic impact of HFCS vs. table sugar? My understanding is that the body is very adept at breaking that sucrose bond. Also: what scare quotes?
- khuey 13y ago
  The quotes around 'natural' presumably.
- triplesec 13y ago
  I think s/he means "HF", "CS" and "natural" since you're not actually quoting anyone
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I guess "natural", although it wasn't my intention to suggest that table sugar is unnatural. "HF" and "CS" were for clarity, not subtext.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Udo 13y ago
While sucrose absorption is certainly slower than pure glucose absorption, the amount of sugar that eventually goes into your bloodstream is equivalent, and the energy yield is also roughly the same (splitting that one glycosidic link isn't really that energy-intensive). I guess an argument could be made that fast-acting monosaccharides are more problematic for diabetics since their bodies can't deal with spikes easily, but for the rest of us there is really no (scientifically accessible) difference at all. Our food just contains too much readily accessible energy.
- rjzzleep 13y ago
  wasn't there a yale study that tied fructose to appetite regulation recently? I never actually found and read the main study, but i think there have been prior studies suggesting similar things http://news.yale.edu/2013/01/04/study-suggests-effect-fructose-brain-may-promote-overeating http://news.yale.edu/2013/01/04/study-suggests-effect-fructo... http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1738S.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1738S.full
  - tptacek 13y ago
    The first article concerns fructose in general, not HFCS in particular. Cane sugar contains comparable amounts of fructose. The second article says, in its abstract, "However, when HFCS is compared with sucrose, the more commonly consumed sweetener, such differences are not apparent, and appetite and energy intake do not differ in the short-term. Longer-term studies on connections between HFCS, potential mechanisms, and body weight have not been conducted".
    - rjzzleep 13y ago
      yup, i read that. that older study doesn't really argue for or against, though. one thing that really bothers me though is that having grown up in germany i have big problems swallowing hfcs. mostly because it tastes dull, and feels very acidic in my throat. i've asked other people from overseas and they reported similar things. the only thing I could find though is the addition of sulfuric acid. if you have some information on that, i'd be grateful.
eco 13y ago
> This means that its absorption rates and effect on the glycemic index are different from HFCS. They aren't. The enzyme sucrase is needed to break it down but it cuts through sucrose like a hot knife through butter. Scientists have already studied this and found sucrose and HFCS have basically equivalent responses in "blood glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and appetite." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17234503 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17234503
ryeguy 13y ago
There currently is no good evidence to suggest that one is worse than the other; either they are both inert or they are both evil. The difference between them is too small to matter in moderate consumption, and in excess both are harmful to health: http://examine.com/faq/is-hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syrup-worse-than-sugar.html http://examine.com/faq/is-hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syrup-wors...

tptacek 13y ago

Do you have a human study you can cite regarding the glycemic impact of HFCS vs. table sugar? My understanding is that the body is very adept at breaking that sucrose bond. Also: what scare quotes?

khuey 13y ago
The quotes around 'natural' presumably.
triplesec 13y ago
I think s/he means "HF", "CS" and "natural" since you're not actually quoting anyone
- tptacek 13y ago
  I guess "natural", although it wasn't my intention to suggest that table sugar is unnatural. "HF" and "CS" were for clarity, not subtext.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Udo 13y ago

While sucrose absorption is certainly slower than pure glucose absorption, the amount of sugar that eventually goes into your bloodstream is equivalent, and the energy yield is also roughly the same (splitting that one glycosidic link isn't really that energy-intensive). I guess an argument could be made that fast-acting monosaccharides are more problematic for diabetics since their bodies can't deal with spikes easily, but for the rest of us there is really no (scientifically accessible) difference at all. Our food just contains too much readily accessible energy.

rjzzleep 13y ago
wasn't there a yale study that tied fructose to appetite regulation recently? I never actually found and read the main study, but i think there have been prior studies suggesting similar things http://news.yale.edu/2013/01/04/study-suggests-effect-fructose-brain-may-promote-overeating http://news.yale.edu/2013/01/04/study-suggests-effect-fructo... http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1738S.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1738S.full
- tptacek 13y ago
  The first article concerns fructose in general, not HFCS in particular. Cane sugar contains comparable amounts of fructose. The second article says, in its abstract, "However, when HFCS is compared with sucrose, the more commonly consumed sweetener, such differences are not apparent, and appetite and energy intake do not differ in the short-term. Longer-term studies on connections between HFCS, potential mechanisms, and body weight have not been conducted".
  - rjzzleep 13y ago
    yup, i read that. that older study doesn't really argue for or against, though. one thing that really bothers me though is that having grown up in germany i have big problems swallowing hfcs. mostly because it tastes dull, and feels very acidic in my throat. i've asked other people from overseas and they reported similar things. the only thing I could find though is the addition of sulfuric acid. if you have some information on that, i'd be grateful.

eco 13y ago

> This means that its absorption rates and effect on the glycemic index are different from HFCS. They aren't. The enzyme sucrase is needed to break it down but it cuts through sucrose like a hot knife through butter. Scientists have already studied this and found sucrose and HFCS have basically equivalent responses in "blood glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and appetite." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17234503 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17234503

ryeguy 13y ago

There currently is no good evidence to suggest that one is worse than the other; either they are both inert or they are both evil. The difference between them is too small to matter in moderate consumption, and in excess both are harmful to health: http://examine.com/faq/is-hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syrup-worse-than-sugar.html http://examine.com/faq/is-hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syrup-wors...