4 ms·

I don't understand the mechanism here. I thought sucrase, the enzyme that breaks down sucrose (table sugar) into 1 fructose and 1 glucose (same as HFCS), acted

by buddylw 13y ago

I don't understand the mechanism here. I thought sucrase, the enzyme that breaks down sucrose (table sugar) into 1 fructose and 1 glucose (same as HFCS), acted almost immediately -- at least on the timescale of nutrient absorption. Is it just short circuiting our sense of satiety? Maybe the raw fructose makes things sweeter and stimulates reward centers better? I wonder where honey falls in all this since it has higher fructose than the most common 55% fructose HFCS blends. We seem to know so little about all of this, but I think it's safe to say that both sugar and HFCS are bad in quantities that the common american is accustomed. I find it's best to just avoid sweet foods all together, but if forced to choose I would take HFCS over artificial sweeteners any day of the week. Our bodies have been dealing with glucose and fructose for a very long time -- even on evolutionary time scales. The same can't be said for Sucralos, aspartame, or Acesulfame potassium. Everything in the world is either overtly or subtly poisonous; the only question is, at what dose?

MostAwesomeDude 13y ago
You sound like you are a paid shill. I know that you aren't, which disappoints me further, because I'd like to think that people are capable of educating themselves instead of spreading misinformation. On your first paragraph, pondering whether sucrose breaks down into fructose and glucose immediately: No, it doesn't. HFCS makes sugars available to the bloodstream sooner, causing larger swings in overall blood sugar levels. Additionally, this study covers rats which were given strict diets; the idea that HFCS made them fatter because they ate more food is not borne out based on the experiment's premises. Second paragraph: Irrelevant. Honey is not being discussed here. Additionally, you contradict yourself by noting (correctly) that HFCS is not half-and-half fructose and glucose, like sucrose. Third paragraph: Inverted appeal to authority. You dismiss the information that science makes available, and then put your own opinion up for offering as if it is informed and accurate. You further confuse the issue by putting a well-accepted opinion (the diets of the USA are overly rich in sugars) next to a dismissal of this study. Fourth paragraph: A delightful strawman, substituting artificial sweeteners for table sugar. Fifth: More ignorance of the general study of nutrition, with a sweeping statement that is obviously true and yet completely uninformative. Please go read the article before commenting further.
- sami36 13y ago
  Yours has to be the most dickish comment on a comment I've ever read on HN. Congratulations. What is it that you've added to the conversation again ? Nothing.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    As far as I can tell, everything he says is grounded in fact or is at least cogently supported. I intend to follow some of his pointers and read more. On the other hand, your comment is strangely and unintentionally self referential.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      The problem was that the comment starts out with that comment about being a paid shill, and then goes on to treat the comment it replies to as if it was a series of firm claims made to mislead, when it starts out with a bunch of questions, and draws some very limited conclusions on the belief that we know too little. MostAwesomeDude could have started out answering the questions on the assumption they are honestly meant, without the attitude, and it would have come across a lot better.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  My that was uncivil.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Why exactly do you believe it is warranted to reply in this tone? To me, regardless of the issue being discussed, this comment reflects extremely poorly on you.
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  First of all, I tend to agree with the sibling posts accusing you of failing to maintain scholarly decorum. The "paid shill" remark was uncalled for, even if I tend to agree with your criticisms (at least, all but the most crucial one). > pondering whether sucrose breaks down into fructose and glucose immediately: No, it doesn't. Can you substantiate this further (say, with an in-vivo sucrose half-life)? I don't have journal access at the moment, so the best I could find was this study: http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/content/59/1/413.extract http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/content/59/1/413.extract which seems to support what you claim (only 90% inversion after 6.5 hours in rabbits), but I'd still like to see something more modern and preferably in humans. > Additionally, this study covers rats which were given strict diets Strict diets? It seems to me like they had unmeasured and uncontrolled access to chow and sugar solution ("controlled" only on the basis of availability time)! I tend to agree with the grandparent post that the observed results could be caused by the relative sweetness of HFCS driving the rats to continue consuming HFCS past the point where they would have stopped consuming sucrose solution. Since humans tend to consume drinks in fixed quantities (8oz, 16oz) not entirely chosen on the bases of satiety, I question the relevance of this study to human health. > you contradict yourself by noting (correctly) that HFCS is not half-and-half fructose and glucose You quibble. I'll take it back iff you substantiate the implicit claim (which occurs under the assumption that you weren't quibbling) that the 5% or 7% difference in sugar concentrations creates a disproportionate effect on energy output or weight gain.
egypturnash 13y ago
When I want sweet foods I just seek out things made with sugar rather than HFCS. If all I can find is HFCS or artificial sweeteners, I have to wait. And have some water, most likely. I haven't done any experiments. I've just noted that (a) imported Mexican Coke really does taste like I remember Coke tasting in my 1970s childhood, and (b) I drink less when I have a soda made with sugar because it satisfies my sweet tooth instead of just tickling it and reminding me that sweet things taste good, maybe I'll go get another one of the HFCS sodas I just drank.

by buddylw 13y ago

MostAwesomeDude 13y ago

You sound like you are a paid shill. I know that you aren't, which disappoints me further, because I'd like to think that people are capable of educating themselves instead of spreading misinformation. On your first paragraph, pondering whether sucrose breaks down into fructose and glucose immediately: No, it doesn't. HFCS makes sugars available to the bloodstream sooner, causing larger swings in overall blood sugar levels. Additionally, this study covers rats which were given strict diets; the idea that HFCS made them fatter because they ate more food is not borne out based on the experiment's premises. Second paragraph: Irrelevant. Honey is not being discussed here. Additionally, you contradict yourself by noting (correctly) that HFCS is not half-and-half fructose and glucose, like sucrose. Third paragraph: Inverted appeal to authority. You dismiss the information that science makes available, and then put your own opinion up for offering as if it is informed and accurate. You further confuse the issue by putting a well-accepted opinion (the diets of the USA are overly rich in sugars) next to a dismissal of this study. Fourth paragraph: A delightful strawman, substituting artificial sweeteners for table sugar. Fifth: More ignorance of the general study of nutrition, with a sweeping statement that is obviously true and yet completely uninformative. Please go read the article before commenting further.

sami36 13y ago
Yours has to be the most dickish comment on a comment I've ever read on HN. Congratulations. What is it that you've added to the conversation again ? Nothing.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  As far as I can tell, everything he says is grounded in fact or is at least cogently supported. I intend to follow some of his pointers and read more. On the other hand, your comment is strangely and unintentionally self referential.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    The problem was that the comment starts out with that comment about being a paid shill, and then goes on to treat the comment it replies to as if it was a series of firm claims made to mislead, when it starts out with a bunch of questions, and draws some very limited conclusions on the belief that we know too little. MostAwesomeDude could have started out answering the questions on the assumption they are honestly meant, without the attitude, and it would have come across a lot better.
foobarbazqux 13y ago
My that was uncivil.
vidarh 13y ago
Why exactly do you believe it is warranted to reply in this tone? To me, regardless of the issue being discussed, this comment reflects extremely poorly on you.
jjoonathan 13y ago
First of all, I tend to agree with the sibling posts accusing you of failing to maintain scholarly decorum. The "paid shill" remark was uncalled for, even if I tend to agree with your criticisms (at least, all but the most crucial one). > pondering whether sucrose breaks down into fructose and glucose immediately: No, it doesn't. Can you substantiate this further (say, with an in-vivo sucrose half-life)? I don't have journal access at the moment, so the best I could find was this study: http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/content/59/1/413.extract http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/content/59/1/413.extract which seems to support what you claim (only 90% inversion after 6.5 hours in rabbits), but I'd still like to see something more modern and preferably in humans. > Additionally, this study covers rats which were given strict diets Strict diets? It seems to me like they had unmeasured and uncontrolled access to chow and sugar solution ("controlled" only on the basis of availability time)! I tend to agree with the grandparent post that the observed results could be caused by the relative sweetness of HFCS driving the rats to continue consuming HFCS past the point where they would have stopped consuming sucrose solution. Since humans tend to consume drinks in fixed quantities (8oz, 16oz) not entirely chosen on the bases of satiety, I question the relevance of this study to human health. > you contradict yourself by noting (correctly) that HFCS is not half-and-half fructose and glucose You quibble. I'll take it back iff you substantiate the implicit claim (which occurs under the assumption that you weren't quibbling) that the 5% or 7% difference in sugar concentrations creates a disproportionate effect on energy output or weight gain.

egypturnash 13y ago

When I want sweet foods I just seek out things made with sugar rather than HFCS. If all I can find is HFCS or artificial sweeteners, I have to wait. And have some water, most likely. I haven't done any experiments. I've just noted that (a) imported Mexican Coke really does taste like I remember Coke tasting in my 1970s childhood, and (b) I drink less when I have a soda made with sugar because it satisfies my sweet tooth instead of just tickling it and reminding me that sweet things taste good, maybe I'll go get another one of the HFCS sodas I just drank.