General Discussions > Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine
HFCS to Corn Sugar "RAGE!!" Ensues.
lonely moa:
--- Quote from: jt512 on Apr 26, 2012, 11:16:47 AM ---The difference is too small to matter, except that HFCS is sweeter than sucrose, and therefore food manufacturers can use less of it than sucrose to achieve the same sweetness, which most people would consider to be a good thing.
Jay
--- End quote ---
The difference is that HFCS is much less expensive to add to products. And the same sweetness is never enough. I think the evidence that sugar triggers those "I like this... give me more" feelings in the brain. What a good way to market... I wouldn't want to compare it to tobacco...
DeepGlue:
Fixed my first point. It's an image comparing glucose, fructose and sucrose, showing that sucrose is just fructose and glucose held together by a tiny little bond.
--- Quote from: Plastique on Apr 26, 2012, 02:30:11 PM ---
--- Quote from: DeepGlue on Apr 26, 2012, 01:47:21 PM ---3. As far as I know, the research does show that fructose is bad for you.
--- End quote ---
What does that mean—could you be more specific?
--- End quote ---
To be more specific, from the web and other threads on this board I've picked up that fructose is solidly established to be worse for people than sucrose or glucose. I don't recall specifics. Weight gain? Heart disease? I dunno. I just remember it's worse and I think that comes from more than one independent study. Correct me if I'm wrong.
DeepGlue:
--- Quote from: jt512 on Apr 26, 2012, 02:01:03 PM ---#2 is correct. The glycosidic bond in sucrose is broken in the small intestine, so, as far as metabolism is concerned, there is no difference between sucrose and a 50/50 mixture of glucose and fructose.
--- End quote ---
Good to get some confirmation on that.
But I mean they aren't *exactly* the same thing. It takes some time to break down that bond, and once it's broken they aren't *exactly* fructose and glucose. You're saying that these small differences do in fact mean nothing to your body?
lonely moa:
--- Quote from: DeepGlue on Apr 26, 2012, 05:33:47 PM ---Fixed my first point. It's an image comparing glucose, fructose and sucrose, showing that sucrose is just fructose and glucose held together by a tiny little bond.
--- Quote from: Plastique on Apr 26, 2012, 02:30:11 PM ---
--- Quote from: DeepGlue on Apr 26, 2012, 01:47:21 PM ---3. As far as I know, the research does show that fructose is bad for you.
--- End quote ---
What does that mean—could you be more specific?
--- End quote ---
To be more specific, from the web and other threads on this board I've picked up that fructose is solidly established to be worse for people than sucrose or glucose. I don't recall specifics. Weight gain? Heart disease? I dunno. I just remember it's worse and I think that comes from more than one independent study. Correct me if I'm wrong.
--- End quote ---
It contributes to fatty liver disease (Lustig). Its ubiquitisness contributes to gain in adipose tissue generally, and as I mentioned above, contributes to the overconsumption fo food in general and carbohydrates in particular(Kessler).
I would guess it is fine in the form of actual fruit, one wouldn't actually be able to eat the number of apples or oranges at one sitting that you can with juice. When you read from sources like Wrangham about the sort actual fruit that humans in the evolutionary past had available to them, one gets the ideas that they are not particularly high in fructose or particularly palatable for humans. Maybe we as a species are not generally well adapted to eat a lot of sweet fruit.
jt512:
--- Quote from: DeepGlue on Apr 26, 2012, 05:38:40 PM ---
--- Quote from: jt512 on Apr 26, 2012, 02:01:03 PM ---#2 is correct. The glycosidic bond in sucrose is broken in the small intestine, so, as far as metabolism is concerned, there is no difference between sucrose and a 50/50 mixture of glucose and fructose.
--- End quote ---
Good to get some confirmation on that.
But I mean they aren't *exactly* the same thing. It takes some time to break down that bond, and once it's broken they aren't *exactly* fructose and glucose. You're saying that these small differences do in fact mean nothing to your body?
--- End quote ---
The bond is broken almost instantaneously in the intestine, and does not affect the rate of absorption, to the best of my knowledge. The glycemic index for HFCS-sweetened beverages is not significantly different from that of sucrose.
Jay
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version