Fructose - better than sucrose or glucose? Yes says the EFSA

richardheath

EDIT: Fructose and glucose are themselves monomers held together by glycolic bonds... which are a type of covalent bond.

Fructose alone has covalent bonds within itself.

HFCS are science-created due to naturally occuring sugars going through industrial enzymatic processing to convert some of the glucose into fructose. And that is "mixed" as it were.

Sucrose as a sugar has fructose and glucose linked via ether bond/glycosidic linkage.

Also, HFCS actually has a higher fructose to glucose ratio than sucrose does, so they are not molecularly the same.

You are still not making any sense, chemically.

Both fructose and glucose are monomers. The atoms within these monomers are held together by covalent bonds. That's what holds molecules together! Sucrose is a dimer of these two combined together.





HFCS is created by an industrial process, I'll give you that much. And it is usually a mixture of 55% fructose, 45% glucose, as opposed to 50% each in sucrose. Different? A little. Can you show this difference is physiologically significant? I doubt it. The fructose and glucose present are exactly the same as the glucose or fructose you would get from any natural source.


Edit to remove a redundant image.

LAW_714

I think the miscommunication here is in wanting absolutes (or reading absolutes) where there are none.

I get that different sugars have different nuances in how they are processed by the body. But I'd be interested in hearing how this really makes any difference in the arena of weight management.

And I'll repeat what I just posted:

I gather you want the straight to the bottom line, and the calorie load bottom line is going to remain. Calories, though a simplified concept in itself, are the most practical way of monitoring your dietary intake in real-world circumstances, especially if you're seeking weight loss.

There's no magic pill around that.

Calorie counting works and if that's all that one wishes to concern themselves with for weight loss/weight maintenance, that's fine. That's really all you need to know.

There's no way around the number of calories you consume being the primary issue with regard to weight management.

The original question was "what's the difference between sugars?" Well, there are differences, differences in their structures and in how they are metabolized.

It's still going to come down to how many calories you consumed today, however.


Re: the other debate on table sugar vs. HFCS.

Again, the structural differences are real. There's a higher fructose to glucose ratio in HFCS than in sucrose. Also the ways in which glucose and fructose are bonded (or are not bonded or are only loosely linked) differs between sucrose and HFCS. This has led to a question that only scientific research can answer. Does the "mix" in HFCS result in the fructose and glucose in HFCS being easier to absorb and utilized because unlike sucrose the glycosodic bond between the monosaccharides may not need as much energy to be broken down by a disaccharidase enzyme? Maybe? Does it hurt to ask and/or look into the question, because I don't think it's been categorically settled.

And yes, I realize that glucose and fructose in the mix are considered to be the same 'ingredients'. But so are the ingredients for pancakes, biscuits, and cookies. Proportions and processing methods make differences. The process of turning some glucose molecules into fructose molecules (as happens when making HFCS) by necessity means rearranging some the glucose's bonds such that they will become man-made fructose. Does this processing result in a 'physiologically signficant' difference?

Does it?

I don't know. Does it hurt to ask?

Is the weaker linkage between the monosaccharides or the difference in proportion of fructose to glucose amount to a 'physiologically signficant' difference?

Again, I don't know... could it?

Can you honestly state yea or nay in absolute terms either way?

I know everyone would prefer an absolute answer, but, right now, I think anyone stating an absolute would be overstating their case... which is why some scientists would like more research.

Maybe the differences in the proportions and the weaker linkage makes no difference whatsoever. Or maybe it does. Maybe a tiny bit. What factor would the level of consumption play? We're starting at the molecular level. How many molecules are there in a single gram and then how many grams are consumed? How many routinely consumed on a daily basis? What sort of multiplication factor might accompany rising percentages of consumption? The consumption amounts might not matter... or they might.... but to what degree and would it be stastistically significant when compared to equal amounts of sucrose? These are all questions. Not answers. Questions.

It's a bit like the question regarding calorie free sweetners. If anyone has an absolute answer for you, they're overstating their case. What we know is that they are safe for consumption. Drinking a Coke with HFCS or with Aspertame is not going to cause you to up and die. Not today, not tomorrow, not next week, and next month even. All of this was researched and proven in order to be approved for sale in the first place.

However, if on the other hand the question is for detailed analysis of all of the hormonal impacts over an extended period of time, there's been less research done. There simply aren't that many independently sourced case studies. There just aren't.

Could there be absolutely no significant impact? Sure. Entirely possible. This may very probably be the case.

Cane we state that as an absolute truth? Well.... It wouldn't hurt if there were more case studies.

That some researchers have questions they feel deserve scientific research proves nothing, just that these are questions that some are looking into.

So...

Can you show this difference is physiologically significant?

Nope. I can't.

Can you categorically, absolutely prove that they aren't?

ksuh999

Good grief.

First off, sucrose is 50-50 glucose-fructose.

Saying HFCS has a more fructose is inaccurate, because for one thing, *** THERE'S MORE THAN ONE KIND OF HFCS! AND THEY HAVE DIFFERENT RATIOS! ***

Typically if you're trying to make a point of something being harmful, then you should provide proof of it being harmful, and not just say utterly useless statements like "Can you categorically, absolutely prove that they aren't?".

LAW_714

Why do you think it necessary that a stranger on a message board PROVE anything to you?

I never said that HFCS was harmful or benign. I said that that people are researching these issues because they are researching them.

This product has been on the market for a limited number of years. Of course there are questions and ongoing research on its long term consumption. That only makes sense. A bunch of people on a message board screaming about it isn't going to change it.

tigersword

That product has been on the market for over 50 years. Plenty of research has been done, and very little of it shows any difference between HFCS and sucrose. They are for all intents and purposes, identical to the human digestive system.

LAW_714

It wasn't mass produced and distributed in the US until the mid 1970s.

Look, if you want my OPINION I don't think HFCS is significantly different as far as metabolism goes. If it's worse than sucrose at all (if), it would probably only be to a very minute (probably negligible) degree.

I think.

Can't prove that and there are enough questions that I'm not going to quibble about scientists continuing to research these questions because I wouldn't mind a more conclusive answer than what I (and a bunch of message board posters) just generally think.

mmapags

It wasn't mass produced and distributed in the US until the mid 1970s.

Look, if you want my OPINION I don't think HFCS is significantly different as far as metabolism goes. If it's worse than sucrose at all (if), it would probably only be to a very minute (probably negligible) degree.

I think.

Can't prove that and there are enough questions that I'm not going to quibble about scientists continuing to research these questions because I wouldn't mind a more conclusive answer than what I (and a bunch of message board posters) just generally think.

This was what I was driving at with my question. Thanks for taking the time to explain the difference scientifically but I was really looking at it functionally. So far, as you stated, there seems to be little to no reason to think of it as a factor in an otherwise healthy diet. I also have no quibble with scientists studying it but nothing that has come to light so far gives any cause for alarm.

paleojoe

Please help me to understand exactly how the sugar in an orange or blueberries affects weight loss differently or is any way different from the sugar in Ice Cream or bread. What would the difference be?

The only significant difference I can see is the amount. Easier to go over your calories with refined sugar because of the concentration. I am a believer that the devil is in the dose so as long as you can navigate all the foods you love and still stay in a deficit then it really is of no consequence.

yarwell

Sugar in ice cream is sucrose or high fructose corn syrup, sugar in bread is glucose (and depending on the bread, sucrose or high fructose corn syrup). Sugar in blue berries and oranges is largely fructose (though proportions of sugars vary with the fruit, and then there's a question of fiber... but that's probably more nuance than a discussion of just sugar).

So an orange with 8.5% sugars of which 2.2 are glucose, 2.4 fructose and 3.9 sucrose - let's say 4.2 G and 4.4 F in the acid environment of your stomach - is different to sucrose of HFCS how ??

The EFSA ruling, based on science, is that fructose gives a lower post prandial blood sugar rise without an insulin surge when compared to the glucose or sucrose it might replace. The scientific panel held the view that reducing the blood glucose rise was beneficial / desirable. I think it's not controversial that fructose does have a low glucose impact, on account of it not being glucose at all.

The EFSA ruling would not allow HFCS, which is rare in the EU anyway, but pure fructose to replace at least 30% of sucrose or glucose in a product.

No_Finish_Line

I guess the worry is that food manufacturers will replace sucrose and glucose with fructose in soft drinks, sweetened food etc. He seems to suggest this is a bad thing,

this doesnt seem right considering virtually anything that comes in a box, wrapper or bottle contains high fructose corn syrup... not that that is the same thing as fructose

yarwell

this doesnt seem right considering virtually anything that comes in a box, wrapper or bottle contains high fructose corn syrup... not that that is the same thing as fructose

that may be the case in America or the US, it isn't the case in the EU which is the subject of the OP.

No_Finish_Line

Please help me to understand exactly how the sugar in an orange or blueberries affects weight loss differently or is any way different from the sugar in Ice Cream or bread. What would the difference be?

The only significant difference I can see is the amount. Easier to go over your calories with refined sugar because of the concentration. I am a believer that the devil is in the dose so as long as you can navigate all the foods you love and still stay in a deficit then it really is of no consequence.

i'm certainly no expert but my suspicion is that its about how quickly the sugar can be digested and absorbed.

All carbs have to be broken down into glucose to be absorbed. Glucose (which is usually called dextrose on an ingredient lable) I would think would have the highest Glycemic index because it really doesn't have to be broken down chemically.

No_Finish_Line

this doesnt seem right considering virtually anything that comes in a box, wrapper or bottle contains high fructose corn syrup... not that that is the same thing as fructose

that may be the case in America or the US, it isn't the case in the EU which is the subject of the OP.

missed that, thanks for pointing it out.

No_Finish_Line

A combo of the sugars is worse than one alone because it is a lot harder on the liver.

So we're back to "fruit is bad for you"?

Gah.

i remember reading that high fructose corn syrup was more 'unhealthy' then fructose because of how it interacted with the liver.

Again i'm no expert and can't explain what i just typed lol, but you're not going to find HFCS in fruit anyway. can't imagine anyone saying fruit is bad for you lol

yarwell

i'm certainly no expert but my suspicion is that its about how quickly the sugar can be digested and absorbed.

All carbs have to be broken down into glucose to be absorbed. Glucose (which is usually called dextrose on an ingredient lable) I would think would have the highest Glycemic index because it really doesn't have to be broken down chemically.

Indeed, Glucose has a GI of 100 when 50g of glucose is used as the test method for GI. White bread is the alternative, but 100 on the bread scale puts glucose at 140 for exactly the reason you state - glucose is ready to go into the bloodstream "as is" without digestion or conversion.

mmapags

Please help me to understand exactly how the sugar in an orange or blueberries affects weight loss differently or is any way different from the sugar in Ice Cream or bread. What would the difference be?

The only significant difference I can see is the amount. Easier to go over your calories with refined sugar because of the concentration. I am a believer that the devil is in the dose so as long as you can navigate all the foods you love and still stay in a deficit then it really is of no consequence.

i'm certainly no expert but my suspicion is that its about how quickly the sugar can be digested and absorbed.

All carbs have to be broken down into glucose to be absorbed. Glucose (which is usually called dextrose on an ingredient lable) I would think would have the highest Glycemic index because it really doesn't have to be broken down chemically.

But sugar is rarely consumed in isolation. The fiber, fat and protien alters the GI significantly. This is true even of a candy bar like say, a snickers.

mmapags

Please help me to understand exactly how the sugar in an orange or blueberries affects weight loss differently or is any way different from the sugar in Ice Cream or bread. What would the difference be?

The only significant difference I can see is the amount. Easier to go over your calories with refined sugar because of the concentration. I am a believer that the devil is in the dose so as long as you can navigate all the foods you love and still stay in a deficit then it really is of no consequence.

Could not agree more!

silenceinspace

A combo of the sugars is worse than one alone because it is a lot harder on the liver.

So we're back to "fruit is bad for you"?

Gah.

i remember reading that high fructose corn syrup was more 'unhealthy' then fructose because of how it interacted with the liver.

Again i'm no expert and can't explain what i just typed lol, but you're not going to find HFCS in fruit anyway. can't imagine anyone saying fruit is bad for you lol

People who follow ketogenic or very low carb diets believe just that, actually. Not defending or knocking it, but it is true.

tigersword

A combo of the sugars is worse than one alone because it is a lot harder on the liver.

So we're back to "fruit is bad for you"?

Gah.

i remember reading that high fructose corn syrup was more 'unhealthy' then fructose because of how it interacted with the liver.

Again i'm no expert and can't explain what i just typed lol, but you're not going to find HFCS in fruit anyway. can't imagine anyone saying fruit is bad for you lol

Why wouldn't you? Most fruit has roughly the same ratio of fructose to glucose as HFCS, sometimes even higher ratios, so it basically IS HFCS in fruit. As far as digestion goes, anyway. Neither one is bad in moderate (read, normal) doses.

FredDoyle

I'm not sure where we are here in this discussion but I do know I make invert sugar before I inoculate it with yeast.
To make invert sugar, you take sucrose and add a bit of weak acid to break the bonds and simmer it for a bit.
This gives the sugars a slightly sweeter apparent taste and saves the yeast from having to do the work to break the bonds.
Bakers use invert sugar for its higher apparent sweetness. This means you can use less.
I don't know if it's because of the free fructose but it probably is. Fructose has the highest apparent sweetness to us.

richardheath

I'm not sure where we are here in this discussion but I do know I make invert sugar before I inoculate it with yeast.
To make invert sugar, you take sucrose and add a bit of weak acid to break the bonds and simmer it for a bit.
This gives the sugars a slightly sweeter apparent taste and saves the yeast from having to do the work to break the bonds.
Bakers use invert sugar for its higher apparent sweetness. This means you can use less.
I don't know if it's because of the free fructose but it probably is. Fructose has the highest apparent sweetness to us.

Relevant to the topic - the glycosidic bond is acid labile, and sucrose is hydrolysed in the stomach to glucose plus fructose before it gets absorbed in the small intestine.

Totally off topic: but do you think invert sugar actually helps the yeast? I have made it myself, but I tend to let it caramalize to #2 or 3 before using, as it also adds a slight fruitiness to my bitters.