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

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?

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.