Fructose is No Answer For a Sweetener

re: Fructose is No Answer For a Sweetener

Maurine1 — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:32:22 GMT

Just this past week (2009) Dr. Mercola distinguished between HFCS and fructose from genuine, whole fruit, saying that real fruit has plenty of valuable nutrients that go along with with the fructose. No one should overdo the eating of ANY kind of sweet things, including fruit, but you need those lifegiving elements found in blueberries, grapes, citrus fruits, etc.

re: Fructose is No Answer For a Sweetener

Francina — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:04:00 GMT

I am somewhat in a state of confusion about the difference between fructose and high fructose corn syrup. Without getting technical about sugars my understanding is fructose is unprocessed derived from honey and fruits. HFCS is processed and derived from corn.

The articles on Dr. Mercola's site seem to lump both sweeteners into a category of sweeteners to avoid.

I have written to the staff and asked for clarification about the difference and was referred back to the articles. Common sense would dictate any excessive consumption of large amounts of any sweetener

isn't healthy.

In a perfect world, we would have food choices without the usual excessive amounts of sweeteners and

salt. In the typical American diet and food stores sugar/fructose/HFCS have become a "food group" and an added ingredient if you take the time to read labels to notice.

What is the alternative....stevia?

re: Fructose is No Answer For a Sweetener

Treedweller — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:54:10 GMT

With all due respect to a peer in academia, I must say I have a few puzzlements on this article.

The Mailard reaction, as I understand it, is an amino acid reaction with a reducing sugar. Glucose is a reducing sugar and fructose is not. This does not mean such a reaction can't be forced with significant heat and natural enzymes in food, but it does appear the fears of the Mailard reaction with fructose might be suspect.

Also the comment that fructose robs ATP from cells in order for the cells to successfully metabolize it (I presume this is what is being said) seems odd to me as well. In standard text book glycolysis of glucose, glucose is converted to 1,6 fructose diphosphate. So the glucose is converted to a form of fructose as an essential part of intermediary metabolism. Fructose does not have to go through a step or two that glucose does. It can be phosphorylated more directly, so it would seem to me.

Off-the-mark statements in such articles seem to bring question to their over all integrity.

Needless to say, I am sure the American diet is way too saturated with simple sugars. I am not convinced fructose is a by itself a villain.

re: Fructose is No Answer For a Sweetener

Katifa — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:25:29 GMT

This information seems to be quite old. Look at the dates on the footnotes. It is comparing fructose and glucose instead of sucrose. It should also make the distinction between high fructose corn syrup in which the glucose is converted to fructose and unprocessed naturally occurring fructose. Fructose (unprocessed) is preferred because it does not cause high levels of blood glucose which requires a high release of insulin which damages artery walls. Honey, being an example of a high fructose sweetener and is considered healthful by most health naturalist, is a excellent choice when caloric restriction is not necessary.