[jonrick46]

"Then how can the blame this on HFCS and not sugar when both are made up of glucose and fructose?"

Table sugar is primarily sucrose, which is a dissacharide. The fructose in HFCS as well as glucose are monosaccharides.

Let's take table sugar first. When table sugar (sucrose)is taken in the body, it is changed to 50% glucose and 50% fructose in the small intestines. The glucose component is the energy maker in the living cell. It is this component that triggers the release of insulin and affects the satiety mechanism (see below). It is the fructose component that causes all of the trouble with sucrose. Instead of being converted to glucose which the body uses, it is removed by the liver. This causes the liver to kick more fat out into the bloodstream. It also, as I said before, does not cause the pancreas to release insulin the way it normally does. Glucose causes fat cells to release leptin that makes you feel full so you eat less. Glucose prevents the stomach from releasing ghrelin that makes you hungry. On the other hand, fructose does not cause fat cells to release leptin and does not suppress ghrelin. This means that fructose increases hunger to make you eat more. Besides affecting the satiety mechanism, it also converts to fat more than any other sugar. This may be one of the reasons Americans continue to get fatter.

Many web sites say that the common sucrose/glucose concentration of HFCS in soft drinks of around 55% sucrose and 45% glucose. I did a search to find the concentration of a few soft drinks. Here is what I found:

Pepsi Cola in a given 100 ml has .17 grams of glucose, .58 grams of fructose, and .81 grams of sucrose. Let's say the .81 grams of the sucrose component is biologically, .405 grams each of fructose and glucose. This makes Pepsi actually .575 grams (36.8%) glucose and .985 grams (63.2%) fructose.

Sprite in a given 100 ml has .20 grams of glucose, .60 grams of fructose and .68 grams of sucrose. Biologically, this is .54 grams (36.5%) glucose and .94 grams (63.5%) fructose.

I am not sure if there is a difference in when the fructose is released into the blood when the sucrose in these soft drinks goes through the digestive breakdown process. It is obvious that the fructose component should from the HFCS should enter the blood sooner than the fructose derived from the sucrose component. Does that make sense?

[Mase]

Table sugar is primarily sucrose, which is a dissacharide. The fructose in HFCS as well as glucose are monosaccharides

Okay. BTW, table sugar is sucrose. It's not primarily sucrose. Why should this matter to the discussion?

The glucose component is the energy maker in the living cell. It is this component that triggers the release of insulin and affects the satiety mechanism (see below).

Yes, and satiation is mediated in the blood. Once the liver converts fructose to glucose, it also enters the blood and will stimulate the release of insulin. I'll repost the research showing that HFCS and sucrose have essentially the same satiety profiles.

From Martine Perrigue and colleagues at the University of Washington:

One question is whether HFCS-sweetened beverages have a different satiety profile from sucrose-sweetened ones. This study examined the relative impact of 16 oz. beverage preloads on motivational ratings and energy intakes at a test meal, using a within-subject design. Participants were 19 men and 18 women, aged 20-30 y. The iso-energetic (214 kcal) beverages were cola sweetened with either sucrose, HFCS 55 (55% fructose, 45% glucose); HFCS 42 (42% fructose; 58% glucose), or aspartame, and 1% milk. A no beverage control was also employed. Breakfast was consumed at 8:00 am and the beverages were consumed at 10:10 am. Subjective ratings of hunger, fullness, desire to eat, thirst, and nausea were collected at 20 min intervals until lunch was served 140 min later. Caloric beverages suppressed hunger ratings and increased satiety ratings relative to the no beverage control. However, there were no significant differences in satiety profiles among the sucrose- and HFCS-sweetened beverages, diet cola, and 1% milk.

Source

4/07/2006-New research indicates that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is similar to sugar in the production of leptin, insulin and ghrelin, and regulation of the body's calorie control mechanisms. The research was presented in San Francisco at the Experimental Biology conference on April 1-5, 2006.

Kathleen J Melanson and others at Rhode Island University reviewed the effects of HFCS and sucrose on circulating levels of glucose, leptin, insulin and ghrelin in a study group of lean women. All four tested substances have been hypothesized to play a role in metabolism and obesity. The study found "no differences in the metabolic effects" of HFCS and sucrose in this short-term study, and called for further similar studies of obese individuals and males. ("Similar effects of high fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating levels of glucose, leptin, insulin and ghrelin,"

Source

It is the fructose component that causes all of the trouble with sucrose. Instead of being converted to glucose which the body uses, it is removed by the liver.

Who is making up this nonsense? This drivel must be from people who don't even understand the first thing about biochemistry and physiology. The liver converts fructose to glucose. Always has and always will. It's metabolized by a different pathway than glucose but it all ends up in the Krebs cycle as 3x2 carbon fragments. This is a fact and anyone who doesn't understand this should be required to take basic nutrition.

This causes the liver to kick more fat out into the bloodstream.

How exactly does that work? If the liver converts fructose to glucose, how is that any different than consuming glucose? What your body needs for immediate energy is taken. The rest is converted into glycogen. When the glycogen reserves are full it's turned into depot fat. It's the same whether you consume fructose or glucose.

as I said before, does not cause the pancreas to release insulin the way it normally does.

I guess this depends on how you define normal. Once the liver converts fructose to glucose the glucose will stimulate insulin. Yes, it takes longer than glucose but, again, so what? Whoever made up this nonsense would also be surprised to know that a small amount of fructose is actually converted by the gut into glucose. The liver manages the majority of the conversion but this new research clearly shows that some of the fructose is converted immediately to glucose. Don't expect to find that information on your wacky website though.

Glucose causes fat cells to release leptin that makes you feel full so you eat less. Glucose prevents the stomach from releasing ghrelin that makes you hungry

What do you think happens when the liver quickly converts that fructose to glucose? Please look again at my linked research above. This is more misunderstanding from your wacky website.

This means that fructose increases hunger to make you eat more

Tell me who eats straight fructose? If you eat sugar, it has 50% fructose and 50% glucose. If you eat HFCS, in baked goods or cereal, it only contains 42% fructose. Are you saying that HFCS in this instance is better for you than sugar? It's all nonsense. The satiety profiles are almost identical. The single digit differences in the amount of fructose and glucose in either sucrose or HFCS doesn't make a bit of difference to your body. It does make a difference to people who have no idea how the body works.

Besides affecting the satiety mechanism

Wrong.

it also converts to fat more than any other sugar.

All sugars will convert to fat if you consume more than you burn. Why is this so hard for some to understand? Again though, when comparing HFCS and sucrose, they both contain essentially the same amounts of glucose and fructose so this debate is only relevant if you are condemning both. By condemning one, you implicate the other -- unless consistency isn't important to you.

This may be one of the reasons Americans continue to get fatter.

Americans are getting fatter because they consume more calories than they burn. That's it. Trying to blame ingredients is to ignore the truth in the matter.

Pepsi Cola in a given 100 ml has .17 grams of glucose, .58 grams of fructose, and .81 grams of sucrose. Let's say the .81 grams of the sucrose component is biologically, .405 grams each of fructose and glucose. This makes Pepsi actually .575 grams (36.8%) glucose and .985 grams (63.2%) fructose.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Where did the additional fructose come from? How about a link?

Sprite in a given 100 ml has .20 grams of glucose, .60 grams of fructose and .68 grams of sucrose. Biologically, this is .54 grams (36.5%) glucose and .94 grams (63.5%) fructose

Again, I still have no idea what you're talking about. Where did you get this information?

I am not sure if there is a difference in when the fructose is released into the blood when the sucrose in these soft drinks goes through the digestive breakdown

I'm not understanding you. Difference in what? Do these soft drinks contain sucrose or HFCS? The glucose and fructose from HFCS should probably enter the blood sooner because they are free sugars while the glucose and fructose in sucrose has to be hydrolyzed by sucrase first. Remember though, you are talking about a very small period of time that it takes for sucrase to break down sucrose into monsaccharides. That's why the Glycemic indexes for both are almost identical and why the satiety profiles are also similar.