It’s really simple.
Sugar is metabolized immediately as an energy booster.
High fructose corn syrup is stored in the body as fat.
I suspect that this study is the reason for all the commercials touting ‘corn sweetener’ as being no different than sugar, from the CORN LOBBY of course.
We, in America are caught between two powerful lobbies in DC. The Corn Lobby and the Sugar Lobby.........
No worries here mate, I have no rats. :)
Sugar is metabolized immediately as an energy booster. High fructose corn syrup is stored in the body as fat.
Let's follow your logic:
Sugar = sucrose. Sucrose = glucose and fructose.
High fructose corn syrup = glucose and fructose.
This being a fact, how can sucrose be metabolized immediately as a source of energy while hfcs is converted to fat? Afrer all, they're comprised of the same two chemicals in almost identical proportions.
Why wouldn't they both be utilized for immediate energy if the body required it? Why wouldn't they both be stored as glycogen if the body didn't have an immediate need for energy? Why wouldn't they both be stored as fat if the body's glycogen reserves were full?
I suspect that this study is the reason for all the commercials touting ‘corn sweetener’ as being no different than sugar, from the CORN LOBBY of course.
Can you explain how glucose and fructose from hydrolyzed sucrose is chemically different than glucose and fructose from HFCS?
Not quite that simple.
The glucose in both sugar and HFCS provide both energy, and signal the body to store fat. The fructose in both are slow acting poison, leading to Metabolic Syndrome.
The article makes the case that HFCS is worse because the compounds are free, but even if that's true it doesn't give sugar a pass.