Fructose reprogrammes glutamine-dependent oxidative metabolism to support LPS

Probably the "best" sugar you can use is date sugar, which is just dried, ground-up dates. But if you really want to eat healthily, then you should eat plants instead of rich foods.

[1] https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store...

Here's more about sweeteners on the FODMAP diet (RN reviewed too!) https://alittlebityummy.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-low-fodmap...

Maybe due to selection of larger, sweeter fruit, yes. But processed food contains various sugar variants, including fructose (think "high fructose corn syrup") so fruit isn't the only (not even the main) source of fructose for many.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup#Compo...

There's just too much inaccuracies and outright misrepresentation to fit the narrative

Moving from HFCS to table sugar wouldn't change those numbers at all... but if they can blame HFCS it'll ease their guilt that they might be personally responsible for the health consequences of their own diet.

Edit: keep in mind, this is ADDED sugars only. It doesn't include natural sugars, like those found in juice, fruits, etc. The average american consumers an incredible amount of sugar.

I had thought honey was generally regarded as a healthier form of sugar, but now I’m a little confused, since it appears to also be fairly high in fructose (~40%) according to this article:

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317728#Benefits-of...

While equivalent (calorically) amounts of other sugars certainly isn't good for you, there is a growing consensus that fructose (and thus HFCS, and probably honey, though I'm not aware of studies to the latter effect) is subtly different enough to be worse for most people over the long term, even when taking into consideration that less is needed because it is sweeter.

The ratio of fructose to glucose seems to be one important factor, another is whether the fructose and glucose are bound together into sucrose (it doesn't seem like this paper addresses the latter point).

HFCS and honey both have a higher amount of fructose than glucose, and contain these components mostly in 'free' form, sugarcane and beets produce mostly sucrose, in which the ratio of fructose to glucose is equal and the sugars are mostly bound together into sucrose.

Although the effect of these differences is subtle, other research suggests that chronic consumption of fructose in free form causes changes in insulin response that in turn are responsible for both reduced satiation and weight gain (assuming sufficient calories). Caloric restriction can counteract the weight gain, but not the other changes.

The mechnisms for this have not been entirely clear. This paper describes some changes in cellular preference for some metabolic pathways over others that among other things in turn promote inflammatory responses. As a layman it is tempting to 'connect the dots', as inflammation is (generally, and indirectly) implicated (by other research) in various conditions, but this paper by itself doesn't actually do that. Though it does seem like an important step forward to doing so.

There are a whole host of questions this opens up, like "is this inflammatory response observable in particular tissues (pancreatic, white vs. brown fat, etc.)?", "how is this inflammatory response linked to changes in insulin response (in various tissues)?", "what else does this change in preference for particular metabolic pathways affect?", "what other alternate metabolic pathways might be affected by differences in nutrient ratios, or by the presence or absence of other nutrients?", "Does this help explain the difference in effect of consuming some foods in processed form (eg. Eating fruit vs. drinking juice)?", etc.

Intriguing and suggestive questions to be sure, but as yet unanswered (particularly by this paper in isolation).

Most Americans are overweight. I wouldn't call that doing fine.

To be precise, HFCS-55 is 55% fructose. Commonly used varieties of HFCS include HFCS-42, HFCS-55, and HFCS-90, containing the percentages of fructose indicated by the number, though HFCS-55 is the most commonly used form due to its near-equivalency in sweetness to sucrose.

The amount of free fructose should not be dismissed so readily, as starch requires breakdown into glucose via amylase enzymes, thus "flattening the curve" of its concentration in the blood. Free fructose is rapidly absorbed and the resultant relatively high concentrations induce specific negative effects in the body:

"The activity of fructokinase (KHK) is different from the other hexokinases by virtue of the fact that it induces transient ATP depletion in the cell. The mechanism is due to the fact that fructokinase (KHK) rapidly phosphorylates fructose to fructose-1-phosphate resulting in marked ATP depletion. The activity of fructokinase (KHK) is not subject to feed-back inhibition such as is the case for glucose metabolism, thus the ATP depletion is profound. Since the majority of fructose metabolism occurs in the liver, the effects of this ATP depletion are exerted on numerous important hepatic metabolic processes." (https://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/fructose-metabolism/)

Furthermore:

"In contrast to the anorexigenic effect of hypothalamic glucose metabolism, the metabolism of fructose in the brain exerts an orexigenic effect. ... Since hypothalamic fructose metabolism bypasses this important regulatory step its metabolism rapidly depletes ATP in the hypothalamus. ... Therefore, although glucose and fructose utilize the same signaling pathway to control food intake they act in an inverse manner and have reciprocal effects on the level of hypothalamic malonyl-CoA." (ibid.)

Which is to say, free fructose promotes hunger while starch/glucose metabolism stimulates satiety.