Talk:Fructose/Archive 2

Corn syrup entry in carbohydrate content table
I noticed the corn syrup entry in the table "Carbohydrate content of commercial sweeteners" doesn't have percentages that add up to 100. I couldn't find the real numbers, but I'm pretty confident that's a mistake. 142.150.224.138 (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Fructose is a Hexose
Perhaps mention that fructose is considered a hexose sugar? 108.2.177.109 (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Mention how fructose is synthesised?
Photosynthesis results in glucose and oxygen, but how do plants make fructose? 207.191.183.218 (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Metabolic priority in regards to liver disease

 * Fructose: "When fructose reaches the liver," says Dr. William J. Whelan, a biochemist at the University of Miami School of Medicine, "the liver goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose."

I have heard similar things said of alcohol. Is there any evidence that EVERYTHING is stopped to metabolize fructose? If there were free fructose and free alcohol, which would the liver prioritize, or perhaps it is able to do multiple jobs simultaneously? DB (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Definition of "high/excess fructose consumption/intake/diet"
These phrases occur many times in the article but no actual indication is given of exactly what is meant. (I.e. exactly how much is "too much"?)

Does anyone know?

Thanks --  TyrS  chatties  06:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Composition of Corn Syrup
In the table Carbohydrate content of commercial sweeteners (percent) the numbers in the corn syrup row don't add to 100%. What is the remaining 65% carbohydrate content? It would be great if somebody more informed than myself could verify whether this discrepancy is intentional.108.67.71.45 (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm also convinced this is an error. Corn syrup's carbohydrate content should be glucose and perhaps maltose. See: http://www.ochef.com/362.htm but it needs a more official source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.109.99 (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported claim / non-sequitur
The article states:


 * Although all simple sugars have nearly identical chemical formulae, each has distinct chemical properties. This can be illustrated with pure fructose. A journal article reports that, "...fructose given alone increased the blood glucose almost as much as a similar amount of glucose (78% of the glucose-alone area)".

These statements have no apparent relation to one another. A more obvious example of distinct chemical properties would be differing solubility in water, not a random biological pheonomenon. Certainly biology is at its roots chemistry, but many steps removed and with various selective agents driving reaction preferences. Without additional context the example given does not illustrate the point at hand. --Belg4mit (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I don't know how to fix that without deleting those 2 sentences. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Learning about sugars, I decided to look here to see what comments were posted. It is awkward. Stumbling upon this, I recommend either removing the second sentence completely, or separating the two sentences (into their appropriate paragraphs, but I have no suggestion where), or if you don't want to remove the second (less desirable because the second still does not support the first) you may consider something like this:


 * While all simple sugars have nearly identical chemical formulae, for the most part, each has quite distinct chemical properties. One [notable?] exception is illustrated with pure fructose: a journal article reports that, "...fructose given alone increased the blood glucose almost as much as a similar amount of glucose (78% of the glucose-alone area)".

However, I think I have read in other places (wiki) that say (or seem to say) that Fructose has an effect that differs from Sucrose - the combination of the Fructose and Glucose in the Sucrose being theorized as the contributing factor to the difference. The presence of the Glucose somehow moderating the Fructose's (different) effect. (not my field, so it's getting complicated for me)

However, the 'journal article' should be cited if the second sentence remains. Hope this helps & Regards -- Steve --  (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I just want to also say that this paragraph is troubling. In fact it contradicts a paragraph a bit later that says GI of fructose is 19 vs. 100 for glucose. GI = glycemic index = effect on blood glucose. How can it be 78% and 19%? It also contradicts info on metabolism of fructose which happens mostly in the liver whereas glucose just passes into the bloodstream. From my reading I think the 78% is not trustworthy. I have seen more references to fructose not having a significant impact on blood glucose and insulin. It could be just that the 78% study was with diabetic patients only. At any rate, it needs to be called out somehow. Sorry I'm not expert enough to have a better suggestion... 74.3.100.30 (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC) JPL

Fructolysis
I corrected some errors in the fructolysis section (previously claimed that initial metabolism produces fructose-1,6-biphosphate) and added a link to the fructolysis page. I think large sections here are redundant with the fructolysis page and could be scrapped. Also, the further metabolic processes discussed (glycogen and triglyceride synthesis) are not intimately related to fructose, and are described on separate pages, and should probably be removed. Rollowicz (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of topic info in intro
This seems out of place to me: "Sucrose is a disaccharide with a molecule of glucose and a molecule of fructose bonded together with a glycosidic linkage. Most modern fruits and vegetables have been bred to have much higher sugar content than the wild plants they are descended from." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.189.112.118 (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I deleted both sentances. Kduckworth (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)kate

Figure 1 is incorrect
The beta D fructose in Figure 1 is incorrect. See http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruktos for the correct image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htreadup (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The image used as Figure 1 (File:Fructose-isomers.jpg) does not have anything labeled "beta D fructose". Can you be more specific about which image is your concern?  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the figure is actually of Tagatose, not Fructose, and needs to be removed or replaced with the correct figure. AJRobbins (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Increased fructose associates with elevated blood pressure. --
Jalal DI, Smits G, Johnson RJ, Chonchol M.

Increased fructose associates with elevated blood pressure.

J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010 Sep;21(9):1543-9. Epub 2010 Jul 1.

Free PMC Article

http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=20595676

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/20595676/?tool=pubmed

Abstract

The recent increase in fructose consumption in industrialized nations mirrors the rise in the prevalence of hypertension, but epidemiologic studies have inconsistently linked these observations. We investigated whether increased fructose intake from added sugars associates with an increased risk for higher BP levels in US adults without a history of hypertension. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using the data collected from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2003 to 2006) involving 4528 adults without a history of hypertension. Median fructose intake was 74 g/d, corresponding to 2.5 sugary soft drinks each day. After adjustment for demographics; comorbidities; physical activity; total kilocalorie intake; and dietary confounders such as total carbohydrate, alcohol, salt, and vitamin C intake, an increased fructose intake of > or =74 g/d independently and significantly associated with higher odds of elevated BP levels: It led to a 26, 30, and 77% higher risk for BP cutoffs of > or =135/85, > or =140/90, and > or =160/100 mmHg, respectively. These results suggest that high fructose intake, in the form of added sugar, independently associates with higher BP levels among US adults without a history of hypertension. Comment in

Free PMC Article

http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=20595676

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/20595676/?tool=pubmed

99.190.133.143 (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Increased fructose associates with elevated blood pressure. --
Jalal DI, Smits G, Johnson RJ, Chonchol M.

Increased fructose associates with elevated blood pressure.

J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010 Sep;21(9):1543-9. Epub 2010 Jul 1.

Free PMC Article

http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=20595676

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/20595676/?tool=pubmed

Abstract

The recent increase in fructose consumption in industrialized nations mirrors the rise in the prevalence of hypertension, but epidemiologic studies have inconsistently linked these observations. We investigated whether increased fructose intake from added sugars associates with an increased risk for higher BP levels in US adults without a history of hypertension. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using the data collected from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2003 to 2006) involving 4528 adults without a history of hypertension. Median fructose intake was 74 g/d, corresponding to 2.5 sugary soft drinks each day. After adjustment for demographics; comorbidities; physical activity; total kilocalorie intake; and dietary confounders such as total carbohydrate, alcohol, salt, and vitamin C intake, an increased fructose intake of > or =74 g/d independently and significantly associated with higher odds of elevated BP levels: It led to a 26, 30, and 77% higher risk for BP cutoffs of > or =135/85, > or =140/90, and > or =160/100 mmHg, respectively. These results suggest that high fructose intake, in the form of added sugar, independently associates with higher BP levels among US adults without a history of hypertension. Comment in

Free PMC Article

http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=20595676

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/20595676/?tool=pubmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Gout citation
"Gout" section: Today I added a citation for the non-cited mention of a "recent" British Medical Journal article linking fructose consumption with incidence of gout. By searching online, I found a 2008 BMJ study that fits nicely with the assertion made; then re-wrote the sentence to express more precisely the conclusion of this study, but I cannot say for certain whether I located the same study that the author of that sentence had in mind. Reverence Still (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Health Effects Re Diabetics : esp in re fructose and hypoglycemia
The descriptions of effects of fructose upon diabetics, addressed briefly within a few different sub-sections of the "Health Effects" section, seem to have been written by multiple people of differing views. Which of course they were. Would a knowledgeable person please helpfully review and re-write these sub-sections to be more clear and consistent on the topic of fructose's effect on diabetics? Reverence Still (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This section (and the page, more or less, as well) note that fructose ingestion has little effect on blood glucose levels. The saccharide page states otherwise. This conflict should be resolved. Any volunteers who know the subject? It's rather an important issue for diabetics who may have the impression that fruit juice is a quick, and quickly absorbed, mitigant in cases of hypoglycemia. Those aiding them often have similar impressions. Not a good situation. 69.125.193.249 (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Compared to sucrose
The claim that sucrose and high fructose corn syrup have similar physiological effects seems to be overstating the conclusion cited in the subsequent sentences. Melanson et. al found that HFCS and sucrose are similar in the short term but "Longer-term studies on connections between HFCS, potential mechanisms, and body weight have not been conducted". Hence, the statement in this section must have a smaller scope (i.e. the short term physiological effects of HFCS and sucrose appear to be similar. However, long term studies have yet to be conducted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin.momii (talk • contribs) 01:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over claims made in a reference
If a claim is made in the article and it's backed up by a reference and you don't like the claim then you need to find another reference that disputes the original reference. If you disagree with the reference you need to find something that contradicts it. Your opinion would not be a valid claim to contradict the reference. If you have a dispute with the authors of a study WP is not the place to hash out your disagreement. The claims made in the following paragraph are backed up by the reference:


 * Fructose is a reducing sugar, as are all monosaccharides. The spontaneous chemical reaction of simple sugar molecules binding to proteins, known as glycation, is thought to be a significant cause of damage in diabetics. Fructose appears to be equivalent to glucose in this regard and so does not seem to be a better answer for diabetes for this reason alone, save for the smaller quantities required to achieve equivalent sweetness in some foods.

Adding things to the claim that are not in the reference simply because you don't agree with the results of the study used in the reference is inappropriate. Find a study that contradicts what's in the paragraph but don't edit the paragraph by adding irrelevant claims. The reference that is used makes no mention of rats being used as test subjects therefore adding the claim that the effects described in the article were observed in rats is irrelevant. If you have another study that makes the same claim using a rat model then add it to the article but don't change the original claim in the paragraph. Dr. Morbius (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Title of the Levi and Werman study already used in the paragraph before my edits is: Long-Term Fructose Consumption Accelerates Glycation and Several Age-Related Variables in Male Rats. Quoting from the paper, Discussion paragraph 4: This study demonstrates that long-term fructose feeding accelerates aging as expressed by changes in various age-related markers measured in collagen from skin and bones.


 * Making interpretation about any fructose effect on human metabolism or skin/bone health is simply conjecture, so must be stated as such for the common lay reader of this article. The tone of this paragraph is that fructose consumption is linked to diabetes, which, by scientific evaluation, is preposterous and only preliminarily tested.


 * The McPherson article was correctly cited as evidence for the potential -- but not proven -- effect on proteins, as that study was only an in vitro analysis of such effects, so is also preliminary and unsubstantiated for any interpretation about diabetes.


 * I suggest you re-read the paragraph and its references, and, if still confused, submit the issue for dispute resolution.--Zefr (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The original edits that you did did not use that reference. The original claim that was there that used the Werman reference was about senescence not about glycation. You then edited the claim that was about glycation and misrepresented that it was about rats while using the Mcpherson reference. Dr. Morbius (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fructans
Under Food Sources it states.... "Fructose exists in foods either as a free monosaccharide or bound to glucose as sucrose, a disaccharide"

What about when it exists as a fructan? According to Wikipedia a Fructan is is "a polymer of fructose molecules".

"Fructans with a short chain length are known as fructooligosaccharides, whereas longer chain fructans are termed inulins. Fructans occur in foods such as agave, artichokes, asparagus, leeks, garlic, onions (including spring onions), yacon, jícama, and wheat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructooligosaccharide

CompassKT (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oranges
I'd be interested in seeing oranges or orange juice in the list. In fact, I think a juices list would be very useful. -Reticuli 65.29.194.159 (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The UC Davis study
Interesting. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/ -Reticuli 65.29.194.159 (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"may promote overeating"
This is incorrect reasoning. If fructose does not stimulate satiety, the only thing that can be said is that it does not discourage overeating. There is no logic in the statement "fructose may not influence metabolic activity or blood flow in brain regions regulating satiety" that can lead to the conclusion that it "may promote overeating." A correctly-reasoned statement would be "may not discourage overeating." Put another way, there is nothing in the precedent statement that indicates that fructose may cause someone to eat more. It just may not cause them to eat less. 99.6.194.122 (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The two statements are logically equivalent. You're just introducing a double negative.108.131.127.169 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, they're not logically equivalent. It is true that "causes to eat more" entails "does not cause to eat less", but the converse is not true, since something might have neither effect, that is, might neither cause to eat more nor cause to eat less (and many things probably fall into that category, in fact). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.189.221 (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add ball and stick diagram
It would be immensely helpful for me (and I'm sure other users) if someone could upload a ball and stick diagram in the infobox to the right. See Glucose or Aspartame as examples.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.44.132 (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. I did it a few months ago, but thought I'd reply for completion. That kiwi guy (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

table may be incorrect
The table "Carbohydrate content of commercial sweeteners" seems to be inconsistent. In some cases (e.g., granulated sugar) the sucrose column clearly includes the values from the fructose and glucose columns, and in other cases (e.g., HFCS) it clearly doesn't. This should be corrected, and it might also help clarify things to label the first two columns to clarify whether they're free vs. total fructose and glucose. Inhumandecency (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of fructose absorption with/without presence of glucose
The article currently states: "When fructose is ingested as part of the disaccharide sucrose, absorption capacity is much higher because fructose exists in a 1:1 ratio with glucose. It appears that the GLUT5 transfer rate may be saturated at low levels, and absorption is increased through joint absorption with glucose." If the absorption were increased due to the 1:1 fructose to glucose ratio, then it would seem that fructose absorption would also increase if it were ingested in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) assuming it were a variety with 50% of each fructose and glucose. If the conclusion of the last sentence is true, then the section should be reworded so that it does not single out sucrose, i.e. it should state that both sucrose and HFCS increase fructose absorption. If this is not true, then the explanation "absorption capacity is much higher because fructose exists in a 1:1 ratio with glucose" should be changed. I do not have the background to confidently make the change. 66.91.252.195 (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fructose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130506000507/http://www.chemie.uni-regensburg.de/Organische_Chemie/Didaktik/Keusch/D-fermentation_sugar-e.htm to http://www.chemie.uni-regensburg.de/Organische_Chemie/Didaktik/Keusch/D-fermentation_sugar-e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fructose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How is fructose pronounced? I've heard it mostly as /fr oo k'tose/, although I've also heard it occasionally as /fr u k'tose/. It would be nice to add the IPA pronunciation to the lede sentence. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Fructose metabolism without oxygen
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/20/524511231/researchers-find-yet-another-reason-why-naked-mole-rats-are-just-weird What is the pathway, it must be similar to the Cori cycle which can generate energy from glucose by converting it to lactic acid without oxygen. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Food sources
Below Table 1 it reads: "The fructose/glucose ratio is calculated by dividing the sum of free fructose plus half sucrose by the sum of free glucose plus half sucrose."

So the ratio is always 1?

213.127.56.207 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Citation roughly contradicts the claim it was cited as support for.
This article stated that fructose "may" cause cardiovascular disease and diabetes, citing a journal article (Rippe, James M.; Angelopoulos, Theodore J. (2015-07-01). "Fructose-containing sugars and cardiovascular disease" (CVD). Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.). 6 (4): 430–439). In fact, that article found "levels within the normal range of human consumption are not uniquely related to CVD risk factors," noting only that triglycerides, which are linked to cardio-vascular disease and diabetes, "may rise ... when simple sugars exceed 20% of energy per day, particularly in hypercaloric settings." As cited, this Wikipedia article would imply that the source contributes to concerns of a possible link between normal consumption of fructose and diseases such as diabetes and CVD, when the opposite is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.220.10 (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Mischaracterization of the "European Food Safety Authority" paper
The article says "An expert panel of the European Food Safety Authority concluded that fructose is preferred in food and beverage manufacturing to replace sucrose and glucose due to the lower effect of fructose on blood glucose levels following a meal." However, that's not at all what the paper from EFSA says. This wording isn't supported by the EFSA paper, which is much more narrow.

The wording in the wikipedia entry suggests that fructose should be preferred in the preparation of foodstuffs because it lowers blood glucose levels after a meal. In contrast, EFSA paper is a narrow conclusion of a request to evaluate precise health claims about fructose. ESFA concludes that the precise wording "Consumption of fructose leads to a lower blood glucose rise than consumption of sucrose or glucose" is scientifically accurate, but does not then go on to recommend that foodstuffs be prepared with fructose instead of glucose or other sugars.

THE EFSA paper also very explicitly warns about the consequences of high fructose consumption: "The Panel notes that high intakes of fructose may lead to metabolic complications such as dyslipidaemia, insulin resistance and increased visceral adiposity.". The wording of the wikipedia article fails to mention such concerns and creates an impression that an expert government-level authority has blessed fructose as strictly better than other sugars, which is harmful to the general public as there is ample scientific evidence that fructose increases food consumption and body fat, through suppression of the satiety signal and other processes. See e.g. for a review.


 * The section on Potential health effects explains the issue adequately: in isocaloric amounts, fructose is not an independent factor for weight gain or disease [refs 10, 54], but its excessive consumption – as for any sweetener – adds calories and promotes weight gain, which can be a risk factor for the diseases mentioned [refs 54-58]. The EFSA panel (article here) concluded in the abstract: (quote) "The Panel considers that in order to bear the claim, glucose or sucrose should be replaced by fructose in sugar sweetened foods or beverages. The target population is individuals who wish to reduce their post-prandial glycaemic responses," leading to its main conclusion (end of article): "The following wording reflects the scientific evidence: "Consumption of fructose leads to a lower blood glucose rise than consumption of sucrose or glucose. In order to bear the claim, glucose or sucrose should be replaced by fructose in sugar-sweetened foods or beverages. The target population is individuals who wish to reduce their post-prandial glycaemic responses." --Zefr (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply! I think there might be a confusion about the role and purpose of the EFSA paper: it's not a recommendation about which sugars should be used in foodstuffs, but rather a decision about whether a specific marketing claim about food products is sufficiently grounded in science to allow food producers in the European Union to make it.


 * In 2006, the European Parliament passed regulation 1924/2006 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006R1924&from=en) imposing limits on health claims that food manufacturers may advertise in their products. The process for determining which claims are allowed is described in Commission Regulation 432/2012 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32012R0432&from=EN). It works as follows: the European Commission compiles a list of candidate claims, then it submits them to EFSA which provides an expert opinion on whether the claim is scientifically valid. If so, it is allowed. Within the framework of this process, EFSA was asked whether the claim that "Consumption of foods containing fructose leads to a lower blood glucose rise compared to foods containing sucrose or glucose" is backed by science, which led to the paper we are discussing. EFSA agreed that this claim is scientifically verified but that "In order to bear the claim, glucose and/or sucrose should be replaced by fructose in sugar-sweetened foods or drinks so that the reduction in content of glucose and/or sucrose, in these foods or drinks, is at least 30 %." -- see the ANNEX in regulation 536/2013 of the European Union https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32013R0536&from=EN#d1e32-7-1, where this specific language is approved with said proviso.


 * In other words, the EFSA paper is not a recommendation for fructose to substitute other sweeteners, but rather a very narrow opinion about whether a marketing claim on food products is sufficiently based on our scientific understanding to allow food producers to make it in the European Union.


 * In light of this, I suggest changing the wording in the Wikipedia article to something like "An expert panel from the EFSA deemed that 'consumption of foods …' is an allowable marketing claim for food products provided that in such products the content of other sugars is reduced by at least 30%"... though at that point I am not sure it is even worth mentioning this in the article.


 * My own opinion is that the claim itself, while scientifically valid, is misleading. Yes, fructose raises blood glucose less, but this obscures the many adverse health effects of fructose found in the scientific literature. I think that's why EFSA felt compelled to add an important caveat in their paper, that "The Panel notes that high intakes of fructose may lead to metabolic complications such as dyslipidaemia, insulin resistance and increased visceral adiposity.".


 * Whether or not fructose causes metabolic damage beyond its caloric value (e.g. whether "a calorie is a calorie" or not) is outside the scope of the current discussion point, so I will leave it there for now and possibly start a different (non-EFSA) topic on that.


 * Thanks again for your diligence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.139.140 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We can let other editors evaluate, but my feeling is the article is factual, succinct, and well-documented on this issue as it is. You say there are "many adverse health effects of fructose found in the scientific literature," which I would dispute. There are many misunderstandings of fructose in the literature and public media, but expert positions - whether the FDA, EFSA, or the several WP:MEDREV reviews used in the article - correctly state that fructose (like any sweetener) is a problem only if over-consumed. --Zefr (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I would find that the paper is entirely misleading unless it can show that it was controlled against sucrose, given that sucrose is, by definition Fructose and Glucose chemically bonded together forming a disacharide sugar. Thus it inherently follows that proper methodology should show very little to no differences between Fructose and Sucrose. The reference material does not appear to have done this, and therefore would fail even the most nominal peer review standards for that reason alone, making it an unreliable scientific reference. 98.178.179.240 (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

simple chemistry question
Hi all, in the diagram here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skeletal_Structure_of_Cyclic_D-Fructose.svg between the C and the various OH there are dashed bars and solid bars indicating the connection is down and up (I think), but what is the wormy squiggle of the OH near the O? 79.75.120.145 (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Downsides exist
The European Food Safety Authority stated that fructose may be preferable over sucrose and glucose in sugar-sweetened foods and beverages because of its lower effect on postprandial blood sugar levels, while also noting the potential downside that "high intakes of fructose may lead to metabolic complications such as dyslipidaemia, insulin resistance, and increased visceral adiposity".

I just expanded a bland and anodyne "noting" into the bold text above.

Good lord, I know all about the relentless industriousness of regulatory capture, and that balance in this domain is therefore a perennial pipe dream, but can we not at least agree that "preferable" in the front half of this sentence must—by the laws of equal and opposite forces—be buttressed by "downside" in the back half of this same sentence? At least that much? &mdash; MaxEnt 17:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Irreconcilable
First story:

The European Food Safety Authority stated that fructose may be preferable over sucrose and glucose in sugar-sweetened foods and beverages because of its lower effect on postprandial blood sugar levels, while also noting the potential downside that "high intakes of fructose may lead to metabolic complications such as dyslipidaemia, insulin resistance, and increased visceral adiposity".

Second story:

The UK's Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition in 2015 disputed the claims of fructose causing metabolic disorders, stating that "there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that fructose intake, at levels consumed in the normal UK diet, leads to adverse health outcomes independent of any effects related to its presence as a component of total and free sugars."

From the SACN study cited:

It is important to note that in these trials participants consumed sugars-sweetened beverages containing high doses of either pure fructose or pure glucose (25–30% of their daily energy intake).

However, with the exception of certain fruit juices which contain high doses of pure glucose or fructose, glucose and fructose are not commonly consumed in large amounts independent of each other within the normal diet.

Instead they are primarily consumed as components of sucrose or high fructose corn syrups (or honey or other commercial glucose/fructose mixes).

Sucrose consists of 50% glucose and 50% fructose and honey and most HFCS and other commercial syrups contain glucose and fructose in ratios broadly similar to sucrose.

The body absorbs free fructose and glucose, or the same sugars derived from sucrose and HFCS, in exactly the same way.

Therefore it appears unlikely that fructose, as consumed as a component of most HFCS or other glucose-fructose syrups, causes metabolic abnormalities or promotes weight gain more than other sugars consumed in an isocaloric diet ...

So basically, the second story is that "fructose intake" (as opposed to fructose itself) in the "normal" UK diet is considered non-problematic because fructose intake almost always involves a similar monosaccharide profile (half fructose, half glucose) as sucrose intake, and therefore "fructose intake" and sucrose intake are coarsely equivalent in all major metabolic domains.

Yet the first story is that fructose/fructose intake is not equivalent in all major metabolic domains because one can observe "lower effect on postprandial blood sugar levels" in the case of fructose over sucrose.

Help me Obi Wan Kenobi, I'm being devoured by the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog.

King Aurthur: "Run Away!"

Always good advice when you're already this hot under the collar within five minutes of first lead encounter. &mdash; MaxEnt 18:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism in the Health-section of the article
So I saw that the section concerning the impact on health in this languageof the wiki is old, outdated and simply wrong in some regards. I know a good deal about this, as it was subject of some of my studies while graduating. I looked in the history and there were attempts to change it to recent and researched info, but someone keeps deleting edits rigorously. I asked the support, but they just said, I shoudl edit the article. And if something comes up, I should start a "talk". I hereby did that. Before i came here, I edited the section, using sources like the EFSA, jounals and meta-studies. But it was reverted anyway, by the same user, that keeps doing that for years.

The english fructose article is one of the few false ones. I checked several other languages, they used some of my and other sources. How can we resolve this. Its pretty annoying to put hours of reading and work into it just to have someone press the button and delete it. Regards A.Quaigon (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This edit and summary are not vandalism, but rather challenge your view, and provide accurate representation of the EFSA findings. Your sources were from primary research, which the encyclopedia does not use for articles concerning human health and diseases. You are a new user - read WP:MEDRS for the quality of sources needed. Also review WP:CITEWATCH which discourages use of MDPI publications as suspected of predatory practices. The preponderance of evidence is that excessive sugar consumption causes metabolic diseases, while the isolated consumption of fructose alone causing diseases is not supported by MEDRS reviews (remains under preliminary research), such as this example. The 2022 EFSA review concluded that research did "not support a positive relationship between the intake of dietary sugars, in isocaloric exchange with other macronutrients, and any of the chronic metabolic diseases or pregnancy-related endpoints assessed". Zefr (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You dont need to challenger my view. I was simply trying to help. Clearly you are better at finding sources and evaluation them. I invite you then, to engage in 200hrs+ in research on fructose, metabolism, endocrinology and health and then conclude, that the part about "Health impact of Fructose" needs to be updated to reflect the scientific consens. You remove sources as "under the suspicion of predatory practices" which are somehow OK for all languages but english. I had to look into that and only found an old blog that mentioned that. YET you "defend" a Sievenpiper quote, a scientist who was openly discredited for working for the coka cola company and openly admitting, that he should not do that, yet its "good money". So this can go two ways. You can help me fix this article OR I will over the course of the next months, whenever I have time, read up on sources deemed trustworthy and correct this sentence by sentence.
 * thank you for your time A.Quaigon (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on review literature and regulatory agencies responsible for food safety in the EU, UK, USA, and numerous other developed countries where sweetened foods are manufactured, the content of the article is accurate as it is, i.e., excessive sugar consumption (including fructose, often the preferred sugar for manufactured foods) increases the risk of several diseases, whereas the evidence for an isolated effect of fructose on disease origin is too preliminary to include in the encyclopedia at this point - it remains speculation.
 * Other editors can chime in on the issue per WP:CON. Meanwhile, keep reading and watch for food safety announcements, if they occur, for revised recommendations on food manufacturing concerning use of fructose. Government agencies have the responsibility to the public for the health impact of manufactured foods, and changes in their positions about fructose would be major worldwide news. Zefr (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, so waiting till scientific evidence and consens reaches the official institutions is the way to go in regards to publicly educate the poeople, yes? Like with climate change and smoking, which both took 20 years plus. And just like with these two, the established industries try their best to keep this information hidden. It was proven for tabacco and fossil fuels and is now for the nutrition-industry as shown for example by D Stuckler. There is even a meta-analysis that links funding of research-findings with whom is funding the researchers.
 * But its fine. Smoking and climate change killed millions of humans and are still going strong due to poeple like you. All this is preventible by simply educating the general public. You are gatekeeping knowledge. A.Quaigon (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)