Yay validation

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/a...ex.xml?section

However there is a counter point

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=19

The counterpoint screwed up the p-value stuff in a big way...

I do wonder what the 24 hour vs 12 hour stuff is but I haven't read the study, needs a counter-counter point.

Hmm. Who's correct. Princeton researchers or a guy with a website who can't even grasp basic statistics. :surprised:

Here comes the science part!

Table sugar is composed of the disacceride fructose-glucose in a ratio 1:1
High fructose has more... fructose

In the body's cells, the first step that limits glucose metabolism glucose-1-phosphatase is the rate limiting step. Fructose jumps over this one and goes straight to fructose-6-phosphate and onwards, picking up the 1st phosphate group later on. This in turn creates a surplus of monosacceride metabolites in the cell, which are then dealt with by converting to fat.

The drain on phosphate in the cells can be enough to cause one to feel rather ill until the body has managed to deal with the sugar hit.

What I find interesting is that fructose tastes more sugary for a given amount yet has roughly half the calories.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

What I find interesting is that fructose tastes more sugary for a given amount yet has roughly half the calories.

---

Well playing the guessing game... Fructose is mainly found in fruits and similar; being a fruit eating species the distinction between little and a lot of fructose is the distinction between a poor and a rich meal. So it's not unthinkable that we've simply evolved to be extra sensitive to fructose.

That's true too. I was not thinking merely from an evolutionary standpoint, but more that animals / humans get fatter on something that on paper requires a lot less calories for the same amount of "sweetness".

~:smoking: