Sport What is Glucose-Fructose?
- Thread starter FoRenSiC
- Start date
Sport Fitness
First off, glucose+fructose is Sucrose. I think he was referring to their "combined" item. Not each item individually.
So to answer the OP's question...
Sucrose is just another diasaccharide. It naturally occurs in a number of edible items. Like everything els in the world. Moderation, is key. As with any other "sugar". To much of a good thing is bad...
Enters glycolysis at a later step? From my understanding of the "glycolysis" pathway. Fructose, must be converted to glucose in the liver. It does not directly enter the glycolysis process. I think you are confusing "fructose" with somthing of a simular name that comes in later stages of glucose's phosphorylation...
BTW, just wondering...Why did you even bring up the part I underlined? I didn't see him ask a question on metabolic pathways...
Last edited:
Hoss
1
What's your problem? You seem very agitated in your post. I know what sucrose is, which he didn't say. He said glucose-fructose. And if you can fully explain the complete mechanism of fructose absorption in the intestine, you should write a thesis because it's still yet to be done. And actually you use ATP to make fructose into fructose-6-phosphate which enters the process at the 2nd or 3rd step (I'm without my old texts at the moment). Yielding less ATP than a regular glucose would.
He is asking if it's good, good is general. If he wants simple ATP glucose is good, so is fructose. Glucose would be more efficient at delivering ATP. And if he was looking to avoid calories, fructose would be the better of the two.
He is asking if it's good, good is general. If he wants simple ATP glucose is good, so is fructose. Glucose would be more efficient at delivering ATP. And if he was looking to avoid calories, fructose would be the better of the two.
Agreed I dont think we needed to get as technical as you did big trev. IMO this is the crux of the matter.
Well if you knew more about glycolysis you would know the first step consumes ATP. You mention to convert fructose require one ATP but this is quite irrelevent as it bypasses the first ATP consuming reaction in glycolysis, so the total ATP is actually the same.
Hoss
1
The attachment of the phosphate from ATP (now ADP) not only converts the glucose to glucose-6-phosphate it also 'traps' glucose in the cell. Which might save energy, but I'm unsure. You are right though matt I did forget about the activation of the glucose molecule.
Either way, fructose is poorly absorbed by most people, less ATP lol..
Either way, fructose is poorly absorbed by most people, less ATP lol..
Hoss
1
And Trevor, just incase you decide to pick apart my reply again. Realize I understand the absorbtion of fructose, to the transport to the liver, and the metbolism by fructokinase to fructose-1-phosphate. Then adolaseB forms glyceraldehyde and dihydroxacetone phosphate. No I don't know it all in detail, and I prob mixed some things up or spelled everything wrong, but I understand. It's just easier to skip the liver step since it wasn't exactly what we were talking about..
Gentlemen, I think all parties should take a step back, take a deep breath, and relax.
I read the OP's question and I could see how it could be interpreted to ask what is glucose, what is fructose and what is the combined molecule, sucrose. OP: There is no such thing as glucose-fructose. Please clarify, did you mean glucose, did you mean fructose, or did you mean the disaccharide, sucrose (table sugar) (which consists of both monosaccharides, glucose and fructose)?
I suggest that all parties let the OP clarify his/her original question before continuing...
BTW, I have two degress in biology and used to teach a nutrition class years ago at a community college and am impressed with ya'll's knowledge of glycolysis. I certainly couldn't recite the intermediaries of glycolysis without checking my notes first.
I read the OP's question and I could see how it could be interpreted to ask what is glucose, what is fructose and what is the combined molecule, sucrose. OP: There is no such thing as glucose-fructose. Please clarify, did you mean glucose, did you mean fructose, or did you mean the disaccharide, sucrose (table sugar) (which consists of both monosaccharides, glucose and fructose)?
I suggest that all parties let the OP clarify his/her original question before continuing...
BTW, I have two degress in biology and used to teach a nutrition class years ago at a community college and am impressed with ya'll's knowledge of glycolysis. I certainly couldn't recite the intermediaries of glycolysis without checking my notes first.
Last edited:
What was the ' context ' of the discussion ...some aspect of sports nutrition ?
Apologies merik, didn't mean to come off as "agitated". I had to type it up in like less then a minute or two because I had to be going.
I wasn't directing the sucrose part at you. I know you know what that is lol. That was meant directly for the OP.
The other part was directed towards you. As, I didn't understand that part of your post at the time. Didn't read it carefully enough is all.
I wasn't "picking" apart your post at all.
Would love to talk more about this. However, I have to be off again...Sigh...
Wish there was more of this type of discussion here
.
.
I wasn't directing the sucrose part at you. I know you know what that is lol. That was meant directly for the OP.
The other part was directed towards you. As, I didn't understand that part of your post at the time. Didn't read it carefully enough is all.
I wasn't "picking" apart your post at all.
Correct, I believe it was 2ATP molecules?
Would love to talk more about this. However, I have to be off again...Sigh...
Wish there was more of this type of discussion here
..
are you in canada by any chance?
because in canada i believe they use "glucose-fructose" on ingredients list instead of hfcs.
("Glucose/fructose is a generic term for high fructose corn syrup or HFCS." quoted from )
so if you happen to be in Canada, then you should avoid it.
because in canada i believe they use "glucose-fructose" on ingredients list instead of hfcs.
("Glucose/fructose is a generic term for high fructose corn syrup or HFCS." quoted from )
so if you happen to be in Canada, then you should avoid it.
Last edited:
Yep in the first half 2 ATP is consumed, likewise in the second half, but because fructose-1,6 bisphosphate (i think thats right spelling) splits into two the net result is 2 ATP, as well as 2NADH.
Are you studying this or something trevor? and by the way how did you change your name from silent, i want to change mine, can you do that mods?
Are you studying this or something trevor? and by the way how did you change your name from silent, i want to change mine, can you do that mods?
and by the way how did you change your name from silent, i want to change mine, can you do that mods?
He made a new one
Yeah we were talking about nutrition, then sports. So it kind of ended up to talking about that.
And yes I do live in Canada.
The ingredient "Glucose-Fructose" appears as an ingredient in some things. Also "Fructose" and "Glucose" (both just alone) also appear on some ingredients. I was hoping to see which is good and which is bad and all that, whats the diffrence?
I didn't want to turn this into a huge argument.
No one is arguing.
I'm not quite sure what "Glucose-fructose" would mean in that situation. I would think it is either sucrose or more likely high fructose corn syrup.
Glucose and fructose are both monosaccharides. Other wise known as "Simple sugars". These are the most "basic" of all carbohydrate "structures".
You could think of "simple sugars" like paper clips. Glucose, for example. Would be a single paperclip. But, if glucose and fructose were to "bond". They would create "sucrose" or become two paper clips locked together. The length of this "chain" determines (along with other factors) the rate of digestion. Because, these paperclips (sugars) have to be unclipped (broken down) into the most simplest form (glucose). Here comes into play the GI of a food. The GI basically gives us an idea of how fast a carbohydrate breakdown and enters the blood stream. A sudden rise in blood sugar causes a hormone (originating from the pancreas beta cells) called insulin to help direct this Blood glucose to sites in the body that can "absorb" it, such as muscle tissue. Thus, lowering blood sugar.
A high or excessive consumption of simple sugars(along with other factors) can lead to insulin hyposensivity, and/or retarded insulin production (type 2 diabetes). Along with a number of other health problems.
Meaning? They can both be "bad" as all other things in this world can.
The key like most things else. Is truly moderation.
Hope that helps clear things up for you. If not, just let us know.
I'm not quite sure what "Glucose-fructose" would mean in that situation. I would think it is either sucrose or more likely high fructose corn syrup.
Glucose and fructose are both monosaccharides. Other wise known as "Simple sugars". These are the most "basic" of all carbohydrate "structures".
You could think of "simple sugars" like paper clips. Glucose, for example. Would be a single paperclip. But, if glucose and fructose were to "bond". They would create "sucrose" or become two paper clips locked together. The length of this "chain" determines (along with other factors) the rate of digestion. Because, these paperclips (sugars) have to be unclipped (broken down) into the most simplest form (glucose). Here comes into play the GI of a food. The GI basically gives us an idea of how fast a carbohydrate breakdown and enters the blood stream. A sudden rise in blood sugar causes a hormone (originating from the pancreas beta cells) called insulin to help direct this Blood glucose to sites in the body that can "absorb" it, such as muscle tissue. Thus, lowering blood sugar.
A high or excessive consumption of simple sugars(along with other factors) can lead to insulin hyposensivity, and/or retarded insulin production (type 2 diabetes). Along with a number of other health problems.
Meaning? They can both be "bad" as all other things in this world can.
The key like most things else. Is truly moderation.
Hope that helps clear things up for you. If not, just let us know.
After a bit of research...
glucose/fructose is used in North America as a sweetener, primarily in soft drinks and juice drinks. It contains the individual monomer simple sugars, glucose and fructose, in approximately equal proportions, but is not sucrose as the glucose and fructose molecules are not bound to each other.
There is an excellent article on the health detriment of drinking or eating too much of this stuff,
As Trevor mentioned, minimize this in your diet...
I suspect the soft drink industry has jumped on the use of glucose/fructose (also called high fructose corn syrup) for PR benefits. The public, for the most part, has been convinced that sucrose (table sugar) is bad for you and fruits, which contain fructose, are good for you. And that is generally true. But, the major reason fruits are good for you is because of the limited amount of fructose in fruits and the other vitamins and fiber in fruits. A peach has approximately 4 g. of fructose, which is equal to about 16 calories. A soft drink has about 6 times this much for 100+ calories / 12 oz. can and of course doesn't have any fiber or other vitamins or nutrients.
glucose/fructose is used in North America as a sweetener, primarily in soft drinks and juice drinks. It contains the individual monomer simple sugars, glucose and fructose, in approximately equal proportions, but is not sucrose as the glucose and fructose molecules are not bound to each other.
There is an excellent article on the health detriment of drinking or eating too much of this stuff,
As Trevor mentioned, minimize this in your diet...
I suspect the soft drink industry has jumped on the use of glucose/fructose (also called high fructose corn syrup) for PR benefits. The public, for the most part, has been convinced that sucrose (table sugar) is bad for you and fruits, which contain fructose, are good for you. And that is generally true. But, the major reason fruits are good for you is because of the limited amount of fructose in fruits and the other vitamins and fiber in fruits. A peach has approximately 4 g. of fructose, which is equal to about 16 calories. A soft drink has about 6 times this much for 100+ calories / 12 oz. can and of course doesn't have any fiber or other vitamins or nutrients.
Last edited: