Jump to content

Talk:Fructose: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
(292 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
What do you mean that some people react badly to fructose??
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Food and drink|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Chemicals|core|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|MCB=yes|MCB-importance=High|attention=no}}
}}


== Presence in semen, and as proof in rape cases ==


Semen is the only human product that contains any appreciable amount of fructose. For this reason it is a "marker" in rape cases. The logical place in Wikipedia for this information is in this article.[[Special:Contributions/38.104.70.30|38.104.70.30]] ([[User talk:38.104.70.30|talk]]) 22:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)captcrisis


== Talk topic on contradictory information from EFSA's perspective? ==
==Full blown misguided views on health effects==


In Potential health effects section, there is a Self-contradictory template that states:
I added a NPOV warning for the following reasons :


{{Blockquote
Full blown misguided studies/articles about health effects :
|{{Self-contradictory|about=the EFSA's perspective, in summary, regarding fructose, please compare to the lead|1=section|date=March 2023}}
Why would fructose cause obesity if it's slower to digest than sacharose and also more sweeter for less calories, and also les likely to drive any addiction, the study about obesity is absolutly ridiculous and should ne withdrawn from that page! And the other healt effect can be submited to the same considerations!
}}


I'm guessing [[Talk:Fructose/Archive 2#Mischaracterization of the %22European Food Safety Authority%22 paper|this is the mentioned talk post]], which was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fructose&diff=prev&oldid=1141423162 archived back in Feb 2023], before the Mar 2023 mentioned in the template.
More considerations about health effect of fructose may be described as detrimental by the sugar industry because it makes huge profit on the addictive properties of glucose and sucrose that are often detrimental to the health because of poor mineral content, trigering insuline rush through hypo/hyper glycemia vicious cycles! In reallity fructose is much healtier than glucose and sucrose because :


Should a new topic be started, or the existing one unarchived, or the template removed? As a casual user, I found it a bit confusing to figure out where to get more details, with there just being the one topic above that was left unarchived. But also not familiar enough with WP editing to know if it's normal to reference archived talk posts in the article. [[User:Pb7280|Pb7280]] ([[User talk:Pb7280|talk]]) 23:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- it's slower to digest therefore the pancreatic function is not overloaded, as a side effect it's very much tolerated by diabetic people!
- because it's often absorbed with fruits it's associated with many highly valuable nutriments!
- because fructose (the sugar of fruits in most cases) has been arround humans and ancestors for million of years (we know something about roots sugar just from industrial time) the human body is very much acclimated to fructose consumption, and fructose can be considered for historical reasons to be the main physiological sugar for oral consumption.
- nowdays we eat about 100 times more sugar than our ancestors 200 years ago!


:The challenge from the March 2023 talk page about whether a controversy exists within the EFSA opinion was raised by an IP editor whose interpretation was incorrect. There is no controversy.
We recall here that huge profit are made from addictive substances, sucrose/glucose can easily become addictive with many consequences : diabetis, tooth decay, probably hyper-activity and some burst of violence actually the main recommendation for glucose absorbtion is before an intense burst of physical activity! Not everyday for most people.
:I removed the "contradicton box" with other minor edits, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Fructose&diff=prev&oldid=1154362574 here.] [[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 00:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


== Relative sweetness: weight or mole basis? ==


It is important to say whether sweetness is compared on a molar or weight basis. If the basis is weight as I suspect, the enhanced sweetness of fructose over glucose could be explained by the fact that its molecular weight is about half that of sucrose. Hydrolysis of sucrose would have a smaller effect on sweetness, as only half the weight of sucrose is converted to fructose with greater sweetness, while the other half is converted to glucose with lesser sweetness.[[User:Eaberry|Eaberry]] ([[User talk:Eaberry|talk]]) 15:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
:Just because you don't agree with the article, it doesn't mean that it is biased. The linked study does not appear unscientific to me. If indeed a diet high in fructose leads to obesity in laboratory animals, and the same effect is considered likely in humans, then this is certainly worth mentioning in Wikipedia. --[[User:221.249.13.34|221.249.13.34]] 05:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


:Did you mean 'sweetness of fructose over '''sucrose?''' That would be logical. However, the following reference says that fructose is twice as sweet on a molar basis:
::Agree with previous poster, just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's not true! And as for that posted study, there actually was *another* one done with mice conducted by the University of Cincinnati just recently that apparently also supported the view that fructose for some reason fosters fat creation. Matter of fact it was all over the news here at one point. http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2005/07/25/daily43.html <-is the first thing I've found about it. I actually with some effort managed to track down the article where they published their findings, but it's locked down behind one of those lame 'you need a subscription to view this article' sites. The study apparently compared mice drinking water, a sucrose sweetened commercial drink, and a mix of water and fructose. They apparently were rather suprised that both the soft drink and fructose water drinking mice actually ate less food than the mice with water, and thus the caloric intake ended up about the same. However, the fructose water mice gained a signifigant amount of weight versus the soft drink and water mice, apparently. From things I've read, they apparently also suggested that the recent obesity epidemic was caused by the introduction of 'high fructose corn syrup' to drinks. The industry didn't like that, and from what I've read I gather they attacked the study methods as well as the fact that the 'fructose water' used pure fructose, whereas they do not. That's two studies now that indiciate that fructose *by itself* anyway can cause increased fat creation versus normal sucrose. The best thing in this instance is to remember to step back and look at all sides. The article already mentions the effects with diabetics, and in facts states that it is 'hypothesized' that it *might* cause obesity. I really, really don't see any NPOV Problems with this article, tell the truth. And the article *also* mentions that fructose is generally found 'in combination with sucrose and glucose.' I've heard, though not personally seen, that studies have been done which show that the addition of glucose vastly reduced this effect. However, the article is about fructose itself, and as the views you oppose are presented as mere supposition, I don't understand how there's a NPOV Problem. -Graptor
:by DT Cason · 1987 · Cited by 46 — Fructose is a very sweet sugar and on a molar basis is twice as sweet as sucrose ...
:I haven't read enough to have confidence in that answer so I haven't edited the article. [[User:SciberDoc|SciberDoc]] ([[User talk:SciberDoc|talk]]) 15:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


== Edit of table needed, please help if you have the skill required ==
== Structures of L Forms ==
I have removed these structures from the article because they seem incorrect to me. They are not mirror images of the &alpha;-D and &beta;-D forms. The two "front-most" hydroxyls need to be "flipped". I think that the strucures shown are not fructose at all, but some other ketohexose.


Table 1. Sugar content of selected common plant foods (g/100g
[[Image:Alpha-L-Fructose-structure.png|thumb|Supposed &alpha;-L-Fructose]] [[Image:Beta-L-Fructose-structure.png|thumb|Supposed &beta;-L-Fructose]]
The headings 'Fruits', 'Vegetables' and 'Grains' need deleting. They are inappropriate and in the wrong places. As the table can usefully be sorted, any division into fruits vegetables and grains is bound to go wrong depending which way it is sorted (unless each section sorted separately which would make comparisons harder between items in different categories).


I attempted to delete the headings but everything I tried broke the table display when I tried it in the sandbox. Help from someone skilled with tables would be appreciated. Thanks.
Oops, forgot to sign. [[User:Josh Cherry|Josh Cherry]] 00:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[[User:SciberDoc|SciberDoc]] ([[User talk:SciberDoc|talk]]) 14:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


== Absolute sweetness of fructose is identical at 5 °C as 50 °C? ==
I'm sorry about that, and taking a long time to fix it. I've updated the images, can they be included now? [[User:Sverdrup|{{User:Sverdrup/sig}}]] 08:16, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I was not able to find this information in the cited source (Lee, Thomas D. (1 January 2000). "Sweeteners". Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. doi:10.1002/0471238961.19230505120505.a01.pub2. ISBN 978-0471238966.). Does anyone know where did this information come from? [[Special:Contributions/182.255.32.46|182.255.32.46]] ([[User talk:182.255.32.46|talk]]) 04:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
They look right to me now. [[User:Josh Cherry|Josh Cherry]] 01:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


:Ok I found it, but in the "sugars" section, not "sweeteners". In fact I suspect that most of the citations of this source should be "sugars". The sweeteners part barely talked about fructose at all. [[Special:Contributions/182.255.32.46|182.255.32.46]] ([[User talk:182.255.32.46|talk]]) 04:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
These graphics are still incorrect. In each graphic, where ever CH3 or H3C is found, it should be CH2 or H2C respectively. Thank you for placing these graphics online.... but they need to be accurate before they are borrowed and end up on websites and student papers all over the world. [[User: Don DeWitt]] 1 Nov 2004

The same problem exists for the D-isomers. I have created revised images in Photoshop but I do not know how to upload them. The original author may wish to make these corrections and obviously knows how to do it. [[User: Don DeWitt]] 1 Nov 2004

One last thought. It would be very helpful if the carbons were numbered in all the graphics. [[User: Don DeWitt]] 1 Nov 2004





YAY FOR FRUCTOSE!!! THE BEST MONOSACCHRIDE EVER!!!!! YOU KNO IT!! ;)

Latest revision as of 04:10, 30 August 2024

Presence in semen, and as proof in rape cases

[edit]

Semen is the only human product that contains any appreciable amount of fructose. For this reason it is a "marker" in rape cases. The logical place in Wikipedia for this information is in this article.38.104.70.30 (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)captcrisis[reply]

Talk topic on contradictory information from EFSA's perspective?

[edit]

In Potential health effects section, there is a Self-contradictory template that states:

I'm guessing this is the mentioned talk post, which was archived back in Feb 2023, before the Mar 2023 mentioned in the template.

Should a new topic be started, or the existing one unarchived, or the template removed? As a casual user, I found it a bit confusing to figure out where to get more details, with there just being the one topic above that was left unarchived. But also not familiar enough with WP editing to know if it's normal to reference archived talk posts in the article. Pb7280 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge from the March 2023 talk page about whether a controversy exists within the EFSA opinion was raised by an IP editor whose interpretation was incorrect. There is no controversy.
I removed the "contradicton box" with other minor edits, here. Zefr (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relative sweetness: weight or mole basis?

[edit]

It is important to say whether sweetness is compared on a molar or weight basis. If the basis is weight as I suspect, the enhanced sweetness of fructose over glucose could be explained by the fact that its molecular weight is about half that of sucrose. Hydrolysis of sucrose would have a smaller effect on sweetness, as only half the weight of sucrose is converted to fructose with greater sweetness, while the other half is converted to glucose with lesser sweetness.Eaberry (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean 'sweetness of fructose over sucrose? That would be logical. However, the following reference says that fructose is twice as sweet on a molar basis:
by DT Cason · 1987 · Cited by 46 — Fructose is a very sweet sugar and on a molar basis is twice as sweet as sucrose ...
I haven't read enough to have confidence in that answer so I haven't edited the article. SciberDoc (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of table needed, please help if you have the skill required

[edit]

Table 1. Sugar content of selected common plant foods (g/100g The headings 'Fruits', 'Vegetables' and 'Grains' need deleting. They are inappropriate and in the wrong places. As the table can usefully be sorted, any division into fruits vegetables and grains is bound to go wrong depending which way it is sorted (unless each section sorted separately which would make comparisons harder between items in different categories).

I attempted to delete the headings but everything I tried broke the table display when I tried it in the sandbox. Help from someone skilled with tables would be appreciated. Thanks. SciberDoc (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute sweetness of fructose is identical at 5 °C as 50 °C?

[edit]

I was not able to find this information in the cited source (Lee, Thomas D. (1 January 2000). "Sweeteners". Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. doi:10.1002/0471238961.19230505120505.a01.pub2. ISBN 978-0471238966.). Does anyone know where did this information come from? 182.255.32.46 (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I found it, but in the "sugars" section, not "sweeteners". In fact I suspect that most of the citations of this source should be "sugars". The sweeteners part barely talked about fructose at all. 182.255.32.46 (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fructose&oldid=1243037112"