upvote
No. They're metabolically equivalent. "High fructose" corn syrup is "high" relative to normal corn syrup, not relative to sugar, some of the HFCS formulae in packaged food has less fructose than table sugar, and, most importantly, your body is a well-oiled machine at breaking down sucrose, which is cleaved enzymatically immediately upon it entering your gut; there's no material slowdown in digestion from eating sucrose.

(The key thing to remember is that sugar is bad for you; it's not that HFCS is good, but rather that cane sugar is just as harmful.)

Two fun additional notes:

* There's a video somewhere showing how cane sugar breaks down into fructose and glucose in bottled sodas anyways, and

* Perhaps unsurprisingly, taste testers can't reliably distinguish between HFCS and cane sugar formula Coke.

reply
I have a theory on this.

Yes, sugar breaks down to the same fructose and glucose proportion.

That takes months. Even longer in concentrated syrup form. Even longer in the one of two components that bottlers get to make the syrup.

A freshly bottled coke in a glass bottle still has the undivided sucrose and that is why it tastes more crisp. After a while, it separates and it doesn’t taste any better because it physically isn’t different.

A freshly bottled HFCS coke still tastes fresh in all other respects, but is essentially stale on day one as far as the sweetener goes.

But by far the best is a properly calibrated soda machine with fresh syrup— but it’s only really fresh if it is sucrose. Otherwise it’s basically stale before you even make it.

reply
Chemistry doesn't support your hypothesis. Sucrose rapidly decomposes into glucose and fructose via acid-catalysis. Coke is very acidic.

The half-life of sucrose in coke under good storage conditions is ~2 weeks[0]. Modestly higher temperatures, such as during transport, reduces that to hours. The internet suggests that that coke is typically consumed 4-12 weeks after manufacturing, depending on the supply chain. Even in the most optimistic scenario, no more than 25% of the sucrose remains when you drink it. Realistically, it will round to 0%. Almost no one has drank a coke that still had sucrose in it.

The process is slower than enzymatic catalysis in the body (seconds to minutes) but still quite fast.

[0] I used an LLM to run the math but the result passes a cursory eyeball test.

reply
(You mean that it takes months in the bottle; it's pretty much instant in the gut.)
reply
Under typical conditions the half-life of sucrose in coke is hours to a couple weeks via acid catalysis. In the body the half-life is seconds to minutes via enzymatic catalysis.

The half-life of sucrose is greatly reduced by acidity and to a lesser extent temperature. It is stable for centuries in a neutral pH when kept cool but that describes almost nothing we do with sugar in foods.

reply
Yeah, a big part of the flavor difference between Mexican Coke and American Coke really comes down to the extra sodium in the Mexican Coke variety.

You can get the US formula coke with cane sugar during Passover in markets with a high Jewish population. Taste it, it'll be practically the same as HFCS US Coke and not like Mexican Coke. Because, it has the same amount of salt as the US variety.

reply
The bigger difference, imo, is that Coke just tastes better out of a glass bottle. Orifice size and shape makes a big difference in taste and mouthfeel.
reply
I definitely agree that the container can make a big difference on how we can perceive beverages, and I don't doubt it's a part of the experience fans of Mexican coke enjoy even if they don't realize that's playing a role.
reply
I don't think so. I've seen things that say fructose has worse effects than sucrose in terms of spiking your blood sugar or whatever but that's minor compared to the overall impact of any sugar. Sugar is sweet because we were once starving beasts and calories were good. Now it's a hazard. And corn syrup gets dumped into all kinds of processed foods in the US because of how cheap it is, and how much people like sweet stuff.

We have shaped our food culture in a way to maximize short term profit at the expense of making everyone fat and disabled longer term.

reply
>I've seen things that say fructose has worse effects than sucrose in terms of spiking your blood sugar or whatever but that's minor compared to the overall impact of any sugar

That sounds pretty major. You can be not in the slightest bit obese and the blood sugar spikes will still be bad for your brain, your insulin regulation, etc as far as I understand it.

reply
> I've seen things that say fructose has worse effects than sucrose

Sucrose is 50% fructose.

HFCS is ~42-55% fructose. Its "high fructose" compared to just straight corn syrup, which is 0% fructose (practically pure glucose).

reply
I'm unaware of any large scale studies on this topic. Both are pretty bad health-wise and should be avoided in regular large doses by anyone regardless.

I pointed it out because its often used instead of sugar for cost reasons.

reply
I remember watching a video (something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY66qpMFOYo, but probably not that exact one) where they did the analysis and determined that Mexican cane-sugar coke contains the exact same proportion of sugars as HFCS coke - and it's because of the chemistry of how the sugars break apart in the presence of acid in the liquid.

So in theory an extremely fresh mexican coke might be different, but in practice you're getting the same thing.

reply
Not really other than the micronutrient dimension which is not relevant in most commercial preparations. What matters most is the other stuff you're having it with. You want to have fiber _at the same time_ as refined carbs/any kind of sugar/jaggery/honey/palm sugar/... In a coke you're just getting sugar and water which is terrible.
reply
Yes, you get pure fructose which is processed by your liver. With normal sugar you get a mix of fructose and sucrose, so less fructose.

Excessive consumption of fructose leads to fatty liver and is just generally bad for you.

reply
This isn't true. Your body breaks sucrose into fructose and sucrose almost instantaneously; in fact, sucrose is so easy to break down that it happens in Coke bottles. Fructose is bad for you, but you're getting just as much of it from table sugar as you would from HFCS.
reply
"breaks sucrose into fructose and glucose almost instantaneously" - I presume what you meant to write?

And that's absolutely true. I think it's easy to hate (more) on HFCS because it literally says "high fructose" in it, and thus easy to come to that conclusion.

reply
Yeah sorry, so many -croses and -coses!
reply
deleted
reply
it is not "pure fructose" - they have different levels but usually it is 50% fructose syrups. Lots of fruits have similar ratios to that too, fructose isn't the problem so much as the quantity of it being ingested, but high quantities are glucose or other sugars are also bad when they come in liquid or otherwise highly digestible and fast absorbing foods. Also sucrose, which is table sugar, is indeed also 50% fructose.
reply
HFCS is a mixture of fructose and ~~sucrose~~ glucose. If it was pure fructose it wouldn't be as an effective of cane sugar replacement.
reply
Fructose mixed with glucose, not sucrose (the same typo is in several comments here). Sucrose is composed of glucose and fructose linked together.

When corn starch is processed, the produced syrup is nearly 100% glucose. Because fructose tastes sweeter, lots of corn syrup is further processed, converting much of the glucose into fructose, hence the name high fructose corn syrup.

reply
Oof, yes, sorry, thanks for calling that out!
reply