To clarify: The increased nutrient absorption they observed wasn’t actually a good thing. Our stomachs evolved to very efficiently extract as many nutrients as possible from the food we eat, so these nutrients weren’t being wasted. Rather, the excess fructose overwhelmed the normal nutrient breakdown process and resulted in an abnormal nutrient absorption pattern:

> Moderate amounts of fructose — for example, those ingested when consuming fruits — are taken up and broken down by intestinal cells. Excess amounts, such as those that might be ingested after drinking a sugary beverage, overwhelm the intestine’s absorptive capacity and the fructose either ‘leaks’ into the bloodstream to reach the liver intact, or it spills over from the small intestine and reaches the colon

Basically: Too much fructose at once, especially without all of the fiber and structure of fruit to slow it down, ends up in places it shouldn’t because the normal digestive processes can’t keep up. Spilling bursts of fructose into your bloodstream and your liver isn’t great for your body.

Excess Fructose spilling into the colon creates another set of problems as this can do weird things to the microbiome. Ideally the small intestine would be able to handle the fructose and leave the colonic bacteria to feed on the leftover complex carbohydrates, but if you eat too much fructose some of it spills into the colon.

The summary was irritating because it mentioned HFCS over and over as if it is the cause of excessive fructose consumption. But most HFCS is either 42% or 55% fructose, while ordinary table sugar (sucrose) is 50% fructose.

It seems to me that overconsumption of sucrose is just as bad for you as HFCS, in which case focusing attention on HFCS is harmful. People will drink Mexican Coca-Cola made from sucrose and think it is better for them because of this article.

A. Needs the usual disclaimer "in mice" added to the title.

B. It's not as simple as the title seems to suggest and I like this section for summing up a nutshell "good news, bad news" take on this:

Evidence has emerged5–8 that the small intestine acts as the gatekeeper for the mammalian body against the harmful effects of fructose, the main one being the aberrant accumulation of fat (termed steatosis) in the liver. Moderate amounts of fructose — for example, those ingested when consuming fruits — are taken up and broken down by intestinal cells. Excess amounts, such as those that might be ingested after drinking a sugary beverage, overwhelm the intestine’s absorptive capacity and the fructose either ‘leaks’ into the bloodstream to reach the liver intact, or it spills over from the small intestine and reaches the colon5.

The food pyramid used in the western world misled people to believe fruit is a necessary component of a diet. It absolutely isn't. Vegetables give you all the dietary components without the high amounts of sugar. And if you eliminate all simple sugars / obvious bad carbs from your diet, then eventually stuff like sauteed carrots / corn, beets, etc. starts to taste 'sweet' to your reset tastebuds.

Why isn't the increased nutrient absorption offset by decreased appetite and intake? Is there something special about fructose on the demand side as well as the supply side, somehow suppressing normal energy homeostasis?

Keep this fact in mind as well: "Regular" cane sugar (sucrose) is made of 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Your cells only use the glucose and the fructose has to get metabolized.

Someone update the Twitter list.

https://www.twitter.com/justsaysinmice

Given that we know the sugar industry paid scientists to blur sugar's role in heart disease [1], and that the whole "eating pyramid" was essentially bought and paid for by industries that just wanted to sell more of their product, how can we ever trust stories like this again?

How can a regular person actually know if articles are "truth" or "paid for truth"

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/12/sugar-indust...