Everything is complicated there. Invert sugar contains not sucrose, but a mixture of glucose and fructose. It would be easy if sucrose simply split into glucose and fructose, as happens in our belly. But invert syrup is made differently. It is more profitable to take starch and sequentially cook it with different enzymes, so that first glucose is obtained, and then part of the glucose turns into fructose. For example, it is more profitable for Americans to make sweet syrup from cornstarch than to grow something with ready-made sugar.
Americans began to cook invert corn syrup on an industrial scale back in the sixties of the last century. It is clear that the generation of the seventies and eighties grew up on this syrup. Then it became fashionable to monitor weight and cholesterol, and invert syrup was accused of provoking obesity. In the end, this was not officially confirmed. They had ideas to replace corn syrup with our usual sucrose, but somehow it did not work out.
We discussed fructose, how harmful for gout sweetener. And fructose is easy provokes diarrhea.
Our domestic honey lovers believe that fructose in it can replace sweets for diabetics. They argue that fructose does not spike blood glucose or insulin spikes.
This is almost the case. Insulin does not react to fructose, but the liver can easily process this fructose into starch and glucose. That is, our body will receive exactly the same amount of energy as from glucose. But there will be no peaks of insulin. This is good? Rather not very much.
The fact is that from changes in insulin and hormones secreted by adipose tissue, a person's appetite is regulated. That is, if you gobble up on glucose, you can feel full. But fructose doesn't work that way. She's sweet (sweeter than sugar) and people like her. They will eat but not be satisfied. And at the same time they will receive the same calories.
As a dietary supplement, fructose is highly acclaimed by food manufacturers. It retains water, prevents the dough from hardening and is sweeter than sugar. Ideal for industrial production.
That very corn syrup should have contained less fructose than it actually turned out to be. The concentration of fructose there is artificially increased. More often it is not just a mixture of equal proportions of glucose and fructose, but the so-called high-fructose syrup.
It turns out that people are fed products with a pleasant sweetener, which does not quickly cause satiety and maintains the presentation of the products.
At the same time, due to the glucose content, such a syrup is very difficult to distinguish from ordinary sugar. Well, that is, they get fat both from ordinary sugar and from invert syrup. For any scientific study on the dangers of syrup, there are a bunch of other studies where the difference with sugar was not noticed. So the problem remains in limbo. That is, invert syrup is so beneficial that the hand does not go up to replace it with sugar.
And this is partly true. Why swap one sugar for another? You just have to eat less sweets.
Fructose has always been scolded, but now it is somehow more restrained. There are all sorts of horror stories about the fact that, in fact, fructose obtained by fermenting starch may differ in its form from fructose obtained from ordinary sugar. But this, too, has not yet been substantiated in any way.
Personally, I think of the difference between table sugar and invert sugar like this.
Table sugar contains equal amounts of glucose and fructose. They are chemically connected there. This is fair. Exactly in half of both.
Our body is not a fool. If he needs glucose or fructose, he must first digest this table sugar. And only then can fructose be produced and absorbed into the blood.
Or the body may not digest this sugar, and there will be nothing to be absorbed, because in the usual amount, table sugar is not absorbed alive.
Something like this... Something I have already forgotten where I started. Have you tried pouring invert syrup into baked goods?
Read my articles on the links in the text. There is a lot of useful information.
