Honestly you're probably right that it's similar to HFCS, but at the same time I think it's unfair to jump to conclusions based on assumptions. Maybe some more digging should be done before writing it off and getting angry..or maybe that's just me.

Oh PS, speaking of the same thing under different names, have you guys ever pointed out that HFCS is called glucose/fructose in Canada? Something I didn't know for a long time so went around thinking I was avoiding it when I wasn't!

It seems like the only real similarity it has with HFCS is that it's made of corn.

The natural enzymes they use to make maltose, alpha and beta Amylase, are the same natural enzymes barley uses to make maltose. Which has been in beer for centuries.

The point is really that all sugar is unhealthy when over-consumed, no matter how natural or unprocessed it is.

I'm guessing that high maltose syrup is higher up the processing chain. Corn is milled to access the starch, starch is broken down by enzymes/heat. If you stop the process sooner, rather than later you'll have more maltose than glucose.

Maybe it to HFCS what golden syrup is to refined sugar?

You imply that HFCS has been demonstrated by unbiased testing and research to be harmful or worse than other sweeteners when used appropriately. In an overconsumption situation HFCS may be more effectively harmful but isn't this like worrying about what caliber bullet is used for Russian Roulette?

Wow, there is a *lot* of misinformation in that post!

First of all, yes - maltose is a sugar, but it is not a sugar "just like fructose". In fact, it's really nothing like fructose at all. Fructose is a monosaccharide that is processed 100% by the liver. Maltose is a disaccharide that is processed by the small intestine. Maltose is simply two glucose molecules connected together.

Fructose has six carbon atoms, while glucose has five. It may not seem like a big difference, but chemically the difference is quite large.

SMoore is correct - the only real similarity between HFCS and corn-derived maltose is that they both come from corn. (I say corn-derived, because most maltose I consume comes from brown rice syrup.)

The processing by the body of fructose requires (among other things) phosphorylation, which uses up the liver's supply of ATP and produces uric acid. The processing of maltose produces two glucose molecules, which can be used as energy by any cell in the body.

If you know *why* fructose is harmful, you will realize that maltose is not anywhere near as bad (if it's bad at all.) As fructose is processed entirely by the liver, fructose stresses the liver the much the same way as ethanol. Besides stimulating glycogen production, fructose has no benefit to the body (and unless you've just run a marathon, your glycogen levels will be just fine,) so you get a lot of bad things, with no benefit. Since maltose breaks down into glucose, which can be used as energy by every cell in the body, the only harm would be from caloric overconsumption.

UCSF has an excellent video comparing glucose and fructose here: [link]. It's a little long, but very informative.

The production of maltose from corn is well understood, but bears little similarity with the production of HFCS. Corn starch is processed with the enzyme amylase to produce maltose. If the corn syrup were instead processed with the enzyme glucoamylase, it would form corn syrup (which is nearly 100% glucose). If this corn syrup were to be then processed with Xylose isomerase, you would have HFCS. Maltose is processed once, HFCS is processed twice.

To the body, the primary difference between maltose and glucose is the rate of absorbtion. Glucose is absorbed directly into the bloodstream, while maltose requires hydrolysis in the small intestine. This hydrolysis delays the introduction of the glucose into the bloodstream by a couple of hours, and so you don't get the same spike is blood sugar that you do with pure glucose.

HFCS was originally developed to fatten livestock (and it worked!) But when pigs started dropping dead of enlarged hearts, due to them being unable to absorb copper from foods (HFCS inhibits copper absorption), they had to rethink things.
HFCS also does not stimulate insulin to be released which normally stimulates the release of the hormone Leptin. The lack of this hormone means that our bodies don't feel as full as quickly.
I have noticed this ingredient on the list in Weight Watchers foods in UK, I don't know about the US... are our good old diet companies trying to make us fat???
Oh, I don't think I should have said that as it could open a can of worms!

What has caused the scientists to develop another sweetener for the market? Safety? Cost? Demand from producers of fast/convenient foods for something the consumers think might be better for them (or just less bad for them!)?
How much research has been done into the effects of the Maltose version on humans and can we trust the people who did the research?
I think we need to rethink our lifestyles & food choices a LOT more!

Wow, thanks for all that info, Karl! Do you have any links to articles with this information? I honestly had trouble finding good info on high maltose corn syrup when I was putting together this post, hence some of the inaccuracies that you point out. I'd love to read more!

Shucks, here I thought I had something new to be irrational and paranoid over, and Karl comes by with all these 'facts'. Oh well.

Eat Plain Oatmeal! :)
And you won't need to figure out ingredients. ;)

@jenn_y and others: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all

@jenn_y Go to Wikipedia and look up HFCS, you will see that it causes/exacerbates gout, a type of arthritis, by forming crystal like cells in the joints.

Off subject, but not really: Partially Hydrogenated Oil is killing us all. According to Dr. Oz, the body does not know what to do with it, so it is not digested as regular food type oils would be. It is in things like coffee creamer and bake goods. I tested it, unknowingly, before I got the info: I was stirring coffee with it in it and saw a creamy, whipped cream type of foam on top. When I spooned it out it was much more solid,and when I threw it in the sink, it did not break down like foam usually does. Need I say more about that being inside our arteries?

Just don't eat sugar in any form, and you will never have to worry about this. It takes some time and determination to find things like dry cereal that does not contain sugar, but it is worth it in the end.

I think if it's highly processed it's most likely bad for you

@Karl: Glucose is a hexose: 6 carbons.

Goodness. What a topic. Though Karl is right in a lot of ways (and thank you for actually using science to explain this, but CITE CITE CITE) Carrboro Girl is right. So what about the rest of your info, Karl? Can you give me sources so I don't assume that it, too, is erroneous?

The point is really that all sugar is unhealthy when over-consumed, no matter how natural or unprocessed it is.

ANYTHING is bad for you in sufficiently large amounts. You can die from drinking too much water. Essential vitamins can result in fatal toxicity if you get too much. 'It's bad if you have too much' is not equivalent to and is not a good argument for 'it's bad for you'.

Everything in moderation. Including moderation.

sugar sugar sugar... switching one for the other probably isn't a greenlight to binge either way.

Hmm so if fructose is really as bad for your body as currently hyped, does that mean fruit is actually incredibly bad for you? This is getting confusing now.

artsygirl: eww funny you mention that. A workmate was making instant Dino Eggs oatmeal for the heck of it and the same goo appeared in the water!

Lots of super common fats are just inedible... anal leakage anyone? lol

Hey Melle: The idea on the fruit is that there isn't that much fructose in it really (say, compared to a soda), and it's counteracted by a LOT of good-for-you fiber and vitamins that slow down the digestion. Since fructose is all processed in the liver, it matters how much you get in one go. One apple is not going to overload your liver; but an apple pie or a lot of apple juice just might.

To others: Karl actually does give his source in the link he provides, btw. It's quite an interesting video, and the science is presented fairly clearly (even if you don't follow all of the chemical discussion, which I didn't).

Ok so there are a great deal of half-truths being tossed around here.

The comment that "fructose is all processed in the liver" is true, but the comment that maltose is processed by the small intestine is misleading.

Monosaccharides can be absorbed whereas disaccharides must first be hydrolysed because they do not absorb directly. Hydrolysing maltose turns it into twice as many molecules of glucose. Then to the blood, and off to the liver. Maltose does all end up in the liver as glucose.

Now whether glucose or fructose is worse, that is another matter. They both occur naturally and in fact they are both in table sugar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltose

pt

Karl is almost right, Carrborogirl is right, ptred is somewhat right. Well, here goes:
Both glucose and fructose are hexoses and monosaccharides, formula C6H12O6, but glucose has a six member ring and fructose has a five member ring structure (one member being oxygen).

Corn starch can be turned into corn syrup/golden syrup by snipping the long glucose chains into disaccharides of glucose+glucose, which is maltose. Nature and man have done this for ages, like Smoor said, using amylases. Nothing tricky or unhealthy to it.

HFCS is a different story. Corn starch (long glucose chains) is broken down to oligosaccharides, and Xylose isomerase is used to turn those into a more sugar-like mix of glucose and fructose. Why? Because fructose tastes sweeter than fructose and being processed differently in the body (no leptin or insulin effect), does not fill you up like glucose does, so you can consume more, which is what the producer wants.
Although HFCS not much different from sugar from a caloric standpoint, its manufacturing process uses mercury as a catalyst, which leaves traces in the endproduct. You don't want ANY amount of mercury in you food.

Experiments at Princeton university showed that feeding rats either a sugar solution or a HFCS solution, made a huge difference in obesity: 48% percent more weight gain on the same amount of calories.
High consumption of fructose produces liver overload and can cause fatty liver in the long run. Glucose-only maltose would be safer in this context. Taken in moderation, the glucose can be utilized by all energy consuming cells in the body, signal satiety and is not forced upon the liver.

Cleaving of de disaccharide bond is done in seconds bij the enzymes, starting in the mouth. Therefore not much difference between saccharose (table sugar), honey, HFCS, all being about 50% fructose.

Bottom line: when used in moderation, corn syrup is better than table sugar and both are MUCH MUCH safer than HFCS.
Maltose syrup is a perfectly natural product, HFCS is a highly artificial product made by an industrial proces using dangerous chemicals, small but countless traces of which you consume in the end product.

Ron