Is there any reason to think absorbing lots of simple glucose or sucrose through your stomach lining is much better than than absorbing lots of fructose? A quick google suggests fructose tends to end up as visceral fat while glucose does the normal glucose thing and causes an insulin spike then ends up as glycogen, but it's not clear to me that either of them are very good compared to getting your glucose slowly from complex carbohydrates.

Absorbing a large amount of glucose at once may be quite bad, but does not cause liver disease.

In particular, large excursions of blood sugar and insulin can cause down-regulation of insulin receptors resulting in insulin resistance, called type-2 diabetes. (BTW, some people can treat this with cinnamon. For others, enough cinnamon would cause even worse problems.)

You can recover from type-2 diabetes in reasonable time by cutting sugar and refined starch (e.g. white flour, white rice) from the diet. It is actually quite easy to do this if you cook for yourself, and surprisingly easy to learn to cook for yourself. It is most fun purely from-scratch, and no more work, and tastier. Start to think of fast-food as not really any sort of food at all.

Many people nowadays seem to find their way to cooking for themselves with an electric pressure cooker, because it is so fast.

> Is there any reason to think absorbing lots of simple glucose or sucrose through your stomach lining is much better than than absorbing lots of fructose?

A better question is if there's any reason not to. You should never blindly assume that biological research on one chemical translates to another. Seemingly small structural differences often (but don't always!) result in wildly different chemical properties. Additionally, biological pathways are incredibly (almost unimaginably) complex.

Well, yes - we already have good alternatives to eating pure simple sugars, whether they're fructose or glucose. One good one is absorbing glucose slowly by breaking down complex carbohydrates, by eating low-GI foods.

In this case, there's not a binary choice between fructose or glucose. You don't have to eat either as 100% of a diet, you can mix and match. Whether there's a reason not to eat pure glucose is not a better question health-wise, it's a much worse question than "should I intentionally eat either fructose or glucose as a large part of my energy intake?"

Well, the study suggests that fructose screws with your intestines in a way that promotes obesity, that glucose does not. Slow glucose is fine except when it isn’t fast enough, so there are definitely circumstances to consider like hard mental or physical labor. I wouldn’t recommend zeroing out all sugars and switching purely to bread. Fruit has been cultivated for thousand of years. It’s generally good for us; yes, it has some fructose; eat whole fruit anyways.