[henearkr]

I think you got it mixed up, because the second paper is not

> "glucose = bad because of glycemic response? Nope!”

but rather:

“glucose = bad because of perceived sweetness? Nope!”

There are sweeteners that do not activate insulin (like stevia).

I am not aware if the converse exists though (not-sweet-tasting molecules that activate insulin).

Their case in the paper is that fructose is not "bad" (like glucose is) despite of being very sweet-tasting.

[retypepassword]

We might be referring to different “second” papers :) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00319... is about about perceived sweetness

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-00749-6 is about glycemic response, which I referred to as the second paper

Though it could be argued that both papers were trying to figure out why glucose = bad (the first, testing perceived sweetness, and the second, glycemic response)

[henearkr]

Oops, my bad! :(

[phonypc]

>I am not aware if the converse exists though (not-sweet-tasting molecules that activate insulin).

Pretty much any large, digestible carbohydrate. Starch being the prime example.

[scns]

Fructose might not have an effect on cognitive performance. It is still bad for you, since its effect on the body is similar to ethanol. The liver will transform it into fat, high fructose consumption will net you a fatty liver.