[stjohnswarts]

It matters how quickly it is absorbed and the actual -amount- as usual. Apple has far less "energy" per volume than a potato. You can't just look at ratios obviously. all that glucose gets broken down into sucrose and fructose and that's the point. Being toxic is a function of both "chemical" and amount. a potato will have a much higher amount of fructose per unit that an apple after it all gets broken down, an apple also has fiber that will slow down the absorption of the glucose/fructose.The ratio of fructose/sucrose in standard issue is such that it should be slightly worse than cane sugar, but not that much worse.

[oifjsidjf]

What are you even talking about?

You mixed many words + potato has practicaly 0 fructose compared to an apple.

[diroussel]

When a potato is eaten, the amylase in the saliva mixes with the potato starch and starts breaking it down into sugars, some wil be glucose acording to [1].

You can test this yourself by eating a plain cracker. A plain cracker doesn't contain any sugar, but if you keep chewing it you will notice a sweet taste in the mouth. This is from the sugars released by amylase.

There is no mention of fructose on the amylase wikipedia page. So maybe you are right.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylase