[wide_eyed_pupil]

That sounds wrong to me. I realise simple sugars can be fermented to produce alcohol. I've never heard alcohol sugar. Somebody keeps insisting it is b/c of molecular similarities between ethanol and fructose. Please speak with authority!

Thanks
Alastair

[Arkcon]

Here you can read where the term comes from, and what the differences are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_alcohol

[fledarmus]

It depends on how specifically you are using the term. In organic chemistry, there is a functional group which defines an alcohol - it is a hydroxy group (-OH) attached to a saturated carbon. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol for more. Ethanol is one specific organic alcohol.

Sugars are carbohydrates, which means they have a molecular formula which could be written C_m(H₂O)_n. These compounds, when drawn in a straight chain form, have one carbonyl (either aldehyde or ketone), and every other carbon in the molecule has a hydroxy group attached. So yes, they are alcohols in the sense that they have hydroxy groups attached to saturated carbons. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate and http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/carbohydrates.html for more structural information.

Sugar alcohols are sugars in which the aldehyde or ketone has also been reduced to an alcohol group - on these molecules, every carbon atom has a hydroxy group attached.

So in direct answer to your question, no, alcohols in general and ethanol in particular are not sugars, but sugar contains several alcohol functional groups and could be classed as a type of alcohol.

[wide_eyed_pupil]

Thanks for the responses especially yours @fledarmus for spelling it all out.

Incidentally I had already looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrates and a search for the word "alcohol" came up with nothing so I felt largely confirmed in my belief but my vague belief is no substitute for knowledge and understanding and the molecular permutations of both sugars and alcohols seem vast.

The context was a discussion (if it can be called that more like name calling) around somebody's assertion that Fructose is BAD ie. toxic and is an alcohol (which of course would negate the requirement of fermentation).

There's  a relatively recent dietary movement called paleo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet). It's basically a fat diet and (in a need to sure up the absentia of nutritional facts) supporting the diet it's followers identify any food substance not derived from killing an animal as Bad for you. Currently fructose is getting a very bad wrap from various paleo promoters. As a consumer of huge amounts of fructose (in high sugar fruits eg bananas) I'm aware of how laughable their claims are. Also how isolating any chemical and ignoring chemical context like large amount of fibre, relatively low glycemic load fruit (as opposed GI index) and the important role of fats in blocking insulin transporting blood sugar to cells by lining the arteries.

I'd be interested to now if fructose has to be converted to glucose to enter blood stream in the small intestine or whether it can enter directly. If converted how so. Perhaps I'd better start a new thread for that.

Thanks again for answers it helped build my understanding.

[Dan]

According to IUPAC recommendations for carbohydrates, no ethanol is not classified as a sugar.

The term ‘sugar’ is frequently applied to monosaccharides and lower oligosaccharides.

Parent monosaccharides are polyhydroxy aldehydes H-[CHOH]_n-CHO or polyhydroxy ketones H-[CHOH]_n-
CO-[CHOH]_m-H with three or more carbon atoms.

Source document is here.

[Enthalpy]

Anyway, alcohol functions in a molecule does NOT mean it will act in your body as Ethanol does! Prepared food contains many alcohols like polyols (glycerine, erythritol, pentaerythritol, xylitol and the like) which serve as hygroscopic sweeteners that capture moisture to keep the food damp, and won't make you drunk. One function alone does not define the biological effect of a molecule.

This story about fructose just looks like one meaningless frenzy more. Someone makes money with a book, and possibly some lobbies (like: cane and beet against maize) try to influence the consumers. Notice saccharose produces ethanol just as fructose does, nothing special.

By the way, the Paleolithic diet isn't known accurately... We tell "hunters" for having found deer bones but no banana bone in their settlements.

The less funny side of the story: the French government tries to take advantage of this frenzy to put a new tax on sugar and soft drinks.

[Dan]

The context was a discussion (if it can be called that more like name calling) around somebody's assertion that Fructose is BAD ie. toxic and is an alcohol (which of course would negate the requirement of fermentation).

This is complete rubbish. Fructose has alcohol functionality, just as glucose and all the sugars do. As has been said, the term alcohol in chemistry is a very general term, and can be applied to all carbohydrates. Carbohydrate is a more specific term, and can not be applied to all alcohols. The popular use of alcohol to mean ethanol is a perhaps the source of confusion. It's not worth arguing with these types, save yourself the hassle is my advice, but do learn about it - it's an interesting field. William Whelan wrote some very interesting and entertaining articles/letters relating to the subject of fructose, the food industry and dietary - I will try to find out where they were originally published and post links if they are legally available online. There are also published in the epilogue of Robert Stick and Spencer Williams' book "Carbohydrates: the essential molecules of life".

I'd be interested to now if fructose has to be converted to glucose to enter blood stream in the small intestine or whether it can enter directly. If converted how so. Perhaps I'd better start a new thread for that.

No, I think fructose is absorbed directly in the small intestine. Fructose metabolism in humans does not appear to involve conversion to glucose.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose

[Dan]

The articles are free:

The wars of the carbohydrates:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

[wide_eyed_pupil]

Thank-you both Dan and Enthalpy for the information and the links — I'm going to enjoy reading those brief papers that hopefully I can get my head around.

Re: France, I think if you have a tax-payer funded national health system and national obesity, diabetes epidemics etc etc you have a huge financial (in addition to whatever moral) responsibility to try and remediate the more flagrant causes of chronic disease. So I can understand them wanting to use one of the few blunt instruments governments have, namely a tax, to go after poor-nutritional value processed foods.

As for the efficacy of such an approach, it's long been demonstrated that the poorer people in a western society is more likely than any other grouping to spend on 'discretionary' luxury food items like confectionary. (Since they can't afford holidays, yachts and Mercedes they take pleasure in junk food and movies and express affection in giving/forcing high-fat high-refined-sugar foods on children who don't know any better either) Just look at the aisle space devoted to junk food in supermarkets, the poorer the area the bigger it gets.

[Enthalpy]

France isn't plagued by obesity nor diabetes. Among Western Europe, only Mediterranean countries do better.

An example of an efficient move would be to forbid "vegetable fat" in chocolate. Producers replace the healthy cocoa fat with palm oil, the worst possible fat after pork rind, with the politicians' approval for some years.

Many studies find that the cause of obesity isn't clearly linked with diet - though diet can combat it - and seek different causes, like a virus. I wouldn't be surprised if all the growth boosters given to cattle stayed in the meat and act on the consumers. Cattle receive antibiotics in the food to fatten faster, and the active process is unknown, so nobody can tell if the active molecules stay in the meat and act on the consumers.

And since wine brings taxes, politicians will even claim that wine is healthy. Against cholesterol, allegedly.

In short: politicians want citizens to pay as much taxes as possible and die from a cheap illness as they retire.