New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Fructose May Motivate People to Seek Out Food

Compared with glucose, fructose activates brain regions that enhance the psychological reward of eating

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The sugars we eat may influence how our brains decide whether we should put our forks down or go back for second helpings, according to a new study. The findings suggest that fructose—a sugar found in fruits as well as in sweetened products such as soda—does not trigger the brain’s satiation signal in the same way as glucose, a sugar that’s the main fuel source for most of our bodies’ cells. Fructose may instead activate pathways that increase the appeal of food.

In 2013, Kathleen A. Page of the University of Southern California and colleagues found that fructose activates the hypothalamus, a part of our brains that regulates food intake (J. Am. Med. Assoc., DOI:10.1001/jama.2012.116975). On the other hand, glucose, which packs the same caloric punch as fructose, suppresses activity and leads to a feeling of being full.

In the new study, Page’s team looked at effects in brain areas that process rewards. They had people drink cherry-flavored water sweetened with either fructose or glucose, and then they monitored the subjects’ brain activity inside a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine while presenting them with pictures of food. When people drank fructose, the food images produced more activity in the orbitofrontal cortex than when they consumed glucose. Activity in this brain region has been linked to increased motivation to seek out rewards, including food or drugs.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Before allowing the subjects to leave the fMRI machine, the researchers offered them the choice of either receiving a snack that day or money a month later. People who had just consumed fructose were more likely to forgo the delayed payday in favor of food compared with those who had just received glucose (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1503358112).

One strength of the study is the combination of this decision-making test with the brain imaging data, says Peter J. Havel, a professor of nutrition at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved with the study. “It’s connecting what’s happening in the brain with what people are actually doing.”

The study, Havel says, is limited to short-term effects of fructose versus glucose. He proposes longer studies that follow how much people actually eat outside the lab after consuming the two sugars.

This article is reproduced with permission from Chemical & Engineering News (© American Chemical Society). The article was first published on May 7, 2015.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe