We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
It's wonderful that Americans have the luxury of getting neurotic about what to buy at the supermarket and about what to eat. As I do, they advocate low-to-no-carb diets for weight control. It's Physiology 101.
I agreed with a lot of the article but for whatever reason the fructose derangement syndrome struck the author; "Fructose can stimulate the appetite compared to the same number of calories from glucose". This no doubt comes from the anti-HFCS crowd. HFCS was named as a result of the bright idea of a marketing executive because eating fruit, thus fructose, was considered healthy back in the 50's so he thought that the name might make people think this was a healthy product. As it turns out HFCS isn't particularly high in fructose but of course fruit still is and in general most people think fruit is good for you.
Yes that is indeed what we learned from our moms and a number of wacky writers but it isn't true. 100% of the carbohydrate you consume is turned into glucose to power your body. Without glucose (a sugar by the way) you would pass out, go into a coma and die. It powers your brain and your muscles and allows us to keep our body warm in spite of living in a cold climate. 100% of fructose is converted to glucose. To your body it is merely a source of energy nothing more nothing less. Most fruits are high in fructose so even if I believed your statement that fruits today are higher in sugar I would still wonder why it matters. If you truly believe that is the case then eat less fruit, I guess. Half of table sugar is fructose but we don't call it high fructose table sugar. 100% of table sugar consumed is turned into glucose. Some people prefer honey for superstitious and other non-scientific reasons but 100% of honey is turned into glucose by your body. Some people prefer complex carbs, but 100% of complex carbs are converted to glucose. The new diet fad is the Paleo diet. Not a lot of carbs in the paleo diet. No worries your body can convert protein and fat to glucose too. When you starve to death your body slowly converts body fats then muscle mass to glucose.
Everything should be eaten in moderation. But it is unlikely that eating too many fruits is gonna kill you or shorten your life. It probably won't cause a serious disease or make a otherwise healthy person sick. Fructose is not going to kill you. Of course if you have an illness, such as diabetes, that requires a specific diet to minimize symptoms then by all means follow that diet. But if you are healthy chasing fad diets won't make you "healthier" or live longer etc. I wish it would. I truly wish it was that easy that we all follow some specific diet handed down from god and we all live long healthy lives. But it is not true. The best advice it to eat a diverse diet and avoid fad diets.
Volokh Conspiracy had post about a study a few months ago reporting the bad effects of carbs on fat/weight. Interestingly, in the abstract they mentioned that fat had little impact if any but some indication of contributing to weight loss.
Ah, the sugar wars. Sugar is bad, and most commercial varieties are about 50% glucose/ 50% fructose (sucrose or table sugar). HFCS (top version) is 45% glucose/ 55% fructose. So no real difference. Interestingly, regular corn syrup, such as Karo, is almost all glucose. Showing how ill informed and market manipulated health-conscious consumers are, Agave nectar is processed to be near 75% fructose. So it is actually worse than HFCS.
Real issue is that 100% of the fructose is processed by the liver, whereas only about 20% of the glucose is. The other glucose being directly converted by various body purposes. I saw one report that saturation with fructose lead to belly fat, but with sucrose led to subcutaneous fat.
Bottom line, cut back on sugar and if you do consume it, don't mainline it in liquid form.
"Real issue is that 100% of the fructose is processed by the liver" And the problem is... That is one of the functions of the liver not a symptom of a health issue. So yes it's true in healthy people the healthy liver converts 100% of fructose to glucose so the healthy body can continue it's healthy functions. Where is the problem?
Your belly fat and subcutaneous fat issues were determined by your parents and grand parents and great grandparents etc. It is genetic. You can tweak it by diet and exercise and youth but pretty much if your mom or dad was fat you will be as well.