Slashdot Mirror
How the Sugar Industry Tried To Hide Health Effects of Its Product 50 Years Ago (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: About 50 years ago, the sugar industry stopped funding research that began to show something they wanted to hide: that eating lots of sugar is linked to heart disease. A new study exposes the sugar industry's decades-old effort to stifle that critical research. Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, recently analyzed historical documents regarding a rat study called Project 259 that was launched in 1968. The study was funded by a sugar industry trade group called the International Sugar Research Foundation, or ISRF, and conducted by W. F. R. Pover at the University of Birmingham. When the preliminary findings from that study began to show that eating lots of sugar might be associated with heart disease, and even bladder cancer, the ISRF pulled the plug on the research. Without additional funding, the study was terminated and the results were never published, according to a study published today in PLOS Biology. The study in question investigated the relationship between sugars and certain blood fats called triglycerides, which increase the risk of heart disease. The preliminary results from the research, called Project 259, suggested that rats on a high-sugar diet, instead of a starch diet, had higher levels of triglycerides. The rats that ate lots of sugar also had higher levels of an enzyme called beta-glucuronidase in their urine, which at the time was thought to be potentially linked to bladder cancer, says study co-author Cristin Kearns, an assistant professor at the UCSF School of Dentistry.
Wait, what? Are we talking HFCS or GMO or Sugars or what? Fuck, dude, pick your poison. Not everythiing is horrible for you. Do you hate turkey too?
Think of all the rats that could have benefited had this study been properly completed and released.
Read some of crusader Gary Taube's books to find out how institutions like Harvard and many more succumbed to industry research money that makes sugary foods an integral part of today's diet and yes, the ubiquitous Food Pyramid. Bought.And.Paid.For.
Sugar's an addictive drug, like opoids, nicotine, even social media and gaming. This is one of the US's favorite business models: addiction-- Profit!!
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
If you think you "know" anything, you have no clue about how science works.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
They'd be running the streets singing "pour some sugar on me".
Started out as a kid, before I knew it was hooked on Cap'n Crunch. Within a few years it was harder stuff - twinkies, mars bars, ju jubes. There's no end. Before it hit me, I was buying up chocolate bunnies after easter and binging on them for days and was looking forward to Christmas only for the delicious Turtles. And they say it's not a drug. They're crazy.
Everything in moderation.
My sister raised her kids on candy, cookies and baking goods. She wanted to please them but they all ended up with a lot of cavities and they're fat. Along with the sugar is fat. Lots of it. They love to smother things with cheese. Also the baked goods have a lot of fat (mostly butter). When we were raised, our mother liked to bake and the products were pleasing delicacies It was fun but I got more cavities than I should have.
Now, I drink a couple of sodas per day but not to excess. I get some exercise and don't eat high fat foods. I'm doing fine. Just had my checkup and my physician commented that my cholesterol and blood work looks fine.
I despise artificial sweeteners. They leave bad aftertaste IMHO.
Again, moderation is the key. Sugar ain't all that bad.
"GMOs are safe" is a nonsensically overgeneralized statement. It's entirely dependent on the *specific* GMO being discussed. The whole point of a GMO bioweapon for example is to NOT be safe.
If you're specifically talking about GMO foods, then the answer is a definite "it depends". Golden Rice, etc seem quite safe, as do many survival- and yield-boosting enhancements. But the GMO food market is dominated by things like Monsanto's poison-resistant crops, which might be fine on their own, but exist for the specific purpose of allowing the plants to be saturated with chemicals that are both known to be toxic to humans, and to be absorbed into the "food" part of the plant.
And then there's the very definite secondary risks of monoculture that inevitably accompany enhancing yield, etc. of a comparative few crop strains, which makes them far more vulnerable to disease and other blights. You know that weird cloyingly sweet candy flavor that's called "banana" despite not tasting remotely right? That's actually what bananas used to taste like, before the commercial banana monoculture was hit by a plague that rapidly drove our preferred species to extinction. Too dense a population with too little genetic variation is *extremely* vulnerable to plagues.
Not to mention the very real risks of allowing Monsanto and friends to have a legal stranglehold on the food supply, which they have already shown themselves to be eager to abuse at every opportunity.
And of course if you want to go full "Frankenfood", there's no reason you couldn't engineer corn, or anything else, to produce any of a wide range of highly toxic substances that would make them as lethally poisonous as the most deadly of mushrooms. And there are in fact already GMO crops (not deployed...I think) designed to produce their own pesticides internally - not immediately fatal to humans, but most pesticides can do nasty things to us if consumed in large enough quantities. And no amount of scrubbing will wash off a pesticide that's produced within the fruit itself.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
It's all poison.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Whatever works for you dude. Eating fats upon fats upon protein works great for me. Salt + butter + not-carbs, and I am great. Add carbs into any of that, your "processing" doesn't even begin to factor into it, and all get it is fat, sick (constant allergy/flu-like symptoms) and depressed probably from the first two.
My first venture onto a keto/atkins diet, I had my blood pressure drop from medium high to "wow you're doing just fine", my triglycerides went from 390 to 95, weight from 235lbs to 190lbs, and I got completely off all diabetes-related medication - all within the span of 10 weeks. Apparently that's simply the way my body was designed to eat. Might not be the way your body was designed to eat, that's all fine and dandy, good luck with figuring that out. But they're going to have to pry the salt and saturated fats from my cold dead hands.
The only thing I know for sure is that when it comes to food, I really can't trust studies. Take any stance you want, and somebody has a study to "prove" it. Such useless BS. Dr Atkins nailed it when it comes to the uselessness of nutritional science in America in the mid-to-late 1900s, and I sure am glad as hell he spoke up.
The sugar industry and the AHA and FDA have already been responsible for so many thousands upon thousands of man-years lost to diseases like type II diabetes, do you really want to keep shoveling that shit for them? Haven't people figured out why health care costs are so bloody much higher than the rest of the world? Hint: it's what you put in your mouth, and it ain't butter.
First it was liquor and tobacco were bad for you now it is also sugar. How is anyone to live a vegan lifestyle?
A study funded by turkeys suggest turkey is the worst possible meat for you to eat. They found all sorts of health issues related specifically to turkey, especially he kind eaten on holidays. The study further found that any animal that the turkeys didn't like were actually beneficial to your health.
Eat only bread and fish. Drink only water and wine. I call it the Jesus diet. Have you ever seen a Jesus statue that wasn't lean with 6 pack abs? Of course, longevity only ensured for 30-35 years, YMMV.
I know for a fact that the Sun is the center of our solar system
You are wrong. The barycenter of the solar system is outside the sun.
Please tell me how knowing this means I have no clue how science works.
Science is not about "knowing" things, it is about evidence. The preponderance of the evidence says that climate change is real, and that GMOs are safe. But we don't "know" these things.
Table sugar (also called sucrose) and HFCS both consist of two simple sugars: fructose and glucose. The proportion of fructose and glucose in HFCS is basically the same ratio as table sugar, which is made of 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Both sweeteners contain the same number of calories (4 calories per gram).
But the fructose and glucose in table sugar are chemically bonded together, and the body must first digest sugar to break these bonds before the body can absorb the fructose and glucose into the bloodstream. In contrast, the fructose and glucose found in HFCS are merely blended together, which means it doesn't need to be digested before it is metabolized and absorbed into the bloodstream. Because of this, theories abound that HFCS has a greater impact on blood glucose levels than regular sugar (sucrose). However, research has shown that there are no significant differences between HFCS and sugar (sucrose) when it comes to the production of insulin, leptin (a hormone that regulates body weight and metabolism), ghrelin (the "hunger" hormone), or the changes in blood glucose levels. In addition, satiety studies done on HFCS and sugar (sucrose) have found no difference in appetite regulation, feelings of fullness, or short-term energy intake. How can that be?
Well, the body digests table sugar very rapidly, too. And both HFCS and table sugar (sucrose) enter the bloodstream as glucose and fructose—the metabolism of which is identical. There is no significant difference in the overall rate of absorption between table sugar and HFCS, which explains why these two sweeteners have virtually the same effects on the body.
Sugars are a subset of carbs.
Athletes favor eating complex carbs over simple carbs like sugars.
So why is it so unlikely to suspect that the chemical industry is doing the same thing with GMOs?
Because a genetically modified plant is still made of the same stuff as any other plant. The proportions of these chemicals in these plants might be different but the fundamental chemistry is unchanged. If the proportions of the chemicals is different then the cause of any health issue is in the chemicals, not the genetics.
Suppose I have two different potatoes. One is a common variety of potato but was grown in soil that is rich in chromium. The other was grown in more typical soil but has been genetically modified in a way that makes it take chromium from the soil more efficiently. If someone shows up with poisoning from chromium do we blame the potato farmers for planting in high chromium soil or for planting a GMO?
If this is from growing crops in chromium rich soil we'd probably have the soil treated and the farmer would be held blameless. If this was from a GMO then we'd have people ready to have this farmer tarred and feathered. Both cases the farmer had no intent to harm anyone, and the poisoning would have been out of ignorance. It also would likely have been from someone eating a lot of "organic" potatoes from the same local community garden. Buying potatoes shipped in from long distances means the risk of such kind of poisoning is rare as the potatoes would be mixed from many locations.
Barring some freak side effect like a potato taking up a heavy metal from the soil the ability for a GMO to pose any health risk is non-existent. GMOs don't suddenly gain the ability to produce some crazy chemical structure. These plants must still be able to process air, water, and sun like any other plant. We can test for things like heavy metals, or bacteria growing on the plant, or whatever. We test for many of such risks and we treat plants for others, like using radiation to kill the bacteria on plants.
If you think that irradiating plants is also bad then you are doubly stupid. Stupid for thinking GMOs are bad and stupid twice over for thinking irradiating plants is also bad.
Think what you want though, that just means more potato chips for me.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Like corn that contains gluten.
Bullcrap. Corn, whether GMO or not, does not contain gluten.
(easy to google - GMO corn taco bell).
I googled it, and came up with ... nothing. There was not a single reference to GMO corn containing gluten.
I imagine anything with nut genes or shellfish genes inserted would also be pretty bad
You can imagine anything you want, but unless you can cite an example of a real (non-imaginary) GMO product available to the public that actually contains those genes, then your imagination is irrelevant.
Actually, some GMO's are really unsafe.
Time for fun - I'll get you the tin foil.
Like corn that contains gluten.
Corn (even GMO corn) does not contain gluten. Some people refer to the storage proteins in maize 'glutens', but that's not the same thing.
That's a particularly nasty one that already happened (easy to google - GMO corn taco bell).
StarLink - the event that, even after extensive testing, didn't have any demonstrable health effects at all?
I imagine anything with nut genes or shellfish genes inserted would also be pretty bad (potentially fatal).
Only if you insert particular genes, and that's why nobody is dumb enough to do that.
If GMO is so great - LABEL IT.
When it's useful information, it is. Buy any bag of seed and you'll be able to find out exactly what traits are in it.
When it comes to consumer products, there's no point - almost every corn or product in the US contains a mix of GM and conventional crops - the whole point is that they're interchangeable after they're harvested.
within 10 years most people would be eating it at full price and not care any more.
They already are - surprise!
And people who were sensitive to gluten wouldn't be hospitalized after eating a corn taco shell.
Then they'll be free to complain that the new cell tower that hasn't been turned on yet is aggravating their 'WiFi sensitivity'.
https://www.theonion.com/study...
Table-ized A.I.
You've made a compelling argument for why GMOs should not be protected by intellectual property laws.
We can agree on that.
You are what you eat. You can have all of my potato chips, friend.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"GMOs are safe" is a nonsensically overgeneralized statement. It's entirely dependent on the *specific* GMO being discussed.
What about "the collection of GMOs that are currently available or in development", or "industry practices and the regulatory regime that allows GMOs into the food supply".
exist for the specific purpose of allowing the plants to be saturated with chemicals that are both known to be toxic to humans
Glyphosate has been used since the 70s, and would still be used with or without GMOs. Resistance to it allows crops to be sprayed with more of it at once, rather than having to spray more often and with herbicides that are more likely to cause human health issues.
and to be absorbed into the "food" part of the plant
What? Sorry, but I haven't even heard that claim before.
secondary risks of monoculture that inevitably accompany enhancing yield
We have more varieties of available now than we did after we started using hybridized crops more than half a century ago.
commercial banana monoculture was hit by a plague
So thank goodness we can now stick a single gene into multiple varieties, rather than having to cross them and hope we transfer the trait we want without sacrificing too much of the genetic diversity between them.
a legal stranglehold on the food supply
That's too vague to even be called a conspiracy theory. What do you think they're going to do, specifically?
there's no reason you couldn't engineer corn, or anything else, to produce any of a wide range of highly toxic substances that would make them as lethally poisonous as the most deadly of mushrooms
Yes, and that would be an interesting plot for a work of fiction that's fast and loose with the science. Just as with the previous quote, what's the point? Even if you somehow managed to get some of it into the food supply and somehow the toxic crop wasn't noticed due to dead animals or farmers, there's an extensive recall system already in place. Why not skip the hard part just put poison in the food before it's shipped?
And there are in fact already GMO crops (not deployed...I think) designed to produce their own pesticides internally
Bt corn has been grown for 20 years now. The delta endotoxin is very insect-specific, has been studied extensively, and is even used in organic farming.
But the fructose and glucose in table sugar are chemically bonded together, and the body must first digest sugar to break these bonds
The bonds get broken when the sucrose gets into contact with an acid, so basically as soon as it hits your stomach. That's why there's little difference in practice between eating HFCS or sucrose.
I know for a fact that the Sun is the center of our solar system
You are wrong. The barycenter of the solar system is outside the sun.
Actually, its position varies over time--sometimes it's inside the Sun, and sometimes it isn't.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
But the fructose and glucose in table sugar are chemically bonded together, and the body must first digest sugar to break these bonds
The bonds get broken when the sucrose gets into contact with an acid, so basically as soon as it hits your stomach. That's why there's little difference in practice between eating HFCS or sucrose.
The acid is consumed by the process and must be replenished, which takes energy, hence why there's more than a little difference in practice between eating HFCS and sucrose.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Somewhere in there is an Erdogan joke, but I'm too tired to find it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We know how this ends, it costs you an arm and a leg.
Well, at least an arm.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What scientists (and athletes) have known for some time now is that a calorie is not just a calorie, and a carbohydrate is not just a carbohydrate. The nature of the nutritional source matters, even if the end product of its metabolism is the same caloric energy equivalent. And the reason, quite simply, is because different nutrients are converted to energy through different metabolic pathways in the body. In the past, the importance of this fact was not well-appreciated; even though some researchers had sought to point this out, they were largely regarded as being on the fringe of mainstream nutritional science. Much has changed, however, with the elucidation of these specific pathways and the more recent revelation of the relationship between the human gastrointestinal system and the microbiome that it contains.
To address your specific points, the energy content of a "complex" carbohydrate (e.g., what we commonly think of as starches or long-chain polysaccharides) is extracted more slowly than a simple carbohydrate (e.g., what we think of as "sugars" which are generally mono- or disaccharides). Comparatively, insulin levels do not rise as quickly in the digestion of the former; there is more "processing" to be done by the body to break those long chains down and ultimately get to the glucose that cells then directly utilize to create ATP. So the first lesson is that anything that slows the rate of gastric emptying, or the rate at which blood glucose elevates after a meal, is going to have a beneficial effect on insulin regulation. The second thing to understand is that fructose is a pentose sugar that is exclusively metabolized via the liver, unlike glucose. Sucrose (table sugar) is composed of one glucose and one fructose molecule. High fructose corn syrup is essentially sucrose with a higher proportion of fructose, making it sweeter (as fructose is sweeter than glucose). Complex carbohydrates are not high in fructose. But we now have ample evidence that the consequence of long-term, excessive fructose consumption in a low-fiber diet causes liver damage in the form of hepatic steatosis and inflammation. The liver and pancreas work overtime and can't keep up. In fact, this is precisely what foie gras is: overfeeding geese with corn mash until their livers turn to fat, except in humans, this result is self-induced due to the neurochemical effects of sugar consumption.
Regarding endurance athletes, I would not say that they are necessarily healthier: they have optimized their bodies for physical exertion (higher VO2max, lower resting HR, greater muscular efficiency, higher lean muscle to fat ratio, etc), but this does not exactly translate to better overall health as measured by factors like total longevity and disability-free lifetime. In fact, we know that many of these athletes suffer from long-term health complications as a result of their training and competition, such as arthritic disease. In any case, if we are talking about how they are able to consume vast quantities of food yet remain lean, this is simply a matter of energy consumed versus energy expended. Yet the quality of the diet remains important even if there are no obvious signs of metabolic damage--sure, they might not get a fatty liver because gluconeogenesis kicks in, but even they know that they can't just drink 10 liters of soda to carb load.
The main driver of obesity in the United States is gross overconsumption of food relative to the energy needs of the average sedentary American. This is the imbalance in the basic caloric equation (energy in > energy out). And I say it is "gross" not in the "yuck" sense, but in the "it's REALLY WAY over the top" sense, because we're seeing people eat upwards of 3500-4000 calories per day when their expenditures are in the 2000 range. The secondary driver, which is what we might think of as "kicking the liver while it's down," is the extreme preponderance of calories from refined sugars, which do not trigger the satiety response as quickly as the equivalent energy co
Barring some freak side effect like a potato taking up a heavy metal from the soil the ability for a GMO to pose any health risk is non-existent. GMOs don't suddenly gain the ability to produce some crazy chemical structure.
1) Roundup-ready GMOs on average get sprayed with more Roundup than non-resistant plants would, leading to a higher load of pesticides (which get absorbed into the plant), not because the GMO produces them, but because the GMO allows them.
1.a) This overuse leading to Roundup resistance in weeds, then needing even more pesticides, has also been published for a number of years.
2) "BT" GMOs contain genes from Bacillus thuringiensis, expressing an insecticide. B. thur. is used in organic farming (spores and Cry proteins sprayed on crops) because it is deemed mostly safe to the environment, but it seems research of effects on human health is "insufficient". I would think there is a bit of a difference between a topical application that can be washed off, and a systemic production of the insecticide.
Uh, No! No! No! GMO's are engineered to produce insecticides in the plant itself.
GMO's are not engineered to be healthier / more vitamins / whatever; they are
engineered to get to market; to ensure that the money invested in their seed carries
all of the way through to the consumer. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- but what's
bad is the insecticide hasn't had enough time to be thoroughly tested as to its effects
on humans (or pets, farm animals, etc.).
CAP === 'lessen'
I know for a fact that the Sun is the center of our solar system
You are wrong. The barycenter of the solar system is outside the sun.
Please tell me how knowing this means I have no clue how science works.
Science is not about "knowing" things, it is about evidence. The preponderance of the evidence says that climate change is real, and that GMOs are safe. But we don't "know" these things.
The preponderance of evidence... which if all science was done by people of 100% integrity, would indeed be reassuring.
But scientists are very clever, and after they do all the hard and skilled research work, comes time to interpret and report results. And now we are into the realm of funding, and influence, and politics, and so on, where spin and bias may rear their ugly heads. For example, the filing cabinet effect, where evidence which contradicts the preferred hypothesis, simply gets interpreted as mistaken and left in the filing cabinet.
So the preponderance of published evidence, is not really in itself reassuring.
It is odd, because there are many institutions in society which used to be authorities and assumed to be right, and should be trusted, like the police. But eventually, we grew to learn that institutions may have problems, like for example, institutional racism in the police. Now science is generally still held with high regard, as it in a way, ought to be, but it is still something practiced by people, and human nature and bias and survival are still factors, so it would be odd if they did not exert influence over the institution of science as they do over other institutions.
The other weird thing is that people seem to have a hard time holding in mind these two notions at the same time:
1. pre-modern religious fundamentalists who believe their thousand year old book is absolutely true, are indeed irrational and should be criticised.
2. modern science is very successful at producing knowledge, and nevertheless, it is not all the same quality across all fields, and within fields, there are some things which are in fact better understood than others, and the social and political side of human practice does influence things, sometimes a little, or negligibly, and sometimes a lot, and you can't really know either way just basing it on one's preferred views and beliefs -- only time can tell, and sometimes, a lot of time.
And lastly:
3. the details matter, and they matter a lot -- citing consensus on climate change is very vague, as what matters is exactly what effect it will have and how severe it will be, and here you would have to look at how they actually survey the consensus and what exactly people think they are agreeing to and why -- these details matter yet climate change is politically turned into this big us vs them, "scientists vs denialists" claptrap which helps nobody -- that polarisation is deliberate and meant to make people feel bad for being on the "wrong" side -- and if you think that is scientific, then we all know of the famous bridge for sale. it is unfortunate... but many many vested interests in society are all vying for our support.
That is really for me the take home message of these "big science fraud" stories. Humanity has problems with integrity, with "removing the log from one's own eye" to put it one way, or philosophically, the issue of fallibility -- you cannot know if you are right (a fact the CC people try to get around by with saying "well gee you just want to wait while the planet burns" -- which is wrong, it does not mean waiting, but it does mean you include the risks of being wrong in your analysis, especially when unintended consequences rear their ugly head) -- so we must all proceed with humility.
And not to worry this does not put anyone into the fundamentalist 6000-year old Earth idiocy -- for they are the last people to admit their own fallibility.
I know for a fact that the Sun is the center of our solar system
You are wrong. The barycenter of the solar system is outside the sun.
I think that's rather the point. Science continues to refine knowledge, and past a certain point it gives approximations that are close enough that most people don't have to care that they're wrong. Assuming that the sun and moon go around the Earth is close enough that you can predict seasons, tides, and so on with a reasonable amount of accuracy. Knowing that it is the other way around gives you more accurate understanding of seasons, but is basically only important to meteorologists and people running space ships. Knowing that the complex N-body system of the solar system revolves around a point that is sometimes in the is closer to the truth, but is well past the point of utility for most people.
Similarly, we still teach Newton's laws of motion even though quantum mechanics and relativity mean that we know that they're wrong, it's just that they're wrong by an amount that is far less than the errors from measurement for anything that most people will ever deal with.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Okay, so not an outlier. I dropped a couple of inches of waist and maybe 15 lbs. going keto. I'm now I'm 5-10 and 160lbs, but was not obese before. I also dropped triglycerides from "you're going to die tomorrow" to normal and brought up my good cholesterol to normal levels. Everything they can measure in a blood test got better. I've been eating this way for ~7 years. No problems with muscle mass. I have more endurance and strength than I had on a more traditional diet. Energy level is more consistent, I sleep better, the acid reflux went away (and comes right back if I have a big carb meal so I know it wasn't weight), and I'm not fucking hungry all the time. Stuff I didn't even realize was a problem got better. Bacon, eggs, butter, sausage, a little cheese, and nuts are the staples in my diet.
Not saying it's for everyone (the wife does terrible on a high fat/low carb diet), but some folks do really well on it.
Look around - glyphosphate and many other pesticides and herbicides get absorbed into plant tissues, especially when used at extremely high concentrations.
Oh? Exactly how many species of roundup-resistant corn are there?
Have you not noticed Monsanto repeatedly suing farmers whose crops have been involuntarily pollinated by their crops? Not to mention the fact that if you're growing Monsanto crops, you are legally required to buy new seed every year, rather than being able to replant saved seed as traditionally done.
Personally I think a lot of the problems with GMOs could be alleviated by eliminating patents on DNA - remove the immediate profit motive, and you remove both the both the legal threats and the motive to design crops for non-humanitarian purposes.
Lots of toxic things are used in organic farming - natural does not mean safe. All "Organic" protects *you* from is certain classes of synthetic toxins, it's real benefit is reducing environmental pollution. And delta endotoxins have in fact been found to have rather serious effects on mammals, though generally not in naturally-formed crystals for some reason.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You are what you eat.
Almost. You are what you don't poop.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Just stop. Your basic facts about HFCS makeup and metabolism are wrong and therefore I assume the rest of what you are saying is shilling.
Unlike what you said, HFCS has four common versions with different quantities of fructose: HFCS-42 has 42% fructose. There is also, HFCS-55, HFCS-65, and HFCS-90, containing 90% fructose. Soft drinks typically use HFCS-55 or HFCS-65, but of course there's nothing on the labels to indicate which version of HFCS is being used.
Also, unlike what you said, fructose is not metabolized identically. Unlike glucose, fructose is metabolized nearly entirely in the liver, which is where the triglycerides are coming from (re: the article).
Disappointed that whoever modded you up didn't at least check Wikipedia first.
I can see why this can be addictive. The brain gets a chemical satisfaction response, just like with a drug, so why not keep it buzzing happily?
In the end, it comes down to knowing your body and how it deals with caloric intake vs what is burned. Some people have inefficient digestive systems and can eat without weight gain. Some have efficient systems that extract more energy from the food, so they need to reduce the amount of that food to avoid weight gain. If the food amount is difficult to reduce, then eat food with less calorie density (more veggies). I try to eat a balanced diet (with an occasional treat) and exercise regularly. I've been disciplined (or lucky) to be the same weight for the last 25 yrs.