Your linked research article says that consuming fructose can cause the kidney's to excrete phosphorous and calcium resulting in low blood calcium and phosphorous. This study has a lot of problems. The first is that they use fructose for 20% of energy and completely eliminate starch from their subjects diets. There was no glucose being fed to these people. This is too much of an imbalance. What they did totally abrogates a every interpretation of what constitutes a normal diet and makes the entire study meaningless. In the summary, they discuss the fact that they fed these folks fructose as their total source for carbs. For crying out loud, that's just loony! They showed what they wanted to show. Period.
Please don't tell me you believe that leeching (however you define it) happens in the liver.
Lactic acid production is a artifact.
You must be joking. Lactic acid is not an artifact. It's an end product of the metabolism of glucose in active muscles. It doesn't build up, except in extreme physical circumstances, because the blood removes it to the liver where it is metabolized, very quickly, into CO2 and water.
So feeding humans with a 80/20 mix of fructose/glucose is not a "high concentration"?
HFCS is used as a replacement for sucrose. That's all. Where there was once sugar, there is now HFCS. Food packers are not randomly placing HFCS into food to increase the amount of carbs people consume. Because HFCS is much sweeter than sugar, manufacturers can use substantially less of it in their product to achieve the desired effect. They use less HFCS, by volume, than they did with sugar. Sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. When they replace sugar with HFCS (80%-20%) you are not getting anything close to the amount of fructose you envision because the amount of HFCS used is much less than the amount of sugar that was used previously.
posted links to papers from the New England Journal of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health
Funny. These two organizations supported the removal of Saccharine from our food supply based on all the faulty science I mentioned earlier. The claim that fructose causes fat formation more readily than glucose is another red herring. Glucose and fructose are both broken down into two carbon units. In active bodies, most of these units go to making energy. Lethargic bodies may not use these 2 carbon units fast enough. In that case the body pushes those units back up the fat metabolism pathway into depot fat. Whether fructose does this faster than glucose is debatable. What isn't debatable though is the fact that if you are active or don't consume too many calories, this issue will never impact you. The fact that people are fat has nothing to do with whether they consume too much fructose. It has to do with consuming too many calories overall or relying on carbohydrates for too much of their total daily caloric intake.
If you overwhelm the body with carbohydrates, you can create all sorts of problems. It's not the fault of the food companies or the ingredients they use. It's the fact that people today are not conscious of what they consume and don't have even the most basic understanding of nutrition. They'd rather blame others or the ingredients themselves. Ignorance is alive and well in the food business and this lack of knowledge, fostered by the food police and those who make money from lawsuits, are destroying what were once great products.
[The major carb in the American diet is starch. Do you really think that we consume more HFCS than rice, pasta and potatoes?]
On a per calorie basis ... Yes.
That is such a ridiculous statement it doesn't warrant a response.
Daily food consumption at different locations: All individuals ages 2 and older