You might be surprised to learn that HFCS and sucrose have almost identical glycemic indexes (55-60). You probably would also be surprised to know that HFCS has replaced sugar on a nearly one-for-one basis since 1970. Since HFCS and sucrose offer essentially the same caloric content, caloric intake in the U.S. has not increased because of this change.
Refining isn't the problem although I agree with you that we should consume freshly prepared foods whenever possible. The problem lies simply, and to your point, in the fact that we consume more calories than we burn because of our sedentary lifestyles.
The average American eats 7 times more saturated fat than trans fat. Both raise levels of bad cholesterol and both give you 9 calories per gram, which is more than twice the number of calories offered by one gram of carbohydrate. Yet, the conventional wisdom is to demonize trans fats. Like I said, do gooders are more concerned with intentions than they are with results. The food industry isn't all that upset. They're now advertising products that are trans fat free and charging more for them. Now they're making bigger margins selling products that don't taste as good, don't last as long and won't do a thing to improve your health. What a country!
Cost more, taste worse and will make you crap like a goose!
I ate it ONE time L0L
That doesnt really surprise me. its not the fructose or sucrose that are a problem. Its the amount that is found in our food. sucrose doesnt occur in High levels in most natural food except say sugar cane or sugar beets.
I dont eat much sugar.
I dont think it should be regulated by gov. I just dont like sugar all that much