Wow. I think you severely miss-read my comment as some formal argument and you are holding it to a much higher standard than your own comment.
Your first paragraph is an ad hominem attack that is subsequently withdrawn adding nothing to the conversation.
I think you might have misread my questions for arguments. Questions have a symbol at the end: '?'. Also, sentences starting "I thought" are not formal arguments, but a highlight of the contrast between my past understanding and the article.
Also, in order for me to make such a contrast, wouldn't I have to read the article?
And just in case the attack at the beginning was serious, I would like to point out that the questions at the beginning of my post proposed two mechanisms whereby HFCS would be worse for you than sugar, which is what this study's results imply. That's hardly something a 'paid shill' would do.
The only argument I made, if I made one at all, is that just because HFCS is worse than sugar (as proposed by the article) doesn't mean that other sweeteners are good for you. This is likely an important thing to remember for all of those that will use this data when making decisions in their own lives.
Actually, the article doesn't show that HFCS is worse than sugar - if you look at Table 1 you'll see that rats fed HFCS and sugar had the same weight-gain over the long term. However the article is slightly misleading in implying that HFCS is worse than sugar, even though their own results don't show that.
Bad science, move on. All the evidence we have shows that HFCS and sucrose are equally bad for you.
I appreciate your asking the questions that a lot of people have when they hear that HFCS is "evil".
Generally, if people have been taught that there is more than one kind of sugar (yeah, I know), they learn about sucrose, glucose, and fructose, at most.
The name 'fructose' doesn't help clarify this situation. We are told that we (rightly) should eat more fruits and vegetables. But those juicy peaches and other fruits and fruitish foods (berries, etc.) are sweet.
As a result, we make a very direct connection between fructose and fruit, which is enough to create confusion about the HFCS messaging.[1] Points as well for knowing that honey contains a boatload of fructose. Honey's also good for us, or else they wouldn't point out that things are sweetened with honey instead of 'refined' sugar, right?
As with many issues, there's a bathtub curve of understanding. The completely ignorant and the very-slightly informed people are not confused. Nor are people with a high level of understanding about the combination of chemistry and human physiology.
It's that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" zone that has trouble. You have a better than average understanding of the chemistry and the biological processes, but are having trouble putting together the whole picture. How the heck are you going to advise your kids on what to eat without laying down fiat rules?
I think you were treated unfairly in the reply to your post but it does contain some useful information. For the last laugh[2], I would suggest that after you get the understanding you need on the issue, you write a post/page/paper on the topic, targeting your current self as an audience.
Post it here knowing that HN is a culmination of people who are in the bottom of that bathtub on just about every issue, with some awesome representation of the "heavily informed". You'll help a lot of people and get some actionable feedback.
Just filter out the emotion[3] and revise as needed and you'll have a citation handy the next time this sort of thing comes up. Then you'll be that guy on the right hand side of the curve and can have the last laugh by encouraging education instead of discouraging the exposure of innocent ignorance.
[1] The Corn Growers' Association has created some biased but unintentionally hilarious examples of pro-HFCS messaging.
Your first paragraph is an ad hominem attack that is subsequently withdrawn adding nothing to the conversation.
I think you might have misread my questions for arguments. Questions have a symbol at the end: '?'. Also, sentences starting "I thought" are not formal arguments, but a highlight of the contrast between my past understanding and the article.
Also, in order for me to make such a contrast, wouldn't I have to read the article?
And just in case the attack at the beginning was serious, I would like to point out that the questions at the beginning of my post proposed two mechanisms whereby HFCS would be worse for you than sugar, which is what this study's results imply. That's hardly something a 'paid shill' would do.
The only argument I made, if I made one at all, is that just because HFCS is worse than sugar (as proposed by the article) doesn't mean that other sweeteners are good for you. This is likely an important thing to remember for all of those that will use this data when making decisions in their own lives.