HFCS has been cited as part of the problem in creating obese people so I decided to satrt reading. All the sites were in accordance until I reached
http://www.hfcsfacts.com/

According to this site, "From the perspective of the human body, there is very little difference between regular table sugar (sucrose) and HFCS."

I've also read that because there is no chemical bond between glucose and fructose in HFCS, certain hormones that trigger a sense of fullness are not released. To what extent is this true?

HFCS has been cited as part of the problem in creating obese people so I decided to satrt reading. All the sites were in accordance until I reached
http://www.hfcsfacts.com/

According to this site, "From the perspective of the human body, there is very little difference between regular table sugar (sucrose) and HFCS."

I've also read that because there is no chemical bond between glucose and fructose in HFCS, certain hormones that trigger a sense of fullness are not released. To what extent is this true?

In an alarmist sense, people tend to make generalizations that I believe result in overrestriction. For example, certain people generalize sugar and avoid it but take on shakes that are "safe" due to the low sugar content. This is fine ... except when I ask, "Why no sugar?" And the response is ... "Because it can raise blood sugar, insulin, lead to fat storage blah blah blah." That is really interesting ... because fructose, the sugar found predominantly in fruit, for example, has less impact on blood sugar than oatmeal, a common "non-sugar, safe" meal. On the other hand, those "no-sugar" shakes are loaded with maltodextrin, technically a "complex carb" but due to the way your body ingests it, actually raises your blood glucose levels faster than table sugar!

HFCS is one of those things that isn't evil in and of itself, but due to its prevalence has been labeled as such. It really depends on what is going on. For example, HFCS is in most soft drinks. Soft drinks are certainly a major contribution to the obesity epdemic (one of my clients refused to make any other change other than cutting out soda, and lost 20 pounds as the result). However, soda sweetened with regular sugar would be just as bad as soda sweetened with HFCS. HFCS is often used in breads, and personally I prefer natural sweeteners. However, I recently learned that HFCS is used in some products for texture. If it is low on the ingredients list then this is perhaps the cause, and then it isn't as clear if this would be a problem. I eat bars all of the time that have some HFCS and have no issues cutting body fat.

The bottom line is that any attempt to oversimplify and eliminate this or that is going to backfire. Calories are the major culprit, regardless of where they come from, so controlling those by reducing intake and increasing movement is the key. Of course, eating cleaner, more whole foods ensures more bang for the buck because you will be more satisfied and receive more nutrients for the calories you do eat. Whether a calorie comes from a green bean or a HFCS, it is still a glucose molecule by the time it hits your bloodstream.

Here is more information:

http://www.naturalphysiques.com/cms/index.php?itemid=109

Jeremy