> UCSF, the paper author, consider HFCS to be a poison and likely explains why there was no obesity in 60's photos
I presume you're referring to Dr. Lustig of UCSF's research on sugar, or more specifically his position that fructose is a toxin akin to ethanol due to how similarly they're processed by the liver.
If so, Dr. Lustig is careful to point out that this is not an HFCS-specific issue. Sugar and HFCS both contain fructose, and are essentially identical in this regard. This kind of misinformed demonizing of HFCS results in people thinking sweets are perfectly safe as long as they contain sugar and not HFCS, UCSF does not back such a position AFAIK.
I'm not missing that point, and actually agree with you re: HFCS replacing fat in processed foods.
You're just being harmfully imprecise with your claim, because it implies non-HFCS sweeteners aren't poison - according to UCSF no less. The fructose is the poison, and it's not HFCS-specific. It happens that HFCS is the thing that's everywhere thanks to corn subsidies, sure, but there's still plenty of non-HFCS fructose sources on the shelves of stores that are equally harmful. You're not in the clear by specifically avoiding HFCS.
I observe overweight strangers in the grocery store checkout isle extolling the virtues of eating sugar but not HFCS as they toss candy on the conveyor about once a month. It's rather depressing.
Edit:
BTW I suspect you're shadow-banned in case you didn't know, as your comments in this thread have been immediately [dead]. Looking at your general comments history there's a lot of [dead].
If you haven't seen/heard any of Lustig's talks on the subject, he makes a very compelling argument re: fructose being a toxin. They're readily available on youtube.
Excess fructose consumption is implicated in causing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which affects about 20-25% of people in Europe, and 30-40% of adults in the US. [0]
This statistic alone gives me cause for grave concern WRT covid-19 outcomes for those 30-40% of American adults should they get infected.
I presume you're referring to Dr. Lustig of UCSF's research on sugar, or more specifically his position that fructose is a toxin akin to ethanol due to how similarly they're processed by the liver.
If so, Dr. Lustig is careful to point out that this is not an HFCS-specific issue. Sugar and HFCS both contain fructose, and are essentially identical in this regard. This kind of misinformed demonizing of HFCS results in people thinking sweets are perfectly safe as long as they contain sugar and not HFCS, UCSF does not back such a position AFAIK.