There's a very big difference between HFCS and sucrose. HFCS is soluble monosaccarides. Sucrose is a disaccaride which requires enzymatic cleaving to produce free fructose and glucose. The kinetics of the fructose processing are very different as a result--with sucrose the release is much slower because it's rate-limited by the quantity and kinetics of the sucrase enzyme. It's not going to hit your liver with a high concentration of fructose instantaneously, it's going to be a slower release over an extended period.
Well, given that he references papers from the "corn refiner's association" immediately afterwards, I'll note that this may not be entirely unbiased. This entire industry in the US has immense political clout, and that may well extend to publishing questionable research that comes out in their favour to confuse wider debate and regulatory change.
There's plenty of evidence from the other point of view demonstrating that HFCS has rather different behaviour than sucrose. Quickly-found example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22152650/
> Well, given that he references papers from the "corn refiner's association" immediately afterwards, I'll note that this may not be entirely unbiased.
That's a fun conspiracy theory and all, but he's clearly not advocating for HFCS consumption. Watch the entire talk, he's obviously not pro-corn industry. Infact he does attack HFCS specifically but not for metabolically different reasons.
He's clearly concerned about people mistaking HFCS as the problem when fructose is the problem, and sugar is half fructose, so you're not avoiding it by replacing your HFCS with sucrose. Metabolically they're basically the same.
