The gave either fructose or glucose based to volunteers over a period of 10 weeks, and seem to have shown a clear statistical difference between the reaction to the two. Although both produced similar total weight gains, there were consistent differences in how the volunteers reacted to each:
"These data suggest that dietary fructose specifically increases DNL, promotes dyslipidemia, decreases insulin sensitivity, and increases visceral adiposity in overweight/obese adults."
[1] The "six times sweeter" claim is false, and indicates a lack of both fact checking and logic. If it was 6x sweeter, you wouldn't need anywhere near as much of it!
This is really just a specific instance of "Please submit the original source". In this case there is often an assumption that readers cannot understand the actual article and we need journalists who interview scientists to summarize it for us. I almost always find that, as in this article, there are errors in the news summary, and I have come to the opinion that you can't learn anything about health by reading these kinds of health news summaries.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/
The gave either fructose or glucose based to volunteers over a period of 10 weeks, and seem to have shown a clear statistical difference between the reaction to the two. Although both produced similar total weight gains, there were consistent differences in how the volunteers reacted to each:
"These data suggest that dietary fructose specifically increases DNL, promotes dyslipidemia, decreases insulin sensitivity, and increases visceral adiposity in overweight/obese adults."
[1] The "six times sweeter" claim is false, and indicates a lack of both fact checking and logic. If it was 6x sweeter, you wouldn't need anywhere near as much of it!