Let's recap for a moment. Sugar is one part glucose and one part fructose (50/50). High fructose corn syrup is very close to the same formula, marginally higher in fructose -- 55 percent fructose; 45 percent glucose -- but probably not enough to make that much difference (or at least that's what the proponents of HFCS claim). But the point is moot, and the argument about which is "better" diverts our attention from the real problem.

The real problem is this: The more damaging half of this dastardly duo of glucose and fructose -- regardless of whether it occurs in table sugar or HFCS -- is clearly fructose. Numerous studies have shown that it raises insulin resistance, raises triglycerides in the bloodstream and contributes to fatty liver disease. Pure refined fructose is bad news, whether it comes from HFCS or from sugar.

The big problem with HFCS is the fact that it's so cheap and so widely available that it's now in products that were never sweetened before. And the fact that it's so inexpensive means that manufacturers can use a ton of it, sweetening everything in sight. The result is that we now consume more fructose than we ever did when manufacturers used plain old sugar.

Going back to "natural" (give me a break), white sugar accomplishes exactly nothing. Refined fructose is metabolic poison, and whether we get it from the old-fashioned sugar or the cheap and abundant HFCS matters not a whit. We're eating too much of the stuff. And to avoid all confusion, let me add that I'm quite aware that fructose is found naturally in fruits. But fructose in fruits -- surrounded by fiber, vitamins, phytochemicals and other good stuff -- is a very different "animal" than refined fructose, as different as an animal's fur is from a fur coat in the store window. You don't, therefore, need to avoid fructose when it occurs (in small amounts) in whole foods. When it occurs in refined sweeteners -- be it "natural" sugar or high-fructose corn syrup -- you should simply run the other way.