Like I said, hypothesis! The glycemic index is problematic for lots of reasons. If by "a little bit of sweetener" you're referring to HFCS in packaged foods, I

Like I said, hypothesis! The glycemic index is problematic for lots of reasons. If by "a little bit of sweetener" you're referring to HFCS in packaged foods, I disagree. HFCS prevalence seems much much larger than that. You're right on that sucrose (table sugar) is not much different than HFCS. Fructose != starches. The body metabolizes the two differently (See below). A bit of knowledge about fructose rumbling around my brain... 1) Fructose is metabolized differently than glucose. All fructose has to be metabolized by the liver and go through the portal vein. This is not the case for glucose or other non-fructose carbohydrates. 2) Metabolizing fructose via the liver, especially in excess leads to fatty liver. Think foie gras but in humans. Non-alocholic fatty liver disease is now a huge thing, happening even in children. In prior decades if you saw a fatty liver it was because the person was an alcoholic. 3) Fructose is unique in that it short-circuits your bodies methods of letting you know you are full and to stop eating. Human bodies, metabolism, and our food supplies are all complex dynamic systems so, it's unlikely that one single thing can answer the obesity epidemic. Nonetheless, if I had to pick one place to start, I'd begin at fructose and see what kind of web is woven around it. Two places to check out if you're interested in some of what has informed my thinking. 1) Dr. Rick Johnson--seems to know more about fructose than anyone else https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/ https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/ 2) Dr. Robert Lustig--sees himself as a public advocate so have to wade through some of that to get to his ideas: http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/robert-h.-lustig.html http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/robert-h.-lustig.html https://robertlustig.com/ https://robertlustig.com/ https://peterattiamd.com/roblustig/ https://peterattiamd.com/roblustig/