A point I've pressed several times now is that sugar is no better than HFCS. Those who obsess about HFCS are missing the point: sugar is high in fructose too. That matters.

Two papers in the journal PNAS in 2007 and 2008 showed that glucose and fructose act quite differently in the brain (hypothalamus) - glucose decreasing food intake and fructose increasing food intake. Both of these sugars signal in the brain through the malonyl-CoA signaling pathway and have inverse effects on food intake.

Lane commented: "We feel that these findings may have particular relevance to the massive increase in the use of high fructose sweeteners (both high fructose corn syrup and table sugar) in virtually all sweetened foods, most notably soft drinks. The per capita consumption of these sweeteners in the USA is about 145 lbs/year and is probably much higher in teenagers/youth that have a high level of consumption of soft drinks. There is a large literature now that correlates, but does not prove that a culprit in the rise of teenage obesity may be fructose."

Emphasis added. Both sugar and HFCS are about 50/50 glucose/fructose. To reduce calories, and apparently the urge to munch, avoid sweets. The is mostly relevant for sedentary types. If you burn lots of calories due to high activity levels then this is less relevant. As often noted, a contributing factor to obesity, especially for youths, is lack of physical activity. Our brains and bodies are primitive mechanisms suited to hard labor and consumption of mass quantities of food, not particularly well suited to our civilization.