I remember the 90's "part of this complete breakfast" was cereal, toast, and a glass of orange juice, and my parents thought they were eating healthy. I think people are just more aware now.

I mean a bowl of Cheerios, whole wheat toast, orange juice, and a banana is what I had every morning before school. I would consider it a pretty healthy breakfast, even by today's standards. I guarantee you most people eat much worse than that.

It's definitely better than pop tarts and chocolate milk but I still wouldn't consider that healthy. Switch the juice for water and cheerios for a source of protein and it would be much better

> bowl of Cheerios

carbs and added sugar

>whole wheat toast

better but still carbs

>orange juice

glass of sugar without fiber

>a banana

better than juice and added sugar, but still natural sugars.

That's big old pile of carbs. There's no fat and little proteins, only in the milk, which will have even more sugar.

Is raw sugar at least marginally more healthy than processed additives like HFCS?

At present, we believe that the following conclusions are warranted. First, there is no unique relationship between HFCS and obesity. Second, there is broad scientific consensus that there are no significant metabolic or endocrine response differences or differences in health-related effects between HFCS and sucrose. [0]

As others have said, it's an issue of quantity. Consuming 10-30 grams of sugar daily - table sugar, corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, or otherwise - does not cause obesity and health problems. The World Health Organization recommends no more than 10% of one's daily calories come from sugar. [1]

The average American consumes ! 125 ! grams of sugar a day, with empty carbs accounting for up to 40% of caloric intake [2]. This 40% includes the simple, 'empty' carbohydrates found in processed breads, cereals, condiments, drinks - which are converted to glucose by the digestive system in minutes.

The amount - not the quality - of sugars in our diet is the problem.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/

[1] https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/guidelines/sugars...

[2] https://www.thediabetescouncil.com/45-alarming-statistics-on...

The problem with HFCS seems to be it's ubiquity and low cost, not its chemical makeup.

My current understanding is sucrose gets converted to glucose and fructose pretty much instantly once it hits your stomach[1].

The difference is, no one dumps a dozen teaspoons of sugar per serving in home prepared food and drink. Where drink and processed food manufacturers carefully buffer their recipes to accommodate the equivalent amount of HFCS.

[1] Read though that low end processed foods and drinks often contain very high levels of fructose.

Here's some counterpoints to the other points made:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3522469/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23181629

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23630060