Finally a decent study.
The results are interest but, as usual, hardly the smoking gun most reports are making it out to be.
Here is a detailed report.
Some things to note.
* A total of 40 rats (10 in each of 4 groups) were used in the first study. I'm no scientist, but that doesn't seem like a huge sample size. Even smaller for the 2nd experiment. Only 24 males. It doesn't state how many females.
* The 4 groups were fed 1) HFCS and chow on a 24h feeding schedule, 2) HFCS and chow on a 12h feeding schedule, 3) sucrose and chow on a 12h feeding schedule, 4) just chow on a 12h schedule. In that experiment, ONLY the HFCS, 12h schedule groups showed a statistical difference in weight from the control group. The group on the 24h schedule did not (and actually gained less weight than the sucrose group).
* The longer term experiment showed some more convincing evidence, at least among male rats. Both HFCS groups were significantly more obese than the control group. But (and this part makes the least sense to me) because they didn't see statistical weight gain in males in the first experiment from sucrose, they decided not to include a sucrose group in the 2nd. Umm, why? Especially when one of the 2 HFCS also showed no significant increase. Seems like a major oversight to me.
* Among females in the long term 2nd experiment, the statistically significant gain was again seen in one HFCS group, but not the other, reversed this time with the 24h schedule showing the gain. And again, the other HFCS group fared BETTER than the sucrose group.
With 4/6 HFCS groups showing significant deviation from control, it's definitely something worth exploring. If the results can be consistently replicate, they're on to something. But this is not a lot of data to draw any real conclusion from.