I just found this book on Google Book Search; http://books.google.ca/books?id=taGpgaQ4Q7UC&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=fructose+carbohydrate+oxidation&source=web&ots=e8vxbZLWrW&sig=kfXOP6QMAY1JU1irZUApLifsqbE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA322,M1
The section I linked to talks about the effect of carb intake on carbohydrate oxidation; long story short, carb oxidation is maximized when glucose and fructose are taken together. Absorption rate is maximized with this mix, so there's just more to oxidize. (This is in humans for once.)
Calories taken in with an associated flavour can cause a preference for that flavour. Is that why glucose/fructose mixes, which would cause the quickest influx of carb calories, are the popular sugars? Fructose is sweeter; why don't they just put pure fructose in colas? Too sweet? Then why not use slightly less?
Potatoes were once sanctified for being complex carbs, the claim being that their structure caused a slow sustained absorption of carbohydrate. Then vilified for having a high glycemic index and just dumping glucose into the system. We're not back to saint status for spuds yet, but maybe the fact that they're mostly glucose limits the maximum rate of sugar absorption in the gut? As long as you don't eat them with honey?
I already posted about this study;
In which mice fed a high fructose (60 percent) became leptin-resistant. They were fed the fructose diet for 6 months, which didn't make them fat but increased their triglycerides. Then they were fed a high fat diet and this made them fat, but not control mice that never went through the fructose feeding. This went on for another two weeks. It would have been nice to see what happened on a longer high fat low fructose diet; whether the condition reversed itself.