I agree it was interesting, and it is indeed preferable to provide citations..but just because something is referenced does not mean the study referenced was a good one. I can think of many studies, including one that was dissected here recently, that was pro-hi carb, are very poorly done. So equally it is possible that a lot of the links provided anti-sugar were poorly done.

My comment was really not about this though, but about the tendency to isolate, or reduce, issues to one main baddy when they are likely multi-factorial. So it is not 'just sugar', or 'just low fat', or just one anything that caused all our obesity. It is also lack of exercise overall, huge portions, mixing fats and carbs, transfats, processing, and so on. Then we have all the other potential evils mentioned in my previous post such as plastics in their infinite variety which can also be linked to bad health outcomes..

Just making a point. We are quite happy to tear apart the citations and evidence given against what we embrace, say sucralose, but not against sugar. I don't believe that either of them, unless one has a considerable and obvious problem with them, if consumed very moderately as millions do, is going to be a big problem. The same is true for say alcohol...if consumed very moderately it is not a problem. One could just as easily create a similar, well documented list of the evils of demon drink.

The WHO has been saying for some years that refined sugar is a big problem but in our globalized world, economic forces larger than WHO lobby our governments. Same is true for the massive pharmaceutical industry who totally orchestrate how we think about disease...the case against sat fats being an example. But that's another discussion...

So just as I choose not to drink more than 2 glasses of wine, so I choose to rarely, if ever consume refined sugar. I avoided sugar, honey etc. for probably 20 years, but still got fat. My grandfather ate heaps of it and was always slim.

Val