> "the sugar they sell is bad, that's it, there's no questioning"

I question it.

There appears to be little-to-no scientific evidence that there are "bad" sugars and "good" sugars. From what I understand (I'm no doctor, just a person who reads a lot) the main problem is the volume of consumption, not "good" vs "bad" sugars. There's nothing wrong with a normal, healthy person having sugar in any of the forms Nestle sells, only with having too much of it.

Now, you could argue that they sell it in quantities that make it easy to have too much, but that's different from saying the sugar itself is bad.

It's not only the dosage that does you in, but also the processing... which i think is what others are alluding to.

Meaning a can of soda has a whacky amount of sugar to begin with, but also, if compared to say an orange, has no fiber/roughage (which helps the insulin spike supposedly, plus orange will have good micro-nutrients and antioxidants).

I think people should be much more mindful of these manufactured processed foods and drinks, and why sticking to whole foods just makes sense.

> "It's not only the dosage that does you in, but also the processing"

but not the sugar itself -- it's the same chemical. (There are those who believe certain types of sugar are processed differently in your body, which is actually not true, at least based on the large body of scientific evidence available thus far.)

I don't believe different sugars are processed differently. I do thing that release mechanisms are different in, for example, corn vs corn syrup. The "extra stuff" you get with corn mediates how fast a body can absorb the sugar, the container needs to be broken down. So, in some sense, yes, all sugars are the same. The delivery system can change the rate of absorption though. *

* I have no proof of this. I'm making an uneducated guess that the insulin spikes aren't as steep or high with sweet fruits and vegetables compared with a spoon full of sugar.

Sugar they sell you is bad, period. Every gram of their nutritionally empty sugar takes away from the caloric input that you could have got from real food with many other nutrients than pure energy. This in the long run makes a difference. And all this beside other bad effects of processed sugar like insulin spikes, etc.

> Sugar they sell you is bad, period. Every gram of their nutritionally empty sugar takes away from the caloric input that you could have got from real food with many other nutrients than pure energy.

Again, is Nestle's sugar somehow chemically different than ordinary sugar?

You're absolutely right! I'm going to tell my 4 year old she's done having chocolate. Period. No sense in taking way from the caloric input she could have gotten from real food. Ice cream, jellybeans, and cake is out too. She'll get a tofu slab for her birthdays and a cold, crisp glass of water for her desserts.

Actually, just switching to non-sweetened water can mean no obesity. There are also studies that show heavily mechanically processed food is more caloric than expected - because it is ground so fine that there is real difference in energy required to break it down.

> the sugar they sell is bad, that's it, there's no questioning

I dunno, I think sugar is pretty delicious. Not everything has to be about maximizing your lifespan, you know. A balanced life can include tasty stuff.

I don't use any sugar in any of my recipes (a part from pastry) and they are tasty. More than all this processed food. Just using whole foods. Maybe it's the mediterranean diet, we eat too good here in Spain ;P

At the end it is all about balance as you say, but I really prefer to be balancing between meals that are too caloric than processed foods which we don't even know which ingredients contain.