From a myriad of anecdotal evidence from my immediate and extended family, I'm personally convinced that there are significant downsides to America's addiction to sugar.

Discussion, debate, close examination of results/methods, and the like are helpful. But calling out an entire research topic as "non-sense" holds back scientific progress, even if the research topic appears fruitless. Many of today's accepted truths were yesterday's non-sense.

Ray Peat is a quack. cowseatgrass is based on his work.

Ray Peat is most definitely not a quack. How did you come to that conclusion?

Would you care a adding some context or tl;dr to that? You linked to a really long text which - to my eyes - does not reach a conclusion.

Tl/dr: the campaign against sugar is not actually grounded on solid science - it's sort of a disinformation campaign to distract people from the other elephants in the room: rancid deodorized dietary oils, xeno-estrogens and other endocrine disrupters, etc...

People with a healthy metabolism can easily burn sugar for energy. Having a high metabolism increases the body's need for other nutrients, which are not present in white sugar. Sugar-rich foods, used in the context of a nutrient-dense diet, can be therapeutic.