http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full

Admittedly, This isn't my area of expertise. However that's a 30 second google search compared to your "people I know say he's a buffoon" argument.

Given you are an anonymous voice in the inter-webs who may not even know how to get to UCSF, I'm pretty comfortable with my current assessment.

I can certainly be convinced otherwise, but "my buddies think he's a kook" is not exactly doing it for me.

(I'm confused ~ downvotes? There is absolutely nothing beyond ad homenem provided against me by dekhn, and yet I'm downvoted? Am I missing something here?)

The second article isn't very helpful either.

We are looking for high quality data that meets the criteria required to make nutritional advice:

1) almost certainly needs to be a controlled clinical trial with double blinding 2) needs to be replicated by multiple indepdendent groups who do not share data or methods or design before publishing 3) after that, get a Cochrane REview and ideally also allow Glantz and others to pick apart the methodology.

In the absence of definitive evidence, recommendations must rely on professional judgment. No data suggest that sugar intake per se is advantageous, and some data suggest it may be detrimental. The studies above, taken in total, indicate that high sugar intake should be avoided. Sugar has no nutritional value other than to provide calories. To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.

Can you point me to something substantial that suggests I should not consider the above accurate? I appreciate that evidence in support of the Lustig claims may not be complete, but evidence against them seems non existent. Why should I ignore what seems obvious?

First, the conclusion that it's detriment is admitted by the authors as being uncertain "some data suggest it may".

Second, most people in the area would say that in the absence of data showing harm, one should not conclude something is harmful, and then take action.

Third, let's turn their argument around. They state: "in the absence of evidence, use professional judgment. If something has no use, it should be avoided." OK. If that's their professional judgement, then to be fair it should apply to everything in their demesne, right? AKA, if there is somethign which is not absolutely necessary, and might be detrimental, these authors would say to avoid it entirely.

However, sugar makes food more palatable. So there are patients who don't want to eat food (cancer patients on chemo) but if the food is more palatable they eat it. Even sometimes getting kids to eat food is hard- shall I not add salt, or sugar if it gets them to eat a meal? Taken to its logical conclusion, their suggestion would shut down nearly all free choices that we make which have marginal risk concerns.

That seems to be a bit of a strawman based on an exaggeration of the quoted passage in the parent comment.