You should read Stephen Guyenet to challenge what you've heard about sugar, both his twitter and his blog. He's a Ph.D. neuroscientist who studies the connectio

You should read Stephen Guyenet to challenge what you've heard about sugar, both his twitter and his blog. He's a Ph.D. neuroscientist who studies the connection of the brain to fatness for a living. A recent tweet from him: Most comprehensive analysis of macronutrients vs. lifespan, fatness, health in mice. High fat + high carb + low protein = highest body fat. High fat + high carb + high protein = highest insulin. High carb + low fat + low protein = longest lifespan. https://twitter.com/whsource/status/965330116468502529 https://twitter.com/whsource/status/965330116468502529 There is an air of certainty about low carbs permeating our culture right now that is not justified by the evidence at all. The Kitavans today get 70% of their calories from potato and have no diabetes or metabolic syndrome. Look up Ray Peat for a good argument in favor of sugar. Plenty of people are thriving on high sugar diets. For my own part, I've consumed 1300 or so calories of sugar a day for 20 years and my biomarkers are 99th percentile. I'm very consistent about resistance training and I don't overeat, both factors likely dwarfing my sugar intake. Of course, obviously that's an anecdote, but I would caution anyone who automatically judges someone else for their sugar consumption. You might be wrong about sugar and, more importantly, you might be wrong about sugar paired with a particular person's genes or other lifestyle factors. Because of my high sugar consumption, I eat relatively low fat and protein. What if that's better for you, assuming you don't overeat? Guyenet is somewhat in favor of the hypothesis that sugar increases fatness, but he thinks it's because humans are susceptible to the "unnatural" increase in food reward that adding extra sugar induces, not because sugar is toxic in and of itself.