So this is what I'm hung up on: > The problem is not the sugar per se, but the fact that different people respond to the same consumed items completely You st

So this is what I'm hung up on: > The problem is not the sugar per se, but the fact that different people respond to the same consumed items completely You stated as a fact that sugar itself is not the problem, and you point to other causes (earlier, differing metabolic responses among people; now, a different substance being a confounding factor) as the explanation. But these just seem to be hand-waving conjectures about how something else could be the problem, not anything factually indicating that sugar itself isn't. Furthermore, the fact that some people respond differently to sugar would not itself imply that sugar itself is not the problem, which is what's been throwing me off about your discussions. There are plenty of illnesses that some people are resistant or even immune to. There are also plenty of cases where some people initially tolerate a substance but then eventually -- even after many years -- suddenly start showing severe reactions to it, simply as a result of excess consumption. The fact that people don't have the same uniform responses to the same substances doesn't necessarily mean the substances aren't the problem. This is why I'm saying I can't follow your logic. Your conclusion that sugar itself isn't the problem might still be correct; I don't know. I'm just saying I don't see how your explanations imply that conclusion.