It's also extremely bad form of you to use Gray's real name on a public forum.
Oh, and since the Lustig fans conveniently ignored this the first time I posted it, here it is again:
The bitter truth about fructose alarmism. | Alan Aragon's Blog
Debunking Sugar is Toxic
Wait a Minute, Lustig. The Threat of Fructophobia. And the Opportunity. | Richard David Feinman
And because people are probably too lazy to click into the articles, just an example of how Lustig blatantly lies in order to "prove" his theory:
All you have to do is google "Lustig debunked", "lustig wrong"... you get the point.The presentation of the science is compelling but, while it has a number of important points, it is clearly biased and, oddly, a good deal of it is totally wrong, some of it containing elementary errors in chemistry that border on the bizarre — how hard would it have been to open an elementary organic chemistry text? In trying to draw parallels between alcohol and fructose, Lustig says “ethanol is a carbohydrate.” Ethanol is not a carbohydrate.
It is biological function that is important and ethanol is not processed like fructose as Lustig says. There is very little chemical sense in saying that ethanol and fructose are processed biologically in similar ways. And a metabolic pathway is shown in which glycogen is absent. Glycogen is the storage form of glucose and is generally taken as a good thing because of its relation to endurance in athletes but, like fat, glycogen is a storage form of energy and having a lot is not always a good thing. In any case, it is not true that fructose does not give rise to glycogen. In fact, fructose is generally better at forming glycogen than glucose is.