Indirectly saying lower sugar intake had higher risks and so on but we know you can live just fine without any added sugar consumed without any risks. Some comments above asked if that is the correct reading and the science provided us the answers to this question a long time ago and the answer is no; eating no added sugar is healthy and you will be fine.
You don’t have to take my word for it; you can take one of UCSF professor Lustig.
Edit: yes of course, glucose is the energy of life but you don’t need to consume it. I think all(?) carbohydrates break down into glucose; ergo you can get it from broccoli. Simple test is blood glucose finger prick test after eating.
But I did mean that there are people that argue that you need added sugar for proper nutrition. These people exist.
> You don’t have to take my word for it; you can take one of UCSF professor Lustig.
the guy who claims fructose is poison? I won't be taking that source at face value. You are revealing your bias very plainly (which was already pretty obvious with your initial smug comment)
> These people exist.
If they do, they are such a small group they are not worth mentioning let alone claiming "it may come as a shocker to many (most?) people."
you reference "numerous studies" while sharing none of them and instead post the LD50 of fructose? you can't be serious. With that logic, everything is poison and you aren't making any point at all.
People dont need to eat carbs to stay alive: most tissues can run on fatty acids and ketones, and the body can make glucose (slowly) from protein.
Dietary fiber is technically carbs (that the human body cannot digest and burn) and if a person eats no fiber, his gut microbiota withers, which is pretty bad, but won't kill him any time soon.
I know, it may come as a shocker to many (most?) people.
https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s...