[raverbashing]

I think you're almost there

Fructose is fructose, there's no "natural fructose" however it's one thing to eat it pure, another one in a fruit

"The problem with fructose is that the liver has only a limited ability to properly process it."

Correct, glucose can replenish muscle glycogen, fructose can't (the liver produces both types of glycogen) - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3592616

"This is because the fiber provides certain nutrients"

Fibers, per definition are not digestible but are other things that may happen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Fiber

And of course glycemic index may be a problem with sugars as well.

[_delirium]

Fructose is fructose, there's no "natural fructose" however it's one thing to eat it pure, another one in a fruit

That I can buy. What I'm more skeptical of is that there's a distinction between "manufactured" and "natural" fructose once both have been concentrated and are used as additives to sweeten other products. Eating a pear is one thing, but I'm less sure that a "naturally sweetened" product which has been sweetened with concentrated pear juice or a similar fruit-based sugar extract is really more healthy than the same product that has been sweetened with more conventional "manufactured" sugars. I don't doubt that eating an actual fruit is almost certainly better than either one.

[sizzle]

I've come to learn that "natural" is a marketing weasel word that adds nothing of value to describing a product.

[stefantalpalaru]

There's only one type of glycogen that's stored in different places. The article you linked only refers to "rapid glycogen restoration". Don't assume from that that the liver can't produce glycogen from fructose.