Calories in calories out is physics nothing can override or circumvent. It's a basic plausibility test. Fructose obeys the same laws as everything else. It might be harder to hit a calorie target if you eat fructose but if you do, that's it. It has to work.
Anyone who disputes this is scientifically illiterate.
Well, speaking of illiterate, no one actually disputed that.
It still is, however a gross oversimplification. Fructose is dense in calories, easily absorbed (which is calories in, not necessarily the food you swallow), contributes heavily to lipogenesis, and does not inhibit leptin, a hormone that controls hunger.
The core idea he is trying to get across is that diets shifting to significantly more fructose and significantly less fiber has created the rapid rise in obesity in the US. Is that up for dispute?
> Anyone who disputes this is scientifically illiterate.
Well, those who possess a lower IQ are more likely to become obese. So perhaps not understanding the way the universe works is how they wind up obese in the first place. Not too surprising, then, that they would be unable to comprehend how to get themselves out of that state. And there is certainly no shortage of charlatans and mountebanks out there all too ready to lead them astray.