Sugar is no worse than an equal amount of rice or potatos or other similar starch for contributing to the risk of diabetes. As such, sugar should not be singled out for special censure. This and similar studies do not say that a high sugar diet is healthy, only that it is not specifically responsible for many of the things blamed on it.
Yeah, white rice and potatos are high GI foods, and are pretty close to processed sugar. (Sugar 100, white rice, 91) I would want to cut these out of my diet as well.
Urban Ranger: I somehow equated “high-sugar diet” with 80%, mostly that is because when I hear “High-Carb” diet, 80% is what they mean.
Oh, also adding that sugar has no nutritional value, rice, brown rice anyhow, does have some. Sugar is useless IMO.
I’m confused by the term “nutritional value.” How can you say that a substance that provides virtually all of our energy has no nutritional value? Do you mean no additional nutritional value? All this pseudoscience that people get from infomercials and nightly news reports has so distorted the language and thinking that it’s hard to have an intelligent conversation.
There’s nothing inherently bad about sugar. It’s an excellent source of energy. But like everything else, when done in excess, it causes problems. Foolish to demonize it specifically, though.
Would you be less likely to get tooth decay if you were to cut out ‘sugary’ foods (by which I mean stuff like chocs and fizzy pop)?
I’ve never been sure whether it’s the sugar itself that attacks the teeth, or bacteria that live on sugar, or the acid the bacteria produce, or even if sugar is the key factor… 
Here is an article that should answer your question. The sugar itself doesn’t attack the teeth. Bacteria using the sugar as an energy source create byproducts that cause decay. For example, a byproduct of sucrose utilization by streptococcus mutans is mutan, which sticks to the teeth and causes enamel erosion because it lowers the pH.
From the article:
To assess the cavity-producing potential of these two sugars, the researchers supplemented the drinking water of their study animals with 10 percent sucrose, 10 percent high fructose corn sweetener, or 10 percent maltodextrin (a caloric, digestible complex carbohydrate) supplemented with an artificial sweetener to insure comparable taste and caloric intake. Solid diets and nutritional status were the same for all groups.
Some of the animals on each regimen were inoculated with either Streptococcus gordonii or Streptococcus mutans, while others remained uninoculated
Results showed that uninoculated animals had relatively few cavities regardless of the diet sweetener. Inoculated animals developed higher levels of tooth decay if they drank water supplemented with either sucrose or high fructose corn sweetener than if they drank water supplemented with the artificial sweetener and maltodextrin.
Hmm, dunno about you, but I get by just fine with no sugar. (I go days without it) Glucose provides all my energy. Cane sugar/brown sugar, etc, don’t flow through my veins, sorry. Perhaps you confused the two? All that psuedoscience babble I guess.
You eat your sugar and get fat and die young, I will pass.
The term “empty calories” is probably better here, even though it sounds less scientific. It does a better job of denoting that although you do get energy from it, there is no other nutritional benefit to eating that food.
Many people seem to equate calories as automatically being “bad”, but of course that isn’t the case, they’re a measure of energy - you need to keep them to a reasonable limit though, and eating more healthful foods to get those calories is wise.
Nitpick: yeah, sucrose doesn’t course through your veins, it gets converted into glucose, which will then be metabolised into ATP. 
That’s the same no matter what you eat if you eat excessively.