I have no issue agreeing with them when they are right. No one can argue with any credibility that excessive sugar is good for someone. Just because I might agree with the nanny statists on some objective, it does not follow that I can't vehemently disagree with them on how to accomplish the objective.
I'm not ceding any ground to the nanny statists by agreeing with the indisputable. Excessive sugar is not good for you. To argue otherwise would be intellectually dishonest. In addition, it would be counter-productive, as I would be written off as a uninformed kook and no one would listen to my objections to the nanny statist's proposals.
Again, how much sugar is excessive? Michael Phelps consumed 12,000+ calories a day, mostly from carbohydrates (carbs are sugar), when he was in training. Given your posts, you cannot argue that this much sugar, in your opinion, is not excessive. Simple reasoning tells us that you believe Michael Phelps is unhealthy for doing so. I think the word you used was "indisputable." This conclusion is no different than telling a guy who eats 10 pancakes with syrup for breakfast, before bailing hay all day, that his diet is bad because he consumes an excessive amount of sugar.
It is intellectually dishonest to debate good food/bad food rather than good diet vs. bad diet. Food is just food and there is no good or bad. Only know-nothings and uninformed kooks believe that the nanny statists are correct on this argument, such as it is, or that a diet high in "sugar" is necessarily bad.