It is going to depend on a number of factors but what is not disputable is that there is an amount for everyone beyond which sugar consumption is excessive. That was why I was careful to use the word "excessive" when describing sugar consumption.
Given your posts, you cannot argue that this much sugar, in your opinion, is not excessive.
I can't? How about this? Given his active training regime, Michael Phelps could safely consume a lot more sugar than the typical individual could.
Simple Faulty reasoning tells us that you believe Michael Phelps is unhealthy for doing so.
Fixed your sentence for you. Talk about putting words in my mouth. Obviously, Michael Phelps was supremely healthy. However, I'm sure that Phelps did not achieve that by a diet high in refined sugar which is what is being talked about here. I doubt he was training on candy bars and soda pop. His carbohydrate intake, I'm sure included lots of pasta and breads which have positive nutritional value.
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.
Same as with Phelps, someone who has an active lifestyle can afford to consume more sugar than the typical person. Of course, the nutritional value of the meal doesn't come from the syrup but if he wants to add it to his pancakes, have at it.
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.
So the entire medical profession is "know-nothings" and "uninformed kooks"? Refined sugar provides little or no nutritional benefits but lots of problems if taken in excess. A person doesn't have to be a nanny-statist to believe that nor to believe that our citizens would be healthy if most consumed less sugar. But it doesn't follow from that there should be a ban on sugar.
In the last paragraph of the previous post, healthy should have been healthier.