I don't know what to think of sugar, or fat, or whatever the lastest good/bad fad is. What I am fairly confident about is that too much of anything is not a good idea. What is too much is always the question. My guess is that if we weren't eating a large amount of a certain class of food say, a thousand years ago, we probably don't need a large amount of it now. Simple sugars do seem to stand out in that regard. Are there cultures that were eating a lot of simple sugars years ago? I honestly don't know.
What this article reminds us is how shockingly unscientific so much medical information actually is. Opinions mean more than solid research.
This reminds me of the 220-age maximal HR calculation. It has no scientific basis. It was a very rough linear approximation to a small set of data and wasn't intended to be used to predict an individual's maximal heart rate. It doesn't even make sense that maximal HR can be predicted by age without regard to gender, health, inherited characteristics, weight, physical condition or a myriad of other factors that could impact maximal HR. Yet because it is convenient, it has become a universally known "fact". It's on a big poster in most gyms and exercise studios -- even in hospital cardio rehab gyms. Apparently it's even on exercise physiology certification tests!
So now, some tiny, plump, out-of-shape woman with a cardiac condition is believed to have the same maximal HR as a tall, healthy, male gym rat of the same age. They're both trying to achieve 80% of that same maximal heart rate during a hard workout. Who's getting messed up? Probably both. He may not be working as hard as he needs to because his actual maximal HR is probably substantially higher, while the poor little woman is fighting to achieve a HR that may be pushing her very close to her maximal HR.
Yet this mythical calculation is so entrenched, it's almost impossible to shake it loose. Too many people are invested in it one way or another. So science loses to opinion and convenience. Again.