Well-designed study that tried to study ONLY sugar consumption in obese kids -- they actually fed them extra carbs and processed foods to make up the difference in calories, because they did not want the kids to lose weight during the study -- finds that blood markers improve in TEN DAYS off sugar.

The most astounding thing about this to me is how little time it takes to make a difference. 

It's like sugar is poison and so we see results from stopping it after very little time. 

This study got some pretty harsh criticism for how it arrived at its conclusions. See http://www.stats.org/glaring-flaws-in-sugar-toxicity-study/ and http://nutrevolve.blogspot.com/2015/10/kids-sugar-and-metabolic-mechanisms.html

After reading those I can see how the science of this particular study was sloppy.

But the toxicity of sugar and the benefits of reducing (or quitting) sugar are clear:

http://pandawhale.com/post/43726/fed-up-movie-sugar-is-addictive-poison-that-makes-people-sick-according-to-robert-lustig

Come on, guys: the MAJOR problem with the study is that the kids lost too much weight without 9 days of sugar, therefore we can't conclude sugar was the cause of their better bloodwork? FFS!

Also I would like to see the funding sources of the critics, just to be sure.

Stats.org? 

Yeah stats.org is a legit set of scientists: http://www.stats.org/about/

You're right about them statheads! The researchers should have been STUFFING those kids full of way more turkey hot dogs, how dare they lose weight... we need them to be FAT for SCIENCE. And individual variation? STALIN DIDN'T LIKE IT and that's good enough for me!