Horribly written. It is promoting sucrose, it says sucrose is fructose and glucose, then it says "if you're ... getting both fructose and glucose together ... then fructose gets converted to fat at a much higher rate, approximating 30%." which is a bad thing.
Sucrose is a molecule made by joining a glucose and a fructose molecule together. It is not the same thing as two separate molecules, though it is broken down rather quickly into its individual components.
Additionally, the key point is that the sucrose would be replaced with just fructose, which if done by weight would mean roughly twice as much fructose in the food. With the position the article has on fructose this seems like an obviously worse position, however I would love to see sources on it.
> Horribly written.
Indeed. FTA: "It's fructose, for goodness sake. It increases blood fructose, which is way worse. Fructose causes seven times as much cell damage as does glucose, because it binds to cellular proteins seven times faster; and it releases 100 times the number of oxygen radicals (such as hydrogen peroxide, which kills everything in sight)."
It at least got one thing right - fructose is terrible for you. Therefore, sucrose is also terrible for you.
