Fruit stalls fatloss, we have tons of evidence, even on PH alone, we have N=1 over and over and over, people getting over loss when stopping fruit intake, and people stalling out by eating it. If 1 piece of fruit (arguably below defined moderate by most people) can take an otherwise great flowing plan and stall it out, theres more going on than simple glycogen restoration.
I lost the majority of my weight as Low Carb, restored my insulin sensitivity etc etc. my liver glycogen was CLEARLY not capped, yet fruit (or alcohol) stalled me out faster than anything. I add alcohol in there, because it seemed to have the same exact effect. When I ate 1 piece of fruit, my metabolism altered, my body stopped burning fat. If fructose is a healthy way to restore liver glycogen, why does that happen? Not N=1
When I ate 1 piece, my hunger cravings would go from none, Zero, to Raving Relentless Beast... I had to eat shortly afterwords... if nothing else is going on, why do my cravings for food suddenly skyrocket? Again, not N=1. Fructose has been shown to impede Insulin and Leptin, and not trigger Ghrelin... which explains this scientifically. Yes the intial testing may have been on HFCS, but the Empirical data with fruit definitely corroborates.
In a healthy individual, with a healthy liver, we can tolerate toxins. Tolerated is not Optimal. Regardless, our liver is required to process fruit. our body cannot process Fructose without it. and barring immediate storage after conversion... cannot use it.
In addition, Advanced Glycation End Products(AGEs) are formed thru this conversion... these dont go away. These are known to at least contribute or be highly related to aging.
If even minimal fructose is OPTIMAL, why would we produce a permanent TOXIN as a byproduct of storing? not N=1. The science supports this at any level of intake. The argument here is that AGEs happen from alot of other pathways as well(stress?). and small amounts of fructose produce small amounts of AGEs that may be very minimal in the big picture, and its the copious amounts eating by SAD that induce the (noticable)life shortening amounts.
A significant amount of the large classification of "Fruit" is anything but. Inbred, Crossbred Fructose bombs does not a Fruit our ancestors would have recognized make. Some of todays fruits are so laden with excess sugar, that arguing their health benefits is silly.
I think that we have a secondary issue with these arguments, because, in my opinion, Dates, Raisins, Figs and other high Fructose load super sweet fruits are bastards. Berries or Avocado on the other hand are a great example of super low fructose(and low sugar) fruits that I believe the positives may outweigh the negatives. While I dont believe that strawberries are optimal for my health, I sure do enjoy them in "moderation". I have a healthy liver and no desire to lose more fat, and enjoy them enough to give up minutes at the end of my life if it comes down to it.
High Fruit intake affects teeth. Not going to argue about sugar and tooth decay. Brush your teeth after eating any sugars.
We already tell people their refined sugar is bad, if we tell them their "healthy" sugar is bad too, we will have a revolt. You'd never get a fruit based study funded. In addition, similar to if you want to test LONG term effect on moderate intake, youre hoping for empirical surveys at best.
So what we have right now, is scientific proof that fructose separated from fruit is undeniably bad. thats proven over and over again. Then we have Empirical evidence, that fruit seems to cause the same things that the separated fructose did.
Thats the best we can go on until we are given evidence to the contrary.
My personal recommendation is Minimal(not zero) rather than Moderate after your Liver and Weight are healthy.