I would like to publicly apologize to UC Berkeley psychology professor Seth Roberts for using an inappropriate word to characterize his self-created "Shangri-La" diet, which I wrote about in Sunday's post.

(My comments were in response to a New York Times Magazine "Freakonomics" article from Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt.)

In my zeal to get the word out about the dangers of over-consuming fructose — which isn't made from fruit, but rather from corn — I unfortunately characterized Roberts's diet plan as "perverted." I regret having used the word, because it conveyed a meaning I hadn't intended.

Nonetheless, I still stand by my belief that Roberts's diet — while an utterly fascinating study of self-experimentation and evidently a successful weight-loss regimen for him --- could be dangerous if people consume large amounts of fructose and canola oil. It also strikes me as inadequately researched.

More about Roberts in a subsequent entry, because we had a very nice phone chat today, and I plan to examine his published study and then give a more informed opinion about it.

Interestingly, right before I was about to post this apology and clarification, I read Bill Quick's intriguing take on Daily Pundit about my foolhardy word choice.

Unfairly or fairly — I'll let you decide (let me know what you think) — Bill (may I call you by your first name?) lumped me among the "moonbats" who weighed in on Roberts's diet.

Bill also characterized "anti-sugar true believers" as "nutsoid."

Hmm. Me nutsoid? Perhaps some do view me as that, but, I ask you, don't my four years of research on a book about sugar and refined carbs count for anything?!

Besides, I only became anti-sugar after exhaustively researching the subject such as interviewing more than 250 experts and examining many research studies, as well as having my own horrific symptoms and being told by a doctor that my heavy-duty sugar habit was to blame for my 44 ailments. I suppose you could say that I, too, did considerable self-experimentation.

But back to my main point.

Unfortunately, Bill of Daily Pundit then jumped to the exact same erroneous conclusion that I daresay most Americans make when it comes to fructose.

First off, I'll readily concede that Bill rightly condemned my poor use of the word "perverted."

But then he wrongly concluded that Roberts was merely drinking some fruit-sugar water. He wrote:

Anybody who calls a weight-loss program that consists of eating a few spoonfuls of canola or olive oil, and drinking a bit of fruit-sugar water a few times a day "perverted" has pretty much lost my attention right out of the box.

But, Bill, it was not fruit-sugar water that Roberts was drinking. If he'd been doing that, I wouldn't have been as concerned.

You see, most Americans assume that fructose comes only from fruit. That's just not the case, and it's one of the biggest misconceptions people make.

As food scientist Russ Bianchi (head of the global food formulation firm Adept Solutions, Inc.) explains: