Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • Standards of Medical Care
    • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • New and Noteworthy
    • Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Special Collections
    • Recent ADA Position Statements
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • Meet the Editors
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Journal Policies
    • For Authors
    • For Reviewers
    • For Advertisers
  • Subscriptions
    • Manage Online Access
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Diabetes Discovery
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • Standards of Medical Care
    • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • New and Noteworthy
    • Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Special Collections
    • Recent ADA Position Statements
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • Meet the Editors
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Journal Policies
    • For Authors
    • For Reviewers
    • For Advertisers
  • Subscriptions
    • Manage Online Access
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Diabetes Discovery
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Peer Review
Current Concepts of Type 2 Diabetes Prevention

Dietary Sugar and Body Weight: Have We Reached a Crisis in the Epidemic of Obesity and Diabetes?

We Have, but the Pox on Sugar Is Overwrought and Overworked

  1. Richard Kahn1 and
  2. John L. Sievenpiper2,3
  1. 1Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC
  2. 2Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Unit, Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada
  3. 3Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
  1. Corresponding author: Richard Kahn, rak6200{at}gmail.com.
  1. R.K. and J.L.S. contributed equally to the writing of the manuscript.

Diabetes Care 2014 Apr; 37(4): 957-962. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc13-2506
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

In the preceding point narrative, Drs. Bray and Popkin provide their opinion and review data that suggest to them that we need to reconsider the consumption of dietary sugar based on the growing concern of obesity and type 2 diabetes. In the counterpoint narrative below, we argue that there is no clear or convincing evidence that any dietary or added sugar has a unique or detrimental impact relative to any other source of calories on the development of obesity or diabetes. Sugar is purely a highly palatable source of energy; because it has no other property that appears to contribute to our nutritional well-being, it is not an essential food for most of us. For those who wish to reduce energy consumption, ingesting less sugar is a good place to start. However, doing so does not automatically portend any clinical benefit.

In this counterpoint discussion, we use the phrase “dietary sugar” or “added sugar” to mean sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Almost all dietary or added sugar used as an ingredient in either solid (e.g., desserts, snacks) or liquid (e.g., sugar-sweetened beverages [SSB]) foods is in the form of these two disaccharides. Although we will discuss evidence from feeding studies in which fructose itself was used as the sole added sweetener, it should be noted that fructose rarely occurs alone in foods commonly consumed by humans. Also of importance is the fact that sucrose and HFCS are both composed of glucose and fructose. Whereas the ratio of glucose to fructose is equal in sucrose, in HFCS the ratio is usually 55% fructose, 42% glucose, and 3% glucose polymers; other forms of HFCS have a lower proportion of fructose. In addition, the glucose and fructose in HFCS are free in solution; in sucrose they are initially bound together. But when sucrose is used in processed or prepared foods/beverages an appreciable amount is broken down to free fructose and glucose prior to consumption. Finally, whereas glucose and fructose are metabolized differently, the belief that sucrose is metabolized differently than HFCS is a myth. No study has shown any difference between the two when each is given isocalorically, nor is there any difference in sweetness or caloric value (1–3).

Much of the condemnation of sugar in the last few years owes its origin to an article by Bray et al. (4) showing an ecological relationship between sugar availability (a crude measure of intake) and obesity, which has now been expanded to explain a myriad of metabolic abnormalities (5–7). Table 1 shows that the rise in the prevalence of overweight/obesity in the early 1980s does indeed appear to be related to an increase in the availability of added sugars. However, starting around 2000, sugar consumption appears to have declined considerably, but the prevalence of obesity (and diabetes, data not shown) has continued to rise. Such ecological findings are certainly intriguing, but because obesity appears related to many changes in our environment (8), including a rise in the consumption of bottled water (9), they are only hypothesis-generating.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1

Prevalence of overweight/obesity and its relationship to estimated dietary sugar consumption

The preferred methodology to determine whether sugar itself causes weight gain would be to conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT), in which the consumption of sugar is the only variable between otherwise identical groups. RCTs are, of course, the strongest form of evidence (10,11) because they eliminate the possibility of confounding from prerandomization factors and can determine the effect of sugar independent of other dietary components.

RCTs on the Effect of Sugar on Body Weight

Over the last decade, numerous RCTs on the effects of sugar consumption have been performed. Very recently, four independent groups have performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of these published trials (9,12–14). Each of these studies used different inclusion and exclusion rules but in all four the outcome of interest was weight change. Although each of the four meta-analyzed many of the same trials, they often grouped them differently and each used different exclusion/inclusion rules and reported different summary point estimates.

Te Morenga et al. (13) and Sievenpiper et al. (12) examined whether an isocaloric exchange of added sugar or purified fructose with other macronutrients (mostly other carbohydrates) would affect body weight in adults. In both analyses the forest plot summary estimates showed no significant effect of sugar or pure fructose on body weight (relative risk [RR] 0.26 [95% CI −0.26 to 0.83] and RR −0.18 [95% CI −0.47 to 0.23], respectively). No isocaloric trials have been performed in children.

Another approach in RCTs has been to examine the effect on weight when calories from sugar are reduced relative to consumption in the control group. Te Morenga et al. (13) meta-analyzed five such trials in children and the summary point estimate was not significant. Kaiser et al. (9) also found no significant change in weight with a reduction in calories from sugar when eight trials in children and adults were meta-analyzed together. However, a meta-analysis by Malik et al. (14) identified two of five trials that showed a significant loss of weight with a reduction in calories from sugar, and the summary point estimate was significant when a fixed-effects model was used but not with a random-effects model. Te Morenga et al. (13) also meta-analyzed trials conducted in adults and found that the summary point estimate significantly favored a reduction in body fat/weight resulting from a reduction in calories from sugar consumption. However, when three of five studies were removed from the analysis because they had a high risk of bias, the summary point estimate was no longer significant. All three meta-analyses (9,13,14) found major interstudy heterogeneity (I2 >50%).

Of note, in all the individual trials in which subjects consumed less calories from sugar they also consumed less total energy, and therefore it is unclear if any weight loss was due to some unique property of sugar, or simply because total energy consumption in the intervention was less than in control subjects.

Finally, all four research groups (9–12) meta-analyzed trials in which an increased amount of calories from sugar were given to adults (there were no studies in children) as a supplement to their normal diet. The summary point estimates in all four reports showed a modest but significant weight gain even though in most of the individual studies the CI crossed unity. Again, whether the change in weight was due to the increase in energy consumed (as would be expected in the absence of complete compensation) or to some unique property of sugar is unknown.

Overall, therefore, when sugar was replaced in an isocaloric exchange, there was no change in body weight. When subjects were randomized to receive fewer calories from sugar and thus consumed less total energy, the studies generally showed no significant weight loss or were sufficiently confounded to preclude reaching any conclusions. Conversely, adults given added energy in the form of sugar gained weight. As weight gain or loss only occurred when sugar (energy) was added to, or reduced from, the usual background diet, and there was no change in weight from an isocaloric exchange, it seems likely that any effect of sugar on weight is because of the energy it supplies and not because it has any unique property.

Unfortunately, virtually all the individual trials meta-analyzed in the four reports discussed above, recruited few subjects (<100) and the intervention was of short duration (<1 year). Publication bias was also noted in the trials conducted in adults (11,12). The only exceptions to these design issues were two recent trials (15,16), where a large number of children (224 and 641, respectively) were randomized to reduced reduction in calories from sugar consumption relative to control subjects and the interventions were carried out for 12 and 24 months, respectively. Although both trials were included in two of the above meta-analyses (9,14), their individual results may be instructive. Both trials (15,16) reported significant weight reduction when the consumption of calories from SSBs was reduced. However, in one study (15) weight loss was quite modest after 12 months (mean difference between groups −0.13 [95% CI −0.20 to −0.06]). In the other (16), the prespecified primary body weight end point was not significant, but was so (P = 0.045) at an interim 1-year analysis. In a subgroup analysis, the positive effect for the primary end point occurred only in Hispanic children. Thus, these larger and longer duration trials show no definitive adverse effect of sugar on body weight, despite the fact that the intervention groups consumed less total energy throughout the follow-up period, which would be expected to favor weight loss.

PROSPECTIVE STUDIES ON THE EFFECT OF SUGAR ON BODY WEIGHT

As RCTs do not indicate that sugar consumption itself causes weight gain, why do some investigators believe otherwise? One possibility is that they focus instead on the results of prospective cohort studies. In the latter, subjects are asked to complete a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire to ascertain the consumption of specific foods. Participants are then followed, often for years, and many outcomes are recorded.

Te Morenga et al. (13) and Malik et al. (14) also conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of such cohort studies. Their results indicated that a majority of the studies found a significantly positive association between sugar intake and various measures of body weight. Te Morenga et al. (13), however, noted that because a wide variety of measures of adiposity were used (e.g., BMI, skinfold thickness, incident overweight or obesity, weight, percent body fat), it was difficult to draw a definitive conclusion because in many studies some measures were significant whereas others were not. In the Malik et al. (14) meta-analysis, the studies considered displayed high heterogeneity and publication bias.

Of importance, while all of the prospective cohort studies examining the relationship between sugar and weight adjusted for various potentially confounding variables, almost none adjusted for energy consumption. Thus, in these studies, as in the RCTs, the positive association between increased sugar consumption and weight could well be due to excess energy intake and not to a unique effect of sugar. Indeed, Malik et al. (14) showed that when adjusted for total energy consumed the once positive relationship was no longer significant.

Supporting our claim that there is nothing special about calories from sugar, many other sources of highly palatable calories can also increase body weight. For example, in a pooled analysis of three of the well-known Harvard cohorts (which are often cited [5–7,17] as showing that sugar causes obesity and diabetes) an increase in one serving of French fries (+3.35 lbs), potato chips (+1.69 lbs), unprocessed meat (+0.93 lbs), or boiled, baked or mashed potatoes (+57 lbs) resulted in greater or similar weight gain as did sugary beverages (+1.0 lbs) for every 4 years of follow-up, when intake was not adjusted for total energy consumption (18).

Of note, there are many methodological problems with the prospective cohort studies that are related to sugar consumption. First, they obviously suffer from the inability to control for all the variables that could lead to residual confounding; indeed, the vast majority do not adjust for caloric intake. Second, they did not publicly prespecify how exposure would be defined (e.g., quartile- or tertile-defined categories, highest vs. lowest), the number of analyses that would be performed, or the statistical tests to be used, and the results were not adjusted for repeated tests of significance. Any of these problems could have easily led to spurious results.

Finally, the essence of prospective cohort studies in nutrition is their reliance on the ability of subjects to recall accurately exactly what they ingested. In the context of meals consisting of a variety of foods assembled in a myriad of ways and that often vary over time, along with changing tastes, lifestyles, and the constant introduction of new products and packaging—it should not be surprising that many studies have shown that such questionnaires have substantial biases and inaccuracies (19–25). Moreover, even when focusing on a specific food such as SSBs, such single nutrient analyses may be confounded by dietary pattern; over- or underreporting of intake can also be different depending on the demographic characteristics of the population (26–33). For all these reasons as well as the others mentioned above, the claim that sugar itself promotes weight gain based on the results from prospective cohort studies appears very problematic.

Effects of Sugar on Appetite and Satiety

Some investigators argue that an adverse effect of sugar, particularly when consumed as SSBs, is that it stimulates appetite or reduces satiety (4,6,34). Many investigators have pursued this hypothesis and the results have been conflicting. Recently, Almiron-Roig et al. (35) performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies on this topic. The question they addressed is whether energy given before a meal (i.e., preload) will affect the energy consumed at a meal. Their analyses showed that overeating was much greater with liquid preloads than with solid or semisolid preloads. Whereas this finding might support the claim that SSBs increase energy consumption, the authors also found that the effect of liquids did not correlate significantly with their energy content. That is, it was the liquid nature of the preload, rather than the energy within it, that influenced subsequent food consumption. Therefore, the hypothesis that sugar per se leads to excess food consumption is not supported by the totality of the evidence.

The Almiron-Roig et al. (35) review focused only on compensatory energy intake after a preload. All the studies they examined did not report whether overeating translated into persistent weight gain. There appears to be, however, only two studies that examined the effect of liquid versus solid energy on weight, and both showed no significant effect of food form on weight change (36,37).

All told, therefore, we have no persuasive clinical evidence that sugar in beverages enhances energy consumption or that liquid energy is weight-promoting any more so than solid energy. Liquids (e.g., SSBs, milk) ingested around or shortly before a meal in experimental conditions do seem to stimulate overeating more so than energy in other forms, but whether that translates into long-term weight gain is unknown.

What About Fructose or HFCS?

Some investigators have focused on the fructose component of sucrose/HFCS as the “evildoer” of sugar consumption as glucose and fructose are absorbed and metabolized differently (2). The impact of fructose on body weight was reviewed above and the evidence suggests no difference between fructose and any other monosaccharide (12,38). In addition, as concluded above, if there is an effect of any sugar on weight, it appears to be because of its contribution to total energy consumed. Additional evidence for that assertion comes from weight-loss trials, where changes in the macronutrient composition of the diet (high or low carbohydrate, high or low fat) in the setting of equally hypocaloric diets result in an equivalent weight loss (39).

In conclusion, there is no evidence that fructose or HFCS per se causes obesity or even weight gain. Sugar obviously contains energy, and there is some evidence, albeit conflicting, incomplete, and inconclusive, that excess energy consumption in the form of any sugar may contribute to weight gain. If the excess energy in sugar is the culprit, it is reasonable to conclude that any food consumed in excess is just as likely to alter energy balance as would an equal caloric amount of sugar. On the other hand, sugar contains no essential micronutrient and therefore if a reduction in energy intake is desirable, reducing sugar consumption is obviously the place to start.

Sugar and Diabetes

It is well accepted that weight gain is a major risk factor for the development of diabetes. As dietary sugar itself does not appear to have a significant role in weight gain, it is possible that sugar alters metabolism in some other regard thereby causing diabetes. From a clinical perspective, there are no RCTs examining whether sugar consumption in subjects with normoglycemia results in diabetes or even prediabetes. Prospective cohort studies have generated conflicting results. For example, Malik et al. (40) performed a meta-analysis of large, long-term cohort studies and found a significant association between SSBs and incident diabetes. A close examination of the eight studies included reveals that four did not find a significant association between SSBs and diabetes. Moreover, five of the eight did not adjust their findings for energy intake or even body weight. Interestingly, another large cohort study published earlier by the same research group, but not included in the meta-analysis, found no association between total sugar intake and diabetes (41). Also, one of the studies included in the meta-analysis (42) showed no significant association between intake of SSB and the development of diabetes when the data were adjusted for energy intake, but that finding was not mentioned in the meta-analysis. In that study (42), the consumption of artificially sweetened beverages was significantly associated with diabetes when adjusted for total energy intake, which is similar to a recent report (43) showing that both SSBs and artificially sweetened beverages conveyed equally significant risk.

Finally, other prospective cohort studies have shown a significant negative association for total sugars (44) or sucrose (45) with diabetes and no significant positive association for total sucrose or fructose (41,44,46), and one study showed a positive association for total fructose and a negative association for sucrose (45). All told, therefore, there is no persuasive evidence for a role of sugar in the development of diabetes.

Other studies have examined surrogate measures of diabetes risk, also with mixed results. Most (47–53) but not all (54) controlled trials showed that fructose or sucrose had no adverse effect on fasting plasma glucose, postprandial glucose, or insulin levels. Similar inconsistent results have been reported on measures of insulin resistance regardless if the sugar is sucrose or fructose (51–57). In addition, meta-analyses of controlled trials have shown that fructose administration improves glycemia in people with diabetes (58,59). There appears to be no study on the effect of sugar on β-cell function, which is as important in the development of diabetes as is insulin resistance.

Johnson et al. (60) recently reviewed the literature on the effect of fructose consumption on the development of diabetes and obesity. Despite some conflicting evidence, they hypothesized that fructose induces hyperuricemia, which then results in the development of the metabolic syndrome. Although there has been no RCT that has tested that hypothesis, the Malik et al. (40) article discussed above performed a second meta-analysis and concluded that SSBs were associated with the development of metabolic syndrome. Of note, however, Malik et al. (40) identified only three cohort studies that had metabolic syndrome as the outcome of interest. In two of the three, the relative risk between the extreme quartiles of SSB consumption was not significant, and in the remaining study where the relative risk cited was significant (61), that result pertained the consumption of any soft drink (regular or diet) and the data were not adjusted for smoking, body weight, or energy intake. Moreover, a closer examination of the results of the latter study (61) indicate that the risk of metabolic syndrome was the same when regular soda consumption was compared with diet soda and at any level of consumption.

The hypothesis that fructose-induced hyperuricemia is harmful was recently tested in a double-blind RCT (62). High fructose consumption in an overall isocaloric diet did indeed result in an increase in serum uric acid when compared with an isocaloric high-glucose diet. Yet the high-fructose diet had no significant effect on a wide variety of hepatic biomarkers, including triacyglyerol. On the other hand, when either sugar was given in an overall hypercaloric diet, they both produced similar significant changes in biomarkers of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. These results suggest, once again, that any adverse effect of a sugar—particularly fructose—is due to the excess energy it provides and not the molecule itself.

Even if one believes that sucrose or fructose adversely affects some aspect of metabolism related to the development of diabetes, all of the surrogate outcome studies were conducted over days or at most a few weeks and therefore any adverse effect of sugar certainly does not mean the diabetes would eventually develop. Also, the vast majority of feeding studies showing an adverse effect of sugar on a metabolic parameter related to diabetes gave subjects sucrose or fructose in a hypercaloric exchange with other sources of energy, or in addition to a background diet, or (particularly when studying fructose) in amounts usually exceeding the 95th percentile of consumption (3,63). Conversely, when sucrose or fructose was given in an overall isocaloric diet or at the 50th percentile of consumption adverse effects have rarely been reported (3,12,63). Therefore, whether sugar consumption has even an indirect effect on the development of diabetes is quite unclear.

Conclusions

Table 2 summarizes what we believe is known about the role of sugar in the development of obesity and diabetes. Although no one would take issue that we are indeed in the midst of an obesity and diabetes epidemic, placing the blame on sugar consumption lacks persuasive evidence and is misguided. Although calories from sugar (sucrose, fructose, or HFCS in any form—solid or liquid) have been shown to increase weight in a hypercaloric diet and decrease weight in a hypocaloric diet, when consumption is corrected for energy intake, sugar has no effect on body weight. Finally, there is no direct evidence that sugar itself, in liquid or solid form, causes an increase in appetite, decreases satiety, or causes diabetes.

If there are any adverse effects of sugar, they are due entirely to the calories it provides, and it is therefore indistinguishable from any other caloric food. Excess total energy consumption seems far more likely to be the cause of obesity and diabetes. Although many individuals can lose a substantial amount of weight and thereby also delay the onset of diabetes, to do so has relied on an overall reduction in energy consumption. Thus, if reduced energy intake is desirable, all caloric foods are candidates. A reduction in consumption of added sugars should head the list because they provide no essential nutrients.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2

Putative effects of sugar*

Article Information

Funding. J.L.S. received research grants/support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Calorie Control Council, The Coca-Cola Company (investigator-initiated, unrestricted grant), Pulse Canada, and The International Tree Nut Council Nutrition Research & Education Foundation.

Duality of Interest. J.L.S. has received speaker’s fees and honoraria from the American Society for Nutrition, Canadian Nutrition Society, Calorie Control Council, Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, International Life Sciences Institute North America and Brazil, Pulse Canada, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, and The Coca-Cola Company. He is also an unpaid scientific advisor for the International Life Sciences Institute North America, Food, Nutrition, and Safety Program and spouse of an employee of Unilever Canada. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Footnotes

  • See accompanying articles, pp. 906, 909, 912, 922, 934, 943, and 950.

  • © 2014 by the American Diabetes Association.

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.

References

  1. ↵
    1. White JS
    . Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain’t. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;88:1716S–1721S
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Sun SZ,
    2. Empie MW
    . Fructose metabolism in humans—what isotopic tracer studies tell us. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2012;9:89
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Rippe JM,
    2. Angelopoulos TJ
    . Sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup, and fructose, their metabolism and potential health effects: what do we really know? Adv Nutr 2013;4:236–245
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Bray GA,
    2. Nielsen SJ,
    3. Popkin BM
    . Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity [published correction appears in Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80:1090]. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;79:537–543
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Bray GA
    . Fructose: pure, white, and deadly? Fructose, by any other name, is a health hazard. J Diabetes Sci Tech 2010;4:1003–1007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    1. Bray GA
    . Energy and fructose from beverages sweetened with sugar or high-fructose corn syrup pose a health risk for some people. Adv Nutr 2013;4:220–225
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Bray GA,
    2. Popkin BM
    . Calorie-sweetened beverages and fructose: what have we learned 10 years later. Pediatr Obes 2013;8:242–248
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. McAllister EJ,
    2. Dhurandhar NV,
    3. Keith SW,
    4. et al
    . Ten putative contributors to the obesity epidemic. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2009;49:868–913
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Kaiser KA,
    2. Shikany JM,
    3. Keating KD,
    4. Allison DB
    . Will reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption reduce obesity? Evidence supporting conjecture is strong, but evidence when testing effect is weak. Obes Rev 2013;14:620–633
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Atkins D,
    2. Best D,
    3. Briss PA,
    4. et al
    .; GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328:1490
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Kunz R,
    4. et al
    .; GRADE Working Group. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008;336:995–998
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Sievenpiper JL,
    2. de Souza RJ,
    3. Mirrahimi A,
    4. et al
    . Effect of fructose on body weight in controlled feeding trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:291–304
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. Te Morenga L,
    2. Mallard S,
    3. Mann J
    . Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. BMJ 2013;346:e7492
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Malik VS,
    2. Pan A,
    3. Willett WC,
    4. Hu FB
    . Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 2013;98:1084–1102
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. de Ruyter JC,
    2. Olthof MR,
    3. Seidell JC,
    4. Katan MB
    . A trial of sugar-free or sugar-sweetened beverages and body weight in children. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1397–1406
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Ebbeling CB,
    2. Feldman HA,
    3. Chomitz VR,
    4. et al
    . A randomized trial of sugar-sweetened beverages and adolescent body weight. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1407–1416
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    1. Hu FB,
    2. Malik VS
    . Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes: epidemiologic evidence. Physiol Behav 2010;100:47–54
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. Mozaffarian D,
    2. Hao T,
    3. Rimm EB,
    4. Willett WC,
    5. Hu FB
    . Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2392–2404
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Schoeller DA,
    2. Thomas D,
    3. Archer E,
    4. et al
    . Self-report-based estimates of energy intake offer an inadequate basis for scientific conclusions. Am J Clin Nutr 2013;97:1413–1415
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Subar AF,
    2. Thompson FE,
    3. Kipnis V,
    4. et al
    . Comparative validation of the Block, Willett, and National Cancer Institute food frequency questionnaires: the Eating at America’s Table Study. Am J Epidemiol 2001;154:1089–1099
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Schoeller DA,
    2. Bandini LG,
    3. Dietz WH
    . Inaccuracies in self-reported intake identified by comparison with the doubly labelled water method. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1990;68:941–949
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Heymsfield SB,
    2. Darby PC,
    3. Muhlheim LS,
    4. Gallagher D,
    5. Wolper C,
    6. Allison DB
    . The calorie: myth, measurement, and reality. Am J Clin Nutr 1995;62(Suppl.):1034S–1041S
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Martin LJ,
    2. Su W,
    3. Jones PJ,
    4. Lockwood GA,
    5. Tritchler DL,
    6. Boyd NF
    . Comparison of energy intakes determined by food records and doubly labeled water in women participating in a dietary-intervention trial. Am J Clin Nutr 1996;63:483–490
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Heitmann BL,
    2. Lissner L,
    3. Osler M
    . Do we eat less fat, or just report so? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000;24:435–442
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Trabulsi J,
    2. Schoeller DA
    . Evaluation of dietary assessment instruments against doubly labeled water, a biomarker of habitual energy intake. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2001;281:E891–E899
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Bandini LG,
    2. Schoeller DA,
    3. Cyr HN,
    4. Dietz WH
    . Validity of reported energy intake in obese and nonobese adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr 1990;52:421–425
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Heitmann BL
    . The influence of fatness, weight change, slimming history and other lifestyle variables on diet reporting in Danish men and women aged 35–65 years. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1993;17:329–336
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Heitmann BL,
    2. Lissner L
    . Dietary underreporting by obese individuals—is it specific or non-specific? BMJ 1995;311:986–989
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Sawaya AL,
    2. Tucker K,
    3. Tsay R,
    4. et al
    . Evaluation of four methods for determining energy intake in young and older women: comparison with doubly labeled water measurements of total energy expenditure. Am J Clin Nutr 1996;63:491–499
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Black AE,
    2. Bingham SA,
    3. Johansson G,
    4. Coward WA
    . Validation of dietary intakes of protein and energy against 24 hour urinary N and DLW energy expenditure in middle-aged women, retired men and post-obese subjects: comparisons with validation against presumed energy requirements. Eur J Clin Nutr 1997;51:405–413
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Hu FB
    . Dietary pattern analysis: a new direction in nutritional epidemiology. Curr Opin Lipidol 2002;13:3–9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Randall E,
    2. Marshall JR,
    3. Graham S,
    4. Brasure J
    . Patterns in food use and their associations with nutrient intakes. Am J Clin Nutr 1990;52:739–745
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Fung TT,
    2. Rimm EB,
    3. Spiegelman D,
    4. et al
    . Association between dietary patterns and plasma biomarkers of obesity and cardiovascular disease risk. Am J Clin Nutr 2001;73:61–67
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. DellaValle DM,
    2. Roe LS,
    3. Rolls BJ
    . Does the consumption of caloric and non-caloric beverages with a meal affect energy intake? Appetite 2005;44:187–193
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    1. Almiron-Roig E,
    2. Palla L,
    3. Guest K,
    4. et al
    . Factors that determine energy compensation: a systematic review of preload studies. Nutr Rev 2013;71:458–473
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. DiMeglio DP,
    2. Mattes RD
    . Liquid versus solid carbohydrate: effects on food intake and body weight. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000;24:794–800
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Houchins JA,
    2. Burgess JR,
    3. Campbell WW,
    4. et al
    . Beverage vs. solid fruits and vegetables: effects on energy intake and body weight. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2012;20:1844–1850
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Livesey G,
    2. Taylor R
    . Fructose consumption and consequences for glycation, plasma triacylglycerol, and body weight: meta-analyses and meta-regression models of intervention studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;88:1419–1437
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. de Souza RJ,
    2. Bray GA,
    3. Carey VJ,
    4. et al
    . Effects of 4 weight-loss diets differing in fat, protein, and carbohydrate on fat mass, lean mass, visceral adipose tissue, and hepatic fat: results from the POUNDS LOST trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;95:614–625
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Malik VS,
    2. Popkin BM,
    3. Bray GA,
    4. Després JP,
    5. Willett WC,
    6. Hu FB
    . Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2010;33:2477–2483
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Janket SJ,
    2. Manson JE,
    3. Sesso H,
    4. Buring JE,
    5. Liu S
    . A prospective study of sugar intake and risk of type 2 diabetes in women. Diabetes Care 2003;26:1008–1015
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. de Koning L,
    2. Malik VS,
    3. Rimm EB,
    4. Willett WC,
    5. Hu FB
    . Sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverage consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes in men. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;93:1321–1327
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Fagherazzi G,
    2. Vilier A,
    3. Saes Sartorelli D,
    4. Lajous M,
    5. Balkau B,
    6. Clavel-Chapelon F
    . Consumption of artificially and sugar-sweetened beverages and incident type 2 diabetes in the Etude Epidemiologique aupres des femmes de la Mutuelle Generale de l’Education Nationale-European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort. Am J Clin Nutr 2013;97:517–523
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Hodge AM,
    2. English DR,
    3. O’Dea K,
    4. Giles GG
    . Glycemic index and dietary fiber and the risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004;27:2701–2706
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Meyer KA,
    2. Kushi LH,
    3. Jacobs DR Jr,
    4. Slavin J,
    5. Sellers TA,
    6. Folsom AR
    . Carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and incident type 2 diabetes in older women. Am J Clin Nutr 2000;71:921–930
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Colditz GA,
    2. Manson JE,
    3. Stampfer MJ,
    4. Rosner B,
    5. Willett WC,
    6. Speizer FE
    . Diet and risk of clinical diabetes in women. Am J Clin Nutr 1992;55:1018–1023
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Melanson KJ,
    2. Zukley L,
    3. Lowndes J,
    4. Nguyen V,
    5. Angelopoulos TJ,
    6. Rippe JM
    . Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin and on appetite in normal-weight women. Nutrition 2007;23:103–112
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Teff KL,
    2. Elliott SS,
    3. Tschöp M,
    4. et al
    . Dietary fructose reduces circulating insulin and leptin, attenuates postprandial suppression of ghrelin, and increases triglycerides in women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004;89:2963–2972
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Aeberli I,
    2. Gerber PA,
    3. Hochuli M,
    4. et al
    . Low to moderate sugar-sweetened beverage consumption impairs glucose and lipid metabolism and promotes inflammation in healthy young men: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;94:479–485
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Maersk M,
    2. Belza A,
    3. Stødkilde-Jørgensen H,
    4. et al
    . Sucrose-sweetened beverages increase fat storage in the liver, muscle, and visceral fat depot: a 6-mo randomized intervention study. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;95:283–289
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Aeberli I,
    2. Hochuli M,
    3. Gerber PA,
    4. et al
    . Moderate amounts of fructose consumption impair insulin sensitivity in healthy young men: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2013;36:150–156
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Stanhope KL,
    2. Griffen SC,
    3. Bremer AA,
    4. et al
    . Metabolic responses to prolonged consumption of glucose- and fructose-sweetened beverages are not associated with postprandial or 24-h glucose and insulin excursions. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;94:112–119
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Moore MC,
    2. Davis SN,
    3. Mann SL,
    4. Cherrington AD
    . Acute fructose administration improves oral glucose tolerance in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2001;24:1882–1887
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Lê KA,
    2. Faeh D,
    3. Stettler R,
    4. et al
    . A 4-wk high-fructose diet alters lipid metabolism without affecting insulin sensitivity or ectopic lipids in healthy humans. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;84:1374–1379
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Silbernagel G,
    2. Machann J,
    3. Unmuth S,
    4. et al
    . Effects of 4-week very-high-fructose/glucose diets on insulin sensitivity, visceral fat and intrahepatic lipids: an exploratory trial. Br J Nutr 2011;106:79–86
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Faeh D,
    2. Minehira K,
    3. Schwarz JM,
    4. Periasamy R,
    5. Park S,
    6. Tappy L
    . Effect of fructose overfeeding and fish oil administration on hepatic de novo lipogenesis and insulin sensitivity in healthy men [published correction appears in Diabetes 2006;55:563]. Diabetes 2005;54:1907–1913
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Stanhope KL,
    2. Schwarz JM,
    3. Keim NL,
    4. et al
    . Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans. J Clin Invest 2009;119:1322–1334
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. ↵
    1. Cozma AI,
    2. Sievenpiper JL,
    3. de Souza RJ,
    4. et al
    . Effect of fructose on glycemic control in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials. Diabetes Care 2012;35:1611–1620
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Sievenpiper JL,
    2. Chiavaroli L,
    3. de Souza RJ,
    4. et al
    . ‘Catalytic’ doses of fructose may benefit glycaemic control without harming cardiometabolic risk factors: a small meta-analysis of randomised controlled feeding trials. Br J Nutr 2012;108:418–423
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Johnson RJ,
    2. Nakagawa T,
    3. Sanchez-Lozada LG,
    4. et al
    . Sugar, uric acid, and the etiology of diabetes and obesity. Diabetes 2013;62:3307–3315
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Dhingra R,
    2. Sullivan L,
    3. Jacques PF,
    4. et al
    . Soft drink consumption and risk of developing cardiometabolic risk factors and the metabolic syndrome in middle-aged adults in the community. Circulation 2007;116:480–488
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    Johnston RD, Stephenson MC, Crossland H, et al. No difference between high-fructose and high-glucose diets on liver triacylglycerol or biochemistry in healthy overweight men. Gastroenterology 2013;145:1016–1025.e2
  46. ↵
    1. Sievenpiper JL,
    2. Toronto 3D (Diet, Digestive Tract, and Disease) Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Unit
    . Fructose: where does the truth lie? J Am Coll Nutr 2012;31:149–151
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Flegal KM,
    2. Carroll MD,
    3. Kuczmarski RJ,
    4. Johnson CL
    . Overweight and obesity in the United States: prevalence and trends, 1960–1994. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1998;22:39–47
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Flegal KM,
    2. Carroll MD,
    3. Ogden CL,
    4. Johnson CL
    . Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999-2000. JAMA 2002;288:1723–1727
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Flegal KM,
    2. Carroll MD,
    3. Ogden CL,
    4. Curtin LR
    . Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999-2008. JAMA 2010;303:235–241
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Flegal KM,
    2. Carroll MD,
    3. Kit BK,
    4. Ogden CL
    . Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribution of body mass index among US adults, 1999-2010. JAMA 2012;307:491–497
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Popkin BM,
    2. Nielsen SJ
    . The sweetening of the world’s diet. Obes Res 2003;11:1325–1332
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Welsh JA,
    2. Sharma AJ,
    3. Grellinger L,
    4. Vos MB
    . Consumption of added sugars is decreasing in the United States. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;94:726–734
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic research service. Available from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-%28per-capita%29-data-system.aspx#.Ue1bGG0Zsz4. Accessed 21 October 2013
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 37 (4)

In this Issue

April 2014, 37(4)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Dietary Sugar and Body Weight: Have We Reached a Crisis in the Epidemic of Obesity and Diabetes?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
Citation Tools
Dietary Sugar and Body Weight: Have We Reached a Crisis in the Epidemic of Obesity and Diabetes?
Richard Kahn, John L. Sievenpiper
Diabetes Care Apr 2014, 37 (4) 957-962; DOI: 10.2337/dc13-2506

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Dietary Sugar and Body Weight: Have We Reached a Crisis in the Epidemic of Obesity and Diabetes?
Richard Kahn, John L. Sievenpiper
Diabetes Care Apr 2014, 37 (4) 957-962; DOI: 10.2337/dc13-2506
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • RCTs on the Effect of Sugar on Body Weight
    • PROSPECTIVE STUDIES ON THE EFFECT OF SUGAR ON BODY WEIGHT
    • Effects of Sugar on Appetite and Satiety
    • What About Fructose or HFCS?
    • Sugar and Diabetes
    • Conclusions
    • Article Information
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • A “Spoonful of Sugar” and the Realities of Diabetes Prevention!
  • Genetic Risk of Progression to Type 2 Diabetes and Response to Intensive Lifestyle or Metformin in Prediabetic Women With and Without a History of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
  • Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes in Subjects With Prediabetes and Metabolic Syndrome Treated With Phentermine and Topiramate Extended Release
Show more Current Concepts of Type 2 Diabetes Prevention

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2018 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.