Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26376619›Full record

ReviewCritical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences2016

Sugar consumption, metabolic disease and obesity: The state of the controversy.

Kimber L Stanhope

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 323 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
323citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
30.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

323 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 721 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Camel (International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Article

263 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kimber L Stanhopea Department of Molecular Biosciences , School of Veterinary Medicine and.
University of California, Davis · US

Funding

UCSF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE INSTITUTEUL1RR024131 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI JOHNSTON, S. CLAIBORNE · 2006 to 2011
$111.2M
UC DAVIS CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE CENTER: BPCAUL1RR024146 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI BERGLUND, LARS F · 2006 to 2011
$27.0M
Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Womens Health at UC Davis - Administrative SupplementK12HD051958 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI LANE, NANCY E · 2005 to 2023
$9.6M
Adverse Metabolic Effects of Dietary Sugar _ Ad Libitum vs Energy-Balanced DietsR01HL121324 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI HAVEL, PETER J, SCHWARZ, JEAN-MARC · 2014 to 2019
$4.2M
Effects of 2wk fructose & HFCS consumption on lipid dysregulation & insulin resisR01HL091333 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI HAVEL, PETER J · 2008 to 2012
$2.0M
Dietary Fructose: Hormones &TG/Lipoprotein MetabolismR01HL075675 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI HAVEL, PETER J · 2004 to 2008
$1.8M
Fatty acid sources of fructose and HFCS-induced postprandial hypertriglyceridemiaR01HL107256 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI HAVEL, PETER J, SCHWARZ, JEAN-MARC · 2011 to 2014
$1.5M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024131NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024146NHLBI NIH HHS 1R01 HL-091333NHLBI NIH HHS 1R01 HL-107256NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL-075675NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL075675NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL091333NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL107256NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL121324NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD051958
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The impact of sugar consumption on health continues to be a controversial topic. The objective of this review is to discuss the evidence and lack of evidence that allows the controversy to continue, and why resolution of the controversy is important. There are plausible mechanisms and research evidence that supports the suggestion that consumption of excess sugar promotes the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) both directly and indirectly. The direct pathway involves the unregulated hepatic uptake and metabolism of fructose, leading to liver lipid accumulation, dyslipidemia, decreased insulin sensitivity and increased uric acid levels. The epidemiological data suggest that these direct effects of fructose are pertinent to the consumption of the fructose-containing sugars, sucrose and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which are the predominant added sugars. Consumption of added sugar is associated with development and/or prevalence of fatty liver, dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, hyperuricemia, CVD and T2DM, often independent of body weight gain or total energy intake. There are diet intervention studies in which human subjects exhibited increased circulating lipids and decreased insulin sensitivity when consuming high sugar compared with control diets. Most recently, our group has reported that supplementing the ad libitum diets of young adults with beverages containing 0%, 10%, 17.5% or 25% of daily energy requirement (Ereq) as HFCS increased lipid/lipoprotein risk factors for CVD and uric acid in a dose-response manner. However, un-confounded studies conducted in healthy humans under a controlled, energy-balanced diet protocol that enables determination of the effects of sugar with diets that do not allow for body weight gain are lacking. Furthermore, recent reports conclude that there are no adverse effects of consuming beverages containing up to 30% Ereq sucrose or HFCS, and the conclusions from several meta-analyses suggest that fructose has no specific adverse effects relative to any other carbohydrate. Consumption of excess sugar may also promote the development of CVD and T2DM indirectly by causing increased body weight and fat gain, but this is also a topic of controversy. Mechanistically, it is plausible that fructose consumption causes increased energy intake and reduced energy expenditure due to its failure to stimulate leptin production. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of the brain demonstrates that the brain responds differently to fructose or fructose-containing sugars compared with glucose or aspartame. Some epidemiological studies show that sugar consumption is associated with body weight gain, and there are intervention studies in which consumption of ad libitum high-sugar diets promoted increased body weight gain compared with consumption of ad libitum low- sugar diets. However, there are no studies in which energy intake and weight gain were compared in subjects consuming high or low sugar, blinded, ad libitum diets formulated to ensure both groups consumed a comparable macronutrient distribution and the same amounts of fiber. There is also little data to determine whether the form in which added sugar is consumed, as beverage or as solid food, affects its potential to promote weight gain. It will be very challenging to obtain the funding to conduct the clinical diet studies needed to address these evidence gaps, especially at the levels of added sugar that are commonly consumed. Yet, filling these evidence gaps may be necessary for supporting the policy changes that will help to turn the food environment into one that does not promote the development of obesity and metabolic disease.

Indexed as

Dietary SucroseEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMetabolic DiseasesModels, BiologicalObesityRisk AssessmentDietary SucroseCardiovascular diseasediethigh fructose corn syrupmetabolic syndromesucrosetriglyceridetype 2 diabetesuric acid

Identifiers

PMID26376619
PMCPMC4822166
OpenAlexW2193179560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.