ReviewCritical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences2016
Sugar consumption, metabolic disease and obesity: The state of the controversy.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
323 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 721 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive review of carbonated soft drink consumption rates and their public health importance.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Integrating Health in the Water-Energy-Food Nexus: A Comprehensive Review of Interdependencies, Challenges, and Future Research Opportunities.Current environmental health reports · 2025Pooled it
- The effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on lipid profile in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- The impact of high fructose corn syrup on liver injury and glucose metabolism: a systematic review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Pooled it
- The association between ultra-processed food and common pregnancy adverse outcomes: a dose-response systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Pooled it
- Camel (International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Improving Obesogenic Dietary Behaviors among Adolescents: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Nutrients · 2022Pooled it
- Can Artificial Sweeteners Increase the Risk of Cancer Incidence and Mortality: Evidence from Prospective Studies.Nutrients · 2022Pooled it
- Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Adult Diabetes Risk: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.Nutrients · 2021Pooled it
- Associations of overweight and gestational diabetes mellitus with free sugars from solid and liquid sources: cross-sectional and nested case-control analyses.BMC public health · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Dose-response association between sugar- and artificially sweetened beverage consumption and the risk of metabolic syndrome: a meta-analysis of population-based epidemiological studies.Public health nutrition · 2021Pooled it
- Randomized Controlled Trial Outcomes for HomeStyles-2, an Online Obesity Prevention Program for Families with Children in Middle Childhood.Nutrients · 2026Trial
- Experimental pasta as an innovative approach to cholesterol reduction in patients with metabolic syndrome, with and without major psychiatric disorders: A randomized controlled trial supported byEuropean psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025Trial
- Sugary snack restriction enhances body composition improvement in overweight women engaging in non-face-to-face walking during COVID-19.Frontiers in public health · 2024Trial
- Metabolic responses to acute sprint interval exercise training performed after an oral 75-gram glucose load in individuals with overweight/obesity.Physiological reports · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Work stress, dietary patterns and metabolic syndrome among military personnel in Ghana: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2026Article
263 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.