Commentary on Gibson S. A. (1996) Are diets high in non-milk extrinsic sugars conducive to obesity? An analysis from the Dietary and Nutritional Survey of British Adults. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics; 9, 283?292

Sugar-fat seesaw: a systematic review of the evidence

Further to reports of a reciprocal relationship between sugar and fat intakes, this review aimed to provide an in-depth analysis and to determine the likely influence of this relationship on the achievement of population dietary guidelines. Using systematic methods, relevant literature was selected according to preset criteria. A strong and consistent inverse association was found between total sugars and total fat intakes expressed as percentage energy. Fewer studies considered absolute intakes and these reported a positive relationship, which may be influenced by confounding with energy intakes. Evidence for an inverse relationship between percentage energy from fat and extrinsic sugars was weaker and less consistent than for fat and total sugars. Reciprocal relationships were also observed for sugar-saturated fat, sugar-protein, sugar-alcohol, and sugar-starch expressed as percentage energy. Under-reporting of dietary intakes had no major influence on the findings. This review confirms the existence of the sugar-fat seesaw on a percentage energy basis and concludes that it is most likely explained by a combination of mathematical and food compositional effects. This finding is relevant because dietary guidelines are expressed as percentage energy and implies that at the population level multiple guidelines may be difficult to achieve in practice.

Beverages and body weight: challenges in the evidence-based review process of the Carbohydrate Subcommittee from the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee

Concern about the role of beverages, especially those containing sugar, in the obesity epidemic continues to escalate. Bans on sugar-sweetened beverages and chocolate milk have expanded from the school cafeteria to the ballpark and convenience store. This review describes the experience of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) in conducting an evidence-based review of dietary exposure and health outcomes. The following four topics relevant to fluids and body weight were reviewed: added sugar, noncaloric sweeteners, food form and body weight, and macronutrients and satiety. There were limited and conflicting data on how liquids and solids affect energy intake and body weight. Fluid intake is typically not tracked in prospective, cohort longitudinal studies; thus, data are not available on fluid intake and health status from studies using the strongest epidemiologic designs. Despite public perception that beverages are linked to increased body weight compared with whole foods, evidence-based reviews of this topic do not support that liquid calories are processed differently in the body. The practical recommendation to replace caloric beverages with water as an aid to control weight is based on calorie reduction, rather than a link between added-sugar intake and obesity.

A comparison of British school meals and packed lunches from 1990 to 2007: meta-analysis by lunch type

Primary school children in the UK have the choice of a school meal provided by the school or a packed lunch provided from home. Currently, more than half of primary school children have a packed lunch. New food-based standards for school meals were introduced in English primary schools in 2006, followed by nutrient-based standards in 2008. No formal comparisons of primary school lunches by lunch type have been undertaken to date. The present review identified seven studies from 1990 to 2007 measuring lunchtime nutrient intake in children aged 5–11 years having a school meal and children having a packed lunch. Pooled estimates for each nutrient were as follows: energy intake was 543 (95 % CI 233, 854) kJ higher in packed lunches; total sugar intake was 14·0 (95 % CI 10·3, 17·7) g higher in packed lunches; non-milk extrinsic sugar intake was 11·7 (95 % CI 7·3, 16·2) g higher in packed lunches; saturated fat intake was 4·7 (95 % CI 2·4, 7·1) g higher in packed lunches and Na intake was 357 (95 % CI 174, 539) mg higher in packed lunches. Differences between school meals and packed lunches were larger for all nutrients after the introduction of food-based standards compared with the period of no standards. However, differences between before and after standards did not reach statistical significance. The nutritional quality of packed lunches is poor compared with school meals. The introduction of food-based standards for school meals in 2006 has moderately improved the nutrient content of school meals, slightly widening the nutritional gap between school meals and packed lunches.

On the role and fate of sugars in human nutrition and health. Introduction

The recently implemented European Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods is fuelling scientific research efforts in the food and health arena. Essentially, it is now established that only claims that are scientifically substantiated will be allowed. Because this new legislation covers the idea that foods with health or nutritional claims might be perceived by consumers as having a health advantage over products without claims, it introduces a further requirement (enclosing the new concept of 'nutrient profile') to avoid a situation where claims could mislead consumers when trying to make healthy choices in the context of a balanced diet. Thus, only those foods having an appropriate nutrition profile (composition of different nutrients such as sugars and other substances with particularly relevant nutritional or physiological effects) will be allowed to bear claims. A scientific expert workshop was organized to critically review the available evidence behind current intake recommendations for sugars, focusing on the strength/gaps of the scientific evidence available and the identification of those fields where further research is needed. Work was distributed in the following topics covering potential effects of dietary sugars on (i) body weight control; (ii) diabetes-insulin resistance; (iii) dental health and (iv) micronutrient dilution. New approaches, including intervention studies and the application of nutrigenomic technologies, should be undertaken and interpreted bearing in mind that foods, food components and their combinations can have both positive and negative effects on health, thus requiring benefit-risk analysis.

Consumption of sugars and body weight

The role of dietary sugars in the current obesity epidemic is much debated and opposing views can be found in the lay as well as scientific literature. Here we have reviewed the recent scientific literature on consumption of sugars and body weight. Main focus was on three questions: (i) What is the evidence that intake of dietary sugars is associated with higher body weight than intake of non-sugar carbohydrates? (ii) What is the evidence that sugars in liquid form are associated with higher body weight than sugars in solid form? (iii) What is the evidence that diets with a low glycaemic index (GI) or glycaemic load (GL) are associated with lower body weight than diets high in GI or GL? We conclude that (i) there is insufficient evidence that an exchange of sugar for non-sugar carbohydrates in the context of a reduced-fat ad libitum diet or energy-restricted diet results in lower body weights; (ii) observational studies suggest a possible relationship between consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and body weight, but there is currently insufficient supporting evidence from randomized controlled trials of sufficient size and duration; (iii) at this moment there is insufficient evidence to support a difference between liquid and solid sugar intake in body-weight control and (iv) there is some, although not consistent, evidence for a lower body weight on diets with a lower GL, but the effect is likely to be small. There is currently no convincing evidence for a role of GI independent of GL.