Sugar is increasingly being blamed for many of our cardiometabolic ills. Lustig et al. argue that sugar is "toxic" and as such should be regulated like alcohol or tobacco [1]. Their arguments focus squarely on the "deadly effect" of the fructose moiety of sugar. They use a range of observational and mechanistic studies and do not take into account fruit as a significant source of fructose to support their arguments. Does the highest-level evidence that is used to inform clinical practice guidelines and public policy come to the same conclusions? Using systematic reviews and meta-analyses of controlled feeding trials, we came to different conclusions.
展开▼
