Whether food source or energy mediates the effect of fructose-containing sugars on blood pressure (BP) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of different food sources of fructose-containing sugars at different levels of energy control on BP. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library through June 2021 for controlled trials ≥7-days. We prespecified 4 trial designs: substitution (energy matched substitution of sugars); addition (excess energy from sugars added); subtraction (excess energy from sugars subtracted); and ad libitum (energy from sugars freely replaced). Outcomes were systolic and diastolic BP. Independent reviewers extracted data. GRADE assessed the certainty of evidence. We included 93 reports (147 trial comparisons, N = 5,213) assessing 12 different food sources across 4 energy control levels in adults with and without hypertension or at risk for hypertension. Total fructose-containing sugars had no effect in substitution, subtraction, or ad libitum trials but decreased systolic and diastolic BP in addition trials (P<0.05). There was evidence of interaction/influence by food source: fruit and 100% fruit juice decreased and mixed sources (with sugar-sweetened beverages [SSBs]) increased BP in addition trials and the removal of SSBs (linear dose response gradient) and mixed sources (with SSBs) decreased BP in subtraction trials. The certainty of evidence was generally moderate. Food source and energy control appear to mediate the effect of fructose-containing sugars on BP. The evidence provides a good indication that fruit and 100% fruit juice at low doses (up to or less than the public health threshold of ~10% E) lead to small, but important reductions in BP, while the addition of excess energy of mixed sources (with SSBs) at high doses (up to 23%) leads to moderate increases and their removal or the removal of SSBs alone (up to ~20% E) leads to small, but important decreases in BP in adults with and without hypertension or at risk for hypertension. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02716870.

BACKGROUND:Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) providing excess energy increase adiposity. The effect of other food sources of sugars at different energy control levels is unclear.OBJECTIVES:To determine the effect of food sources of fructose-containing sugars by energy control on adiposity.METHODS:In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched through April 2022 for controlled trials ≥2 wk. We prespecified 4 trial designs by energy control: substitution (energy-matched replacement of sugars), addition (energy from sugars added), subtraction (energy from sugars subtracted), and ad libitum (energy from sugars freely replaced). Independent authors extracted data. The primary outcome was body weight. Secondary outcomes included other adiposity measures. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the certainty of evidence.RESULTS:We included 169 trials (255 trial comparisons, n = 10,357) assessing 14 food sources at 4 energy control levels over a median 12 wk. Total fructose-containing sugars increased body weight (MD: 0.28 kg; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.50 kg; PMD = 0.011) in addition trials and decreased body weight (MD: -0.96 kg; 95% CI: -1.78, -0.14 kg; PMD = 0.022) in subtraction trials with no effect in substitution or ad libitum trials. There was interaction/influence by food sources on body weight: substitution trials [fruits decreased; added nutritive sweeteners and mixed sources (with SSBs) increased]; addition trials [dried fruits, honey, fruits (≤10%E), and 100% fruit juice (≤10%E) decreased; SSBs, fruit drink, and mixed sources (with SSBs) increased]; subtraction trials [removal of mixed sources (with SSBs) decreased]; and ad libitum trials [mixed sources (with/without SSBs) increased]. GRADE scores were generally moderate. Results were similar across secondary outcomes.CONCLUSIONS:Energy control and food sources mediate the effect of fructose-containing sugars on adiposity. The evidence provides a good indication that excess energy from sugars (particularly SSBs at high doses ≥20%E or 100 g/d) increase adiposity, whereas their removal decrease adiposity. Most other food sources had no effect, with some showing decreases (particularly fruits at lower doses ≤10%E or 50 g/d). This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02558920 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02558920).

Background: Fructose providing excess calories in the form of sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) increases markers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Whether this effect holds for other important food sources of fructose-containing sugars is unclear. To investigate the role of food source and energy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials of the effect of fructose-containing sugars by food source at different levels of energy control on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) markers. Methods and Findings: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through 7 January 2022 for controlled trials ≥7-days. Four trial designs were prespecified: substitution (energy-matched substitution of sugars for other macronutrients); addition (excess energy from sugars added to diets); subtraction (excess energy from sugars subtracted from diets); and ad libitum (energy from sugars freely replaced by other macronutrients). The primary outcome was intrahepatocellular lipid (IHCL). Secondary outcomes were alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST). Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. We included 51 trials (75 trial comparisons, n = 2059) of 10 food sources (sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs); sweetened dairy alternative; 100% fruit juice; fruit; dried fruit; mixed fruit sources; sweets and desserts; added nutritive sweetener; honey; and mixed sources (with SSBs)) in predominantly healthy mixed weight or overweight/obese younger adults. Total fructose-containing sugars increased IHCL (standardized mean difference = 1.72 [95% CI, 1.08 to 2.36], p < 0.001) in addition trials and decreased AST in subtraction trials with no effect on any outcome in substitution or ad libitum trials. There was evidence of influence by food source with SSBs increasing IHCL and ALT in addition trials and mixed sources (with SSBs) decreasing AST in subtraction trials. The certainty of evidence was high for the effect on IHCL and moderate for the effect on ALT for SSBs in addition trials, low for the effect on AST for the removal of energy from mixed sources (with SSBs) in subtraction trials, and generally low to moderate for all other comparisons. Conclusions: Energy control and food source appear to mediate the effect of fructose-containing sugars on NAFLD markers. The evidence provides a good indication that the addition of excess energy from SSBs leads to large increases in liver fat and small important increases in ALT while there is less of an indication that the removal of energy from mixed sources (with SSBs) leads to moderate reductions in AST. Varying uncertainty remains for the lack of effect of other important food sources of fructose-containing sugars at different levels of energy control.

BACKGROUND:Fructose-containing sugars as sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) may increase inflammatory biomarkers. Whether this effect is mediated by the food matrix at different levels of energy is unknown. To investigate the role of food source and energy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials on the effect of different food sources of fructose-containing sugars on inflammatory markers at different levels of energy control. METHODS:MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through March 2022 for controlled feeding trials ≥ 7 days. Four trial designs were prespecified by energy control: substitution (energy matched replacement of sugars); addition (excess energy from sugars added to diets); subtraction (energy from sugars subtracted from diets); and ad libitum (energy from sugars freely replaced). The primary outcome was C-reactive protein (CRP). Secondary outcomes were tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. GRADE assessed certainty of evidence. RESULTS:We identified 64 controlled trials (91 trial comparisons, n = 4094) assessing 12 food sources (SSB; sweetened dairy; sweetened dairy alternative [soy]; 100% fruit juice; fruit; dried fruit; mixed fruit forms; sweetened cereal grains and bars; sweets and desserts; added nutritive [caloric] sweetener; mixed sources [with SSBs]; and mixed sources [without SSBs]) at 4 levels of energy control over a median 6-weeks in predominantly healthy mixed weight or overweight/obese adults. Total fructose-containing sugars decreased CRP in addition trials and had no effect in substitution, subtraction or ad libitum trials. No effect was observed on other outcomes at any level of energy control. There was evidence of interaction/influence by food source: substitution trials (sweetened dairy alternative (soy) and 100% fruit juice decreased, and mixed sources (with SSBs) increased CRP); and addition trials (fruit decreased CRP and TNF-α; sweets and desserts (dark chocolate) decreased IL-6). The certainty of evidence was moderate-to-low for the majority of analyses. CONCLUSIONS:Food source appears to mediate the effect of fructose-containing sugars on inflammatory markers over the short-to-medium term. The evidence provides good indication that mixed sources that contain SSBs increase CRP, while most other food sources have no effect with some sources (fruit, 100% fruit juice, sweetened soy beverage or dark chocolate) showing decreases, which may be dependent on energy control. CLINICALTRIALS:gov: (NCT02716870).

Fructose providing excess calories has been shown to increase postprandial triglycerides (TAG). Whether this effect holds for different food sources of fructose-containing sugars is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials on the effect of different food sources of fructose-containing sugars at different levels of energy control on postprandial blood lipids (NCT02716870). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched through June 1st, 2020 for controlled feeding trials ≥7-days assessing the effect of food sources of fructose-containing sugars on postprandial lipids. Trial designs were prespecified based on energy control: substitution (energy matched replacement of sugars by other macronutrients); addition (excess energy from sugars added to diets); subtraction (energy from sugars subtracted from diets); and ad libitum (energy from sugars freely replaced by other macronutrients) trials. Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes were postprandial TAG and apoB48. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. We included 29 trials (60 trial comparisons, N = 943) assessing 5 food sources (SSBs, fruit, sweets and desserts, added caloric sweetener and mixed sources) across 4 levels of energy control. Total fructose-containing sugars increased postprandial TAG in substitution (MD: 0.17 mmol/L [95% CI: 0.05, 0.30], P = 0.007), addition (0.38 mmol/L [0.13, 0.62], P = 0.003), and ad libitum (0.17 mmol/L [0.02, 0.31], P = 0.024) trials and increased apoB48 in addition trials (0.12 g/L [0.07, 0.18], P < 0.001).There was evidence of interaction by food source with SSBs increasing postprandial TAG and apoB48 in addition trials and mixed sources increasing postprandial TAG in ad libitum trials. The certainty of the evidence was “moderate” for SSBs increasing TAG in addition trials and mixed sources increasing TAG in ad libitum trials and “low” for all other comparisons. Food source more than energy control appears to mediate fructose-containing sugars on postprandial lipids. Good evidence suggests that SSBs and mixed sources increase postprandial lipids while evidence is less certain for the lack of effect of other food sources. More high-quality trials of different food sources are needed. Primary: Diabetes Canada.

ObjectivesLow-glycemic index (GI) and load (GL) dietary patterns are recommended for diabetes management by clinical practice guidelines globally. To inform the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) clinical practice guidelines for nutrition therapy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of low-GI/GL dietary patterns on glycemic control and other established cardiometabolic risk factors in type 1 and 2 diabetes.

Objective To inform the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes clinical practice guidelines for nutrition therapy. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library searched up to 13 May 2021. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials of three or more weeks investigating the effect of diets with low glycaemic index (GI)/glycaemic load (GL) in diabetes. Outcome and measures The primary outcome was glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1c ). Secondary outcomes included other markers of glycaemic control (fasting glucose, fasting insulin); blood lipids (low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, apo B, triglycerides); adiposity (body weight, BMI (body mass index), waist circumference), blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)), and inflammation (C reactive protein (CRP)). Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled by random effects models. GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Results 29 trial comparisons were identified in 1617 participants with type 1 and 2 diabetes who were predominantly middle aged, overweight, or obese with moderately controlled type 2 diabetes treated by hyperglycaemia drugs or insulin. Low GI/GL dietary patterns reduced HbA 1c in comparison with higher GI/GL control diets (mean difference −0.31% (95% confidence interval −0.42 to −0.19%), P<0.001; substantial heterogeneity, I 2 =75%, P<0.001). Reductions occurred also in fasting glucose, LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apo B, triglycerides, body weight, BMI, systolic blood pressure (dose-response), and CRP (P<0.05), but not blood insulin, HDL-C, waist circumference, or diastolic blood pressure. A positive dose-response gradient was seen for the difference in GL and HbA 1c and for absolute dietary GI and SBP (P<0.05). The certainty of evidence was high for the reduction in HbA 1c and moderate for most secondary outcomes, with downgrades due mainly to imprecision. Conclusions This synthesis suggests that low GI/GL dietary patterns result in small important improvements in established targets of glycaemic control, blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure, and inflammation beyond concurrent treatment with hyperglycaemia drugs or insulin, predominantly in adults with moderately controlled type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The available evidence provides a good indication of the likely benefit in this population. Study registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04045938 .

Overconsumption of fructose-containing sugars may increase blood pressure. Whether this effect is mediated by the food matrix is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials of the effect of food sources of fructose-containing sugars at different levels of energy control on blood pressure (NCT02716870). We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library through January, 2020 for controlled trials ≥7d. Trial designs were prespecified based on energy control: substitution (energy matched replacement of sugars in the diet); addition (excess energy from sugars added to diets); subtraction (energy from sugars subtracted from diets); and ad libitum (energy from sugars freely replaced in the diet) trials. Outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed by GRADE. We included 76 trials (121 trial comparisons, N = 4 302) assessing 9 food sources (sugar-sweetened beverages [SSBs], sweetened dairy alternatives, 100% fruit juice, fruit, dried fruit, sweets, added nutritive sweetener, sweetened cereal grains/bars, and mixed sources) across the 4 levels of energy control. Total fructose-containing sugars decreased SBP (mean difference, −2.76 mmHg [95% CI, −4.36, −1.16], P = 0.001) and DBP (−1.26 mmHg [−2.29, −0.23], P = 0.016) in addition trials and the removal of these sugars decreased SBP (−1.79 mmHg [−3.36, −0.21], P = 0.026) in subtraction trials. There was evidence of interaction by food source with fruit decreasing and sweets and mixed sources increasing SBP and DBP in addition trials and the removal of SSBs decreased SBP in subtraction trials. The certainty of evidence was generally moderate to low for all food source-outcome relationships, except for the decreasing-effect of fruit on DBP in addition trials (high). Food source and energy control appear to mediate the effect of fructose-containing sugars on blood pressure. The evidence provides a good indication that fruit decreases while excess calories from SSBs, sweets and mixed sources increase blood pressure. More high-quality trials of different food sources are needed to improve our estimates. Diabetes Canada.

Fructose as a source of excess calories increases uric acid. Whether this effect is mediated by the food matrix at different levels of energy is unknown. We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials on the effect of food sources of fructose-containing sugars at different energy levels on uric acid (NCT02716870). MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched through January 27, 2020 for controlled trials ≥7-days assessing the effect of food sources of fructose-containing sugars on uric acid. Trial designs were prespecified based on energy control: substitution (energy matched replacement of sugars by other macronutrients); addition (excess energy from sugars added to diets); subtraction (energy from sugars subtracted from diets); and ad libitum (energy from sugars freely replaced by other macronutrients) trials. Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Eligibility was met by 41 trials (72 trial comparisons, N = 2109) assessing the effect of 9 food sources (sugar-sweetened beverages [SSBs], sweetened dairy, fruit drink [lemonade], 100% fruit juice, fruit, dried fruit [raisins], baked goods desserts and sweets, added nutritive [caloric] sweetener and mixed sources) across the 4 energy levels. Total fructose-containing sugars increased uric acid in substitution trials (mean difference, 0.15 mg/dL [95% confidence interval, 0.03 to 0.27 mg/dL], P = 0.012) with no effect in addition, subtraction or ad libitum trials. There was evidence of interaction by food source with SSBs and baked goods, desserts and sweets increasing uric acid in substitution and SSBs increasing and 100% fruit juice decreasing uric acid in addition trials. The overall certainty of evidence was moderate for the increasing effect of SSBs in substitution and addition trials and low to very low for all other comparisons. Food source more than energy control mediate the effect of fructose-containing sugars on uric acid. SSBs and baked goods, desserts and sweets appear to increase, and 100% fruit juice appear to decrease uric acid. More high-quality trials of different food sources of fructose-containing sugars are needed to improve our estimates. Diabetes Canada.

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) have been linked to weight gain, and it is unclear if other food sources of fructose-containing sugars behave similarily. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials to assess the effect of different food sources of fructose-containing sugars on body weight. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane library were searched through January 2019. We included controlled feeding trials of ≥2 weeks investigating the effect of different food sources of sugars. Four levels of energy control were prespecified: substitution (energy-matched comparisons); addition (energy from sugars added to diet); subtraction (energy from sugars subtracted from diet); or ad libitum (energy from sugars freely replaced). The primary outcome was body weight. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled using random effects models and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). GRADE assessed the certainty of evidence. We identified 110 controlled trials (N = 5133) assessing the effect of 7 different food sources of fructose-containing sugars (SSBs, fruit, fruit juice, dried fruit; baked goods, sweets, & desserts; mixed sources; added caloric sweeteners). No effect on body weight was observed in substitution trials, whereas there was an increasing effect in addition trials (MD, 0.23 kg [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.40]) and ad libitum trials (1.43 kg [0.78 to 2.16]), and a decreasing effect in subtraction trials (–0.52 kg [–1.02 to −0.02]). There was evidence of interaction by food source with fruit showing weight loss in substitution trials and SSBs showing weight gain in addition trials. The certainty of evidence was moderate for the effects in the addition and subtraction trials and high for the effects in the substitution and ad libitum trials. Energy control and food source appear to mediate the effect of fructose-containing sugars on body weight. Food sources of fructose-containing sugars adding excess energy to diets (especially sugars-sweetened beverages) appear to lead to weight gain. There is low to moderate likelihood that more research will substantially alter our estimates (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT02558920) American Society for Nutrition Foundation (commissioned and funded), Diabetes Canada.