Skip to Content

This content is made possible by the generous sponsorship support of UCare.

Added sugars linked to Minnesotans' widening girths, U of M researchers find

The debate over the role of added sugars in America’s, um, ever-expanding obesity problem heated up a bit yesterday with the release of some new research findings from the University of Minnesota.

Using dietary and other health data collected by six different surveys of Minnesotan adults between 1980 and 2009 (as part of the Minnesota Heart Survey study), the U of M researchers found that as our consumption of added sugars has increased, so has our body weight.

“We expected that added sugar [consumption] had been increasing,” said Huifen Wang, the study’s lead author and a PhD candidate in the U of M’s School of Public Health, in a phone interview Thursday. “But we see in the findings that it has been increasing consistently over time and concurrently with an increase in BMI [body mass index].”

Added sugars are sugars (both high-fructose syrup and ordinary table sugar) that are added during the processing or preparation of foods. They don’t include sugars that occur naturally in a food, such as fructose in fruit and lactose in milk.

The new research doesn’t prove that added sugars are causing America’s obesity epidemic, Huifen pointed out. This type of study can show only a statistical association between two things, not a cause-and-effect.

But the findings do raise suspicions — and suggest, Huifen added, that public health officials should advise people to limit their added sugar intake.

Huifen presented the research findings, which have not yet been published, at a meeting of the American Heart Association in Atlanta, Ga., on Thursday.

Lyn Steffen
Lyn Steffen

What the data revealed
Huifen and her colleagues, including U of M epidemiologist Lyn Steffen, examined both gender and age group trends in the data from the surveys. They found that the consumption of added sugars has increased for both genders and for all age groups.

Further crunching of the data revealed some interesting findings:

  • The added-sugar intake of men increased by almost 40 percent between the first survey (1980-1982) and the last one (2007-2009). By 2009, Minnesotan men were consuming about 15 percent of their daily calories from added sugars.
  • Minnesota women, on the other hand, increased their added-sugar intake from about 10 percent of total calories in 1980-1982 to about 14 percent in 2007-2009.
  • Younger adults devoured more added sugars than older adults.

One positive finding: Added sugar consumption decreased by about 10 percent in both men and women in the years between the latest two surveys (taken in 2000-2002 and 2007-2009).  The average BMI of women also went down during this period, but not that of men. Their BMI continued to increase.

“That may be because of other lifestyle factors,” such as men spending less time exercising, said Wang.

Before you say, 'duh'
OK. Before you charge that this is just another “duh” study, you should know that there’s been a lively dispute about just what’s making Americans’ girths widen. The sugar industry, in particular, likes to claim that there’s no link between sugar and obesity and that our weight gain is due to an increase in our overall calorie consumption and our lack of exercise.

And they have conducted their own research to prove it.

But the evidence pointing to added sugars as a major factor in America’s (indeed, the world’s) obesity epidemic is strong — and getting stronger. Indeed, most health organizations recommend that we watch our added sugar intake. The American Heart Association, for example, advises American women to eat no more than 100 calories and men no more than 150 calories of added sugar daily.


Interview offering perspective on this research from AHA spokesperson, Rachel K. Johnson, Ph.D., M.PH, R.D., Associate Provost and Professor of Nutrition at the University of Vermont, Burlington, VT

The AHA also points out that soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages are a leading source of added sugars in the American diet.

For tips on how to reduce the amount of added sugars in your diet, I recommend starting with those offered by the Mayo Clinic on its website.

Comments (4)

What isn't said in this article is that the increase in "added sugars" intake was largely the result of the AHA-encourage and approved "low fat" food craze of that time period.

Most manufacturers, seeking to drive sales with "low fat" products, removed as much fat as possible from their commercial foods and substituted added sugars and starches to attempt to make those "low fat" foods palatable to the public.

It may seem counterintuitive, but it seems very likely that "low fat" fat food has made us fat (and seemingly caused a lot of the very heart disease that it was supposed to prevent).

But the idea behind "low fat" eating reducing or preventing heart disease was as poorly-researched and as little justified by double blind studies as my Great, Great, Aunt Annie's idea that if you got up and did the dishes right after a meal, you'd never be fat (which her own girth contradicted).

Perhaps some day we'll have the benefit of dietary advice that is not driven by old doctor's, nurse's, researcher's, and wive's tales regarding what "must" be true...

Not to mention dietary advice that is not driven by the food industry's desire to increase sales of their most UNnatural, most-heavily-processed "food" products.

Greg is right, and I'm sorry but this is another "duh" study.

Of course the sugar industry claims that sugar consumption is unrelated to obesity. They stand to lose a ton of money if sugar is reduced in processed foods. The tobacco industry claimed that smoking was unrelated to lung cancer, for the same reason. Why would we even listen to the sugar industry? They are biased, by definition.

I know from my own experience that dietary fat is not the problem, it was sugar and other high-glycemic index carbs that were killing me before I woke up, and low carb is the way to go. Read Atkin's books, he explains metabolically why this is so.

The AHA talks out of both sides of its mouth: The Dairy Council is under the impression the AHA has given the thumbs up to sweetened milk drinks.

http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/child_nutrit...

Oh no, it looks like the groundwork is being laid for another lawsuit designed to enrich the trial-lawyers and thus enrich the DFL.