Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Reply to: ‘Guidelines on ‘added’ sugars are unscientific and unnecessary’

Nature Reviews Cardiology volume 19, pages 847–849 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

I thank Dr Archer for his Correspondence (Guidelines on ‘added’ sugars are unscientific and unnecessary. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-022-00792-9 (2022))1 on my Comment article (Guidelines to lower intake of added sugar are necessary and justified. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 19, 569–570 (2022))2. The stated purpose of Dr Archer’s letter is to correct several misconceptions. However, he does not explain how any of the statements I made in the Comment article represent misconceptions that require correction. Instead, he re-asserts that the data underlying the US Dietary Guidelines are “physiologically implausible, pseudo-scientific and essentially meaningless” and states that I failed to address these conclusions. Therefore, I will specifically explain why each of the five arguments contained in his letter (quoted below in this Reply), and also in his review3, do not support his conclusions.

Sugars added to foods and beverages enter the same metabolic pathways as sugars intrinsic to foods and beverages

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Archer, E. Guidelines on ‘added’ sugars are unscientific and unnecessary. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-022-00792-9 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stanhope, K. L. Guidelines to lower intake of added sugar are necessary and justified. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 19, 569–570 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Archer, E. & Arjmandi, B. Falsehoods and facts about dietary sugars: a call for evidence-based policy. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 61, 3725–3739 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sigala, D. M. et al. The dose–response effects of consuming high fructose corn syrup-sweetened beverages on hepatic lipid content and insulin sensitivity in young adults. Nutrients 14, 1648 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hanhineva, K. et al. Impact of dietary polyphenols on carbohydrate metabolism. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 11, 1365–1402 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Büsing, F. et al. High intake of orange juice and cola differently affects metabolic risk in healthy subjects. Clin. Nutr. 38, 812–819 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Price, C. A. et al. A pilot study comparing the effects of consuming 100% orange juice or sucrose-sweetened beverage on risk factors for cardiometabolic disease in women. Nutrients 13, 760 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Khodami, B. et al. Effects of a low free sugar diet on the management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a randomized clinical trial. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 76, 987–994 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schwimmer, J. B. et al. Effect of a low free sugar diet vs usual diet on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in adolescent boys: a randomized clinical trial. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 321, 256–265 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Simons, N. et al. Effects of fructose restriction on liver steatosis (FRUITLESS); a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 113, 391–400 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Bettina Hieronimus (Institute for Physiology and Biochemistry of Nutrition, Max Rubner-Institut, Germany) and Desiree Sigala (Department of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA, USA) for discussion, insight and editing before submission.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California – Davis, Davis, CA, USA

    Kimber L. Stanhope

Authors
  1. Kimber L. Stanhope
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimber L. Stanhope.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

K.L.S. has received honoraria for speaking from numerous organizations (since 2016: American Diabetes Association, Columbia University, Harvard School of Medicine, Swedish Medical Center and University of Missouri) and from CrossFit for serving as academic organizer of a 2017 conference and lead author of the conference summary report.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stanhope, K.L. Reply to: ‘Guidelines on ‘added’ sugars are unscientific and unnecessary’. Nat Rev Cardiol 19, 847–849 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-022-00794-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-022-00794-7

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing