Whats that for argument/comeback! sugar stimilates dopamine,so it can be/is addictive. Moderation like davide was talking about is hard for people who already have an addiction/ stopped an adiction or are quickly addicted to stuff.

If you look at the percentages you see that added fat increased. However if you just look at the calorie data youll find that sugar, fat and calorie increased. Fat however has increased a bit more. Also in the years HFCS has gone up and sucrose down. So more fructose and more total sugar calorie intake. So out of this data you cant say if its the calorie increase, fat increase or the sugar increase. Also there can be a split in the society , as one part started calorie restriction hardcore (1500 cal) the other part started eating a lot more (3000+)
You would first have to put people into groups of calorie and kind of calorie intake and then look at obesity. You cant average 2 extremes. Since the average calories could stay the same but half the people could get more obese and other half more underfed.

I havent took time yet to look at the satisfaction studies. However i can say out of my own experience that sugar doesnt satisfy me. On high sugar diet I can eat up to 4500cal (with effort!) , on a high fat diet I have to watch out i dont go under 1800cal )

I was groping because it was the only evidence I had seen. Thanks for the further links I will have a look at them and get back to you if I have more to say or ask.

Best,

Mike

But again, whether fructose is something to get all jumpy about depends on how much you habitually ingest, and in what context it’s ingested.

PS – Why are you groping for ancient/archival work when there’s a full bounty of more current stuff? Here, get your hands on these & read them through for a more balanced look at the big picture:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19592634

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996880

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20047139

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20086073

I’d like to call your attention to the following comment I made recently on futurepundit:

A study was done in 1966 that has not received the attention it deserves. Winitz and Adams researching diets for astronauts created a nutrition mixture and fed it under controlled conditions to a prison population in Vacaville, CA.

At one point the the prisoners complained that the diet was too bland. The researchers had been using glucose rather than sucrose. They changed back to sucrose to the approval of the prisoners. However their daily monitoring of the cholesterol levels of the subject population went up significanly with the sucrose. The diet was changed back to glucose and the cholesterol levels decreased. Back to sucrose and back up they went.

The difference between glucose and sucrose is FRUCTOSE. Sucrose (table sugar) is a disaccharide consisting of one molecule of glucose and one of fructose. The addition of fructose through the use of sucrose raised cholesterol.

I found this out a few years ago from an article by Linus Pauling. It is the only reference to the study I have been able to find on the web aside from the original article available from JAMA which I have not purchased.

Pauling’s article is here: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/Nutrition.htm

The Jama article is here: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/196/6/35.pdf

Hopefully one of the commenters or someone else will be able to follow this up. I suspect it may lead to significant progress in understanding the effect of fructose on health.

BTW 4000 IU of Vitamin D/day significantly changed my cholesterol profile for the better as well as reducing my blood pressure back to where it was 10 years ago to 100-120/55-60 from 150-175/90-120 without meds. No longer taking isopril just Vitamin D.

Mike

Lots of folks posting above would do well to read it (but won’t)

http://www.rburton.com/_i_on_being_certain_i___believing_you_are_right_even_when_you_re_not_63166.htm