Sugar Isn’t the Villain: 8 Myths Debunked to Sweeten Your Perspective
Sugar Isn't the Villain: 8 Myths Debunked to Sweeten Your Perspective
For decades, sugar has been cast as the ultimate dietary villain, blamed for everything from obesity to cancer. But what if much of what you've heard about sugar is more fiction than fact? Let's explore eight pervasive sugar myths, armed with scientific evidence, to reveal a more balanced perspective on this sweet substance that's been unfairly demonized.
Myth 1: Sugar Makes You Fat - Not So Fast!
The notion that sugar directly causes weight gain is deeply entrenched in our collective consciousness, but the scientific reality reveals this is a fundamental misunderstanding of human metabolism.
Dr. Walter Kempner's groundbreaking Rice Diet from the 1930s provides a fascinating historical counterpoint to modern anti-sugar rhetoric. This therapeutic diet consisted of about 90% carbohydrates—primarily white rice, fruit, and pure sugar—yet produced remarkable weight loss in patients. Participants consumed up to 400 grams of sugar daily while continuing to lose weight, demonstrating that sugar consumption in the right context supports metabolic health rather than undermines it.
The human body actually prefers to store dietary fat directly rather than converting sugar into fat through a process called de novo lipogenesis. This conversion is metabolically inefficient, with studies showing that less than 5% of stored body fat originates from sugar. Even when researchers intentionally overfeed subjects with sugar, the conversion to fat remains minimal compared to the direct storage of dietary fat.
Further challenging the sugar-obesity connection is the epidemiological paradox that sugar consumption has actually declined in recent decades while metabolic dysfunction has increased. This suggests that other factors—particularly the quality of dietary fats, overall food processing, and underlying metabolic health—play more significant roles in determining weight regulation than sugar intake alone.
Controlled studies have repeatedly demonstrated that high-carbohydrate, low-fat diets (under 30% fat)—even those including substantial amounts of sugar—can lead to weight loss without calorie restriction. Even standard laboratory animal control diets, specifically designed to maintain lean body composition, typically contain about 35% table sugar—hardly supporting the notion that sugar inherently disrupts weight regulation when consumed in appropriate metabolic contexts.
Myth 2: Sugar Is Addictive - Sweet Cravings Aren't a Crime!
The sensational claim that "sugar is as addictive as cocaine" makes for attention-grabbing headlines but crumbles under scientific scrutiny. While sugar consumption does trigger dopamine release in brain reward centers, this response is not unique to sugar—it occurs with many pleasurable experiences, from exercise to social interaction.
"There's no evidence that sugar can act as a gateway drug," states Dr. Haythe. "You can't get high from sugar, and there's no conclusive evidence that sugar is addictive". This perspective is supported by a careful examination of the research frequently cited to support sugar addiction theories.
A widely-referenced French study published in 2013 attempted to link sweet cravings with brain reward centers activated by addictive drugs, concluding that sugar might be more addictive than cocaine. However, subsequent research has challenged these findings, noting significant methodological limitations. As Business Insider reports: "Other doctors and researchers contest that study's findings, stating that you only see addiction-like behavior in rodents when the animals are restricted to eating sugar for a certain time frame each day. When the test subjects are allowed to eat sugar whenever they want—like humans—the addictive properties vanish".
Northern Arizona University's health resource further explains this phenomenon: "The desire to eat sugar often stems from the belief that sugar is bad and should be avoided. Restrictive thought patterns about food often drives desire to eat. As they say, we always want what we (believe) we can't have". This psychological component of perceived restriction driving increased desire helps explain why rigid "sugar-free" diets often lead to eventual binging.
The distinction between enjoying sugar and being addicted to it is critical. True addiction involves specific neurological and behavioral patterns that don't typically manifest with sugar consumption in normal dietary contexts. The cravings many people experience for sweet foods reflect complex interactions between biological taste preferences, cultural conditioning, and dietary habits—not addiction in the clinical sense.
Myth 3: Sugar Causes Diabetes - It's Not That Simple!
The belief that eating sugar directly causes diabetes represents one of the most persistent and misleading health myths. What's often overlooked is that diabetes fundamentally represents an impairment in metabolic flexibility and mitochondrial function, not a direct consequence of any single dietary component.
The true underlying factor in metabolic dysfunction is the body's decreased ability to properly metabolize carbohydrates at the cellular level. This metabolic impairment stems from complex interactions between genetic predisposition, environmental factors, mitochondrial health, and overall dietary patterns - particularly the problematic combination of refined carbohydrates with industrial seed oils rich in inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids.
Dr. Revital Gorodeski Baskin, an endocrinologist at University Hospitals, provides insight into this complexity: "Prediabetes is very closely linked to overall metabolic health. If you consume foods in patterns that compromise mitochondrial function, you'll likely develop insulin resistance – the first sign of metabolic dysfunction". This highlights the indirect pathway through which dietary patterns, not sugar specifically, influence metabolic health.
Historically, high-carbohydrate dietary approaches like Kempner's Rice Diet were actually used to treat diabetes rather than cause it. Studies have shown that high-sugar, low-fat diets can improve insulin sensitivity in some cases. One remarkable study had participants consume an 80% sugar diet—approximately 3,000 calories daily for 10 weeks—and found their glucose tolerance improved rather than deteriorated.
The mechanistic explanation involves sugar's ability to lower free fatty acids (FFAs), which block proper sugar metabolism and worsen insulin resistance. By reducing circulating FFAs, moderate sugar consumption in the context of a low-fat diet can actually enhance metabolic flexibility and insulin function, effects diametrically opposed to sugar's villainous reputation in diabetes discourse.
Myth 4: Sugar Causes Inflammation - Let's Cool That Down!
The claim that sugar consumption triggers harmful inflammation has gained tremendous traction in health discussions, but the scientific evidence reveals a more nuanced picture than commonly presented.
Inflammation is the body's natural response to various stimuli, and a modest inflammatory response after meals is entirely normal and physiological. However, research suggests that high-fat meals, particularly those rich in oxidized industrial seed oils, produce the most concerning inflammatory effects, not carbohydrates or sugar in isolation.
A 2022 study published in the journal PMC acknowledged connections between sugar and inflammation but emphasized context: "It has been shown that excessive intake of dietary sugars can cause metabolic disorders and induce the increase of inflammatory mediators and certain pro-inflammatory cytokines in various tissues, which leads to insulin resistance and low-grade chronic inflammation". The key qualifier here is "excessive intake" in the context of an already compromised metabolism - moderate sugar consumption within balanced dietary patterns does not produce the same effects.
Studies examining pure sugar consumption have found that 50 grams of table sugar consumption doesn't significantly elevate C-reactive protein (CRP), a key inflammation marker. More surprisingly, certain sugar-containing foods like orange juice have demonstrated anti-inflammatory properties due to their flavonoid content. These natural compounds have antioxidant effects that can actually calm immune system activity.
In one fascinating study, participants who consumed orange juice alongside a high-fat meal experienced significantly reduced inflammatory markers compared to those who consumed water with the same meal. The flavonoids in the juice completely blocked the inflammatory response that the high-fat meal would typically trigger, suggesting that some sugar-containing foods might actually offer protection against dietary inflammation rather than causing it.
The relationship between sugar and inflammation appears highly dependent on overall dietary context, total consumption patterns, and the specific form in which sugar is consumed. Whole food sources of sugar like fruits contain compounds that may counteract potential inflammatory effects, highlighting the importance of food quality rather than demonizing specific nutrients.
Myth 5: Sugar Is Bad for Your Liver - Don't Blame the Sweet Stuff!
The claim that sugar consumption directly harms liver health has become increasingly common, but the scientific reality is considerably more complex. The liver's response to sugar depends primarily on overall metabolic health and the presence of other dietary factors, particularly the types and quantities of fats consumed alongside carbohydrates.
Recent research published in the Journal of Hepatology found that "consuming moderate amounts of specific types of sugar may double the production of fat in the liver. This in turn can lead to the development of fatty liver disease". However, this finding requires important context - the study examined specific metabolic conditions that may not reflect typical consumption patterns or healthy metabolic states.
The liver processes sugar through a pathway called de novo lipogenesis, converting carbohydrates to fat. However, this process is primarily activated by several factors beyond just sugar presence: systemic inflammation, elevated cortisol (the stress hormone), and, perhaps most importantly, dietary fat consumption work synergistically to drive this conversion. When metabolic health is optimal, the liver efficiently processes carbohydrates for energy rather than converting them to fat.
Interestingly, moderate sugar consumption can actually help lower cortisol levels, potentially reducing stress-induced liver fat accumulation. The studies linking sugar to fatty liver disease often employ experimental protocols using pure fructose in massive overfeeding scenarios—typically around 25% of total calories from fructose alone, far exceeding normal dietary patterns.
The type of sugar also appears significant. The Journal of Hepatology study noted that "sucrose, or table sugar, the form of sugar humans most commonly consume, boosted fat synthesis slightly more than the same amount of fructose. Until now, most scientists believed fructose to be more likely to cause such changes". This challenges prevailing assumptions about fructose being uniquely harmful to liver health.
When consumed in natural food contexts, such as in fruit or honey, sugar appears to have minimal negative impact on liver function in most metabolically healthy individuals. The concerns arise primarily in scenarios where metabolic health is already compromised or when sugar is consumed alongside problematic fats.
Myth 6: Sugar Feeds Cancer - Time to Starve That Myth!
The alarming claim that "sugar feeds cancer" has frightened many into avoiding sugar entirely, but this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of cancer metabolism and the Warburg effect, named after Nobel laureate Otto Warburg who discovered cancer cells' preference for glucose fermentation even in oxygen-rich environments.
MD Anderson Cancer Center, one of the world's leading cancer research institutions, provides clarity on this issue: "It's true that sugar feeds every cell in our body, even cancer cells. But research shows that eating sugar doesn't necessarily lead to cancer nor is it proven to make cancer spread". Cancer cells will use whatever fuel is available, whether that's glucose, glutamine, or fatty acids.
Cancer cells are metabolically opportunistic, utilizing not just glucose but also glutamine, fatty acids, and other substrates to fuel their growth. Warburg himself emphasized that dietary sugar restriction wouldn't starve tumors because the body maintains tight regulation of blood glucose, producing it from other nutrients when dietary intake is insufficient.
The connection between sugar and cancer appears primarily mediated through indirect pathways involving metabolic health. What's often overlooked is that cancer fundamentally represents a metabolic disease - malignant cells exhibit profound mitochondrial dysfunction that prevents normal oxidative metabolism. This metabolic impairment exists independently of dietary sugar intake.
As cellular biologist Dr. Thomas Seyfried explains in his groundbreaking work on cancer metabolism, the key issue in cancer development is damaged mitochondrial function, not dietary glucose. Cancer cells can thrive regardless of dietary carbohydrate intake because the body will produce glucose from protein when carbohydrate intake is restricted. The focus should be on overall metabolic health rather than eliminating specific nutrients like sugar.
Myth 7: Sugar Spikes Blood Sugar and Insulin - Not as Much as You Think!
The claim that sugar consumption leads to dangerous blood sugar and insulin spikes oversimplifies complex physiological processes and often misrepresents comparative food effects on glycemic response.
Surprisingly, table sugar (sucrose) has a lower glycemic index (GI) than many common starches. While sucrose registers a moderate GI of approximately 65, white bread reaches about 75, and baked potatoes can approach 85. This means that sugar doesn't elevate blood glucose as rapidly or dramatically as many starchy foods we regularly consume without concern.
Stanford University researchers led by Michael Snyder, PhD, discovered unexpected blood glucose patterns using continuous glucose monitoring technology: "It turns out that the level of sugar in an individual's blood, especially in individuals who are considered healthy, fluctuates more than traditional means of monitoring, like the one-and-done finger-prick method, would have us believe". Their research revealed that many seemingly healthy individuals experience significant glucose fluctuations regardless of whether they're consuming sugar or other carbohydrates.
"We saw that some folks who think they're healthy actually are misregulating glucose, sometimes at the same severity of people with diabetes, and they have no idea," Snyder explained. This suggests that individual metabolic responses to carbohydrates, including sugar, vary dramatically based on underlying metabolic health rather than the specific carbohydrate consumed.
The insulin response to sugar consumption also differs from common perceptions. Since sucrose consists of glucose bound to fructose, and fructose processing largely bypasses insulin-dependent pathways, the insulin response to sucrose is often more moderate than responses to foods containing equivalent amounts of pure glucose or refined starch.
When blood sugar regulation problems occur after sugar consumption, they indicate underlying metabolic dysfunction - the body's difficulty effectively utilizing glucose at the cellular level - rather than inherent problems with sugar itself. This metabolic impairment, influenced by overall dietary patterns (particularly the combination of refined carbohydrates with industrial seed oils), physical activity levels, and genetic factors, represents the core issue rather than sugar per se.
Myth 8: Sugar Is Just Plain Bad - Let's Rewrite That Story!
The sweeping claim that "sugar is inherently harmful" ignores crucial contextual factors that determine sugar's actual health impacts. This oversimplification has led to unnecessary food fear and restrictive eating patterns that may cause more harm than good.
As Dr. Jennifer Haythe explains: "This idea that sugar is inherently bad for you is a myth. We all need sugar; that's the basic block of what runs our bodies. It's necessary to survive". Indeed, glucose serves as the primary energy source for our brains, red blood cells, and numerous other tissues that depend on its availability for optimal function.
The harms frequently attributed to sugar often stem from unrealistic experimental scenarios or consumption patterns that don't reflect balanced dietary approaches. The real issue isn't sugar itself but rather the metabolic context in which it's consumed - particularly the quality and quantity of accompanying fats, overall dietary pattern, and baseline metabolic health.
Natural sugar-containing foods like fruits, honey, and fresh juices offer numerous health benefits beyond their sweet taste. These foods provide essential vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and bioactive compounds that support overall health. Orange juice, for instance, contains flavonoids that reduce inflammation, improve insulin sensitivity, and support brain health by increasing brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a protein that protects neurons and enhances cognitive function.
Northern Arizona University's health resource emphasizes that "sugar is not inherently evil, nor is it a miracle substance. Like many things in life, it's about balance. Understanding the facts about sugar, making informed choices, and practicing moderation is the key to a healthy relationship with this sweet ingredient".
Even adding moderate amounts of sugar to nutritious foods can enhance their palatability, potentially increasing consumption of health-promoting options that might otherwise be avoided. The key consideration involves overall dietary context rather than demonizing or glorifying individual nutrients.
The Sweet Truth: Context Is Everything
Sugar isn't the dietary demon it's been made out to be. The scientific evidence reveals a much more nuanced picture than the simplistic "sugar is toxic" narrative that dominates much health discourse. The real issues emerge primarily when sugar is consumed in the context of metabolic dysfunction or alongside problematic fats, particularly industrial seed oils high in inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids.
High-carbohydrate, moderate-sugar, low-fat dietary patterns have repeatedly demonstrated beneficial health effects across numerous studies and traditional eating cultures. From Kempner's Rice Diet of the 1930s to modern research on plant-based dietary patterns, evidence suggests that sugar consumption in appropriate contexts supports metabolic health rather than undermines it.
What's often overlooked in nutrition discussions is that metabolic dysfunction stems from complex interactions between genetic factors, environmental influences, and dietary patterns - not from any single nutrient. The ability to effectively metabolize carbohydrates in the mitochondria represents the critical factor determining health outcomes, not the mere presence of carbohydrates in the diet.
In a healthy metabolic state with properly functioning mitochondria, the body efficiently utilizes carbohydrates, including sugar, for energy production. Problems arise primarily when this metabolic machinery becomes compromised through chronic exposure to inflammatory dietary components, particularly when refined carbohydrates are consumed alongside problematic fats.
As we navigate nutritional information, we must recognize that extreme positions rarely reflect scientific reality. Sugar, like most nutrients, exists on a continuum of effects largely determined by amount, food source, individual metabolism, and overall dietary context. This nuanced perspective allows us to make informed choices without unnecessary restriction or fear.
Next time you're savoring a ripe peach or stirring honey into your tea, remember that enjoying sugar in whole food forms or moderate amounts supports metabolic health when consumed in the appropriate dietary context. By focusing on balanced, varied eating patterns with emphasis on metabolic support rather than nutrient restriction, we can develop a healthier relationship with food - one that allows for both nutritional quality and the simple pleasure of sweetness that humans have valued throughout history.
References
1. Kempner W. Treatment of heart and kidney disease and of hypertensive and arteriosclerotic vascular disease with the rice diet. Ann Intern Med. 1949;31(5):821-856.
2. Kempner W, Peschel RL, Schlayer C. Effect of rice diet on diabetes mellitus associated with vascular disease. Postgrad Med. 1958;24(4):359-371.
3. Hellerstein MK. De novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1999;53(S1):S53-S65.
4. McDevitt RM, Bott SJ, Harding M, et al. De novo lipogenesis during controlled overfeeding with sucrose or glucose in lean and obese women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;74(6):737-746.
5. Welsh JA, Sharma AJ, Grellinger L, Vos MB. Consumption of added sugars is decreasing in the United States. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94(3):726-734.
6. Surwit RS, Feinglos MN, McCaskill CC, et al. Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997;65(4):908-915.
7. Research Diets, Inc. DIO Series Diets, Product Data - D12450B. Available at: https://www.researchdiets.com/opensource-diets/dio-series-diets
8. Avena NM, Rada P, Hoebel BG. Evidence for sugar addiction: behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008;32(1):20-39.
9. Haythe J. Interview with Columbia Presbyterian Hospital. Columbia University Irving Medical Center. 2018.
10. Ahmed SH, Guillem K, Vandaele Y. Sugar addiction: pushing the drug-sugar analogy to the limit. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2013;16(4):434-439.
11. Brodwin E. There's even more evidence that one type of diet is the best for your body and brain. Business Insider. 2018.
12. Northern Arizona University. Health Promotion: Nutrition Facts & Myths. 2020.
13. Westwater ML, Fletcher PC, Ziauddeen H. Sugar addiction: the state of the science. Eur J Nutr. 2016;55(2):55-69.
14. Nolan CJ, Ruderman NB, Kahn SE, et al. Insulin resistance as a physiological defense against metabolic stress: implications for the management of subsets of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes. 2015;64(3):673-686.
15. DiNicolantonio JJ, O'Keefe JH. Omega-6 vegetable oils as a driver of coronary heart disease: the oxidized linoleic acid hypothesis. Open Heart. 2018;5(2):e000898.
16. Montgomery MK, Turner N. Mitochondrial dysfunction and insulin resistance: an update. Endocr Connect. 2015;4(1):R1-R15.
17. Baskin RG. Interview with University Hospitals. University Hospitals. 2019.
18. Kempner W. Treatment of kidney disease and hypertensive vascular disease with rice diet. N C Med J. 1944;5:125-133.
19. Anderson JW, Herman RH, Zakim D. Effect of high glucose and high sucrose diets on glucose tolerance of normal men. Am J Clin Nutr. 1973;26(6):600-607.
20. Boden G. Free fatty acids, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Proc Assoc Am Physicians. 1999;111(3):241-248.
21. Erridge C, Attina T, Spickett CM, Webb DJ. A high-fat meal induces low-grade endotoxemia: evidence of a novel mechanism of postprandial inflammation. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;86(5):1286-1292.
22. Ghanim H, Sia CL, Upadhyay M, et al. Orange juice neutralizes the proinflammatory effect of a high-fat, high-carbohydrate meal and prevents endotoxin increase and Toll-like receptor expression. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91(4):940-949.
23. Xiao Y, Chen J, Li J, Zeng X. A review: The relationship between sugar and inflammation—Potential mechanisms and interventions. Front Immunol. 2022;13:957302.
24. Aeberli I, Gerber PA, Hochuli M, et al. Low to moderate sugar-sweetened beverage consumption impairs glucose and lipid metabolism and promotes inflammation in healthy young men: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94(2):479-485.
25. Choi JS, Kang SW, Li J, et al. Blockade of oxidized LDL-triggered endothelial apoptosis by quercetin and rutin through differential signaling pathways involving JAK2. J Agric Food Chem. 2009;57(5):2079-2086.
26. Ghanim H, Sia CL, Upadhyay M, et al. Orange juice neutralizes the proinflammatory effect of a high-fat, high-carbohydrate meal and prevents endotoxin increase and Toll-like receptor expression. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91(4):940-949.
27. Ghanim H, Sia CL, Korzeniewski K, et al. A resveratrol and polyphenol preparation suppresses oxidative and inflammatory stress response to a high-fat, high-carbohydrate meal. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(5):1409-1414.
28. Lustig RH. Fructose: metabolic, hedonic, and societal parallels with ethanol. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(9):1307-1321.
29. Jensen T, Abdelmalek MF, Sullivan S, et al. Fructose and sugar: A major mediator of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2018;68(5):1063-1075.
30. Parks EJ, Skokan LE, Timlin MT, Dingfelder CS. Dietary sugars stimulate fatty acid synthesis in adults. J Nutr. 2008;138(6):1039-1046.
31. Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Belury MA, Andridge R, et al. Daily stressors, past depression, and metabolic responses to high-fat meals: a novel path to obesity. Biol Psychiatry. 2015;77(7):653-660.
32. Stanhope KL, Schwarz JM, Keim NL, et al. Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans. J Clin Invest. 2009;119(5):1322-1334.
33. Softic S, Cohen DE, Kahn CR. Role of dietary fructose and hepatic de novo lipogenesis in fatty liver disease. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61(5):1282-1293.
34. Chiu S, Sievenpiper JL, de Souza RJ, et al. Effect of fructose on markers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2014;68(4):416-423.
35. Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. 1956;123(3191):309-314.
36. MD Anderson Cancer Center. Does sugar cause cancer? MD Anderson Cancer Center. 2019.
37. Vander Heiden MG, Cantley LC, Thompson CB. Understanding the Warburg effect: the metabolic requirements of cell proliferation. Science. 2009;324(5930):1029-1033.
38. Warburg O. The metabolism of tumors in the body. J Gen Physiol. 1927;8(6):519-530.
39. Seyfried TN, Shelton LM. Cancer as a metabolic disease. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2010;7:7.
40. Seyfried TN. Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer. Wiley; 2012.
41. Foster-Powell K, Holt SH, Brand-Miller JC. International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2002. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76(1):5-56.
42. Snyder M, Zhou W, Gao X, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring in healthy individuals: A key toward personalized medicine. Stanford Medicine. 2018.
43. Snyder M. Interview with Stanford Medicine News Center. Stanford Medicine. 2018.
44. Teff KL, Elliott SS, Tschöp M, et al. Dietary fructose reduces circulating insulin and leptin, attenuates postprandial suppression of ghrelin, and increases triglycerides in women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89(6):2963-2972.
45. Petersen KF, Dufour S, Savage DB, et al. The role of skeletal muscle insulin resistance in the pathogenesis of the metabolic syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(31):12587-12594.
46. Haythe J. Interview with Columbia Presbyterian Hospital. Columbia University Irving Medical Center. 2018.
47. Mergenthaler P, Lindauer U, Dienel GA, Meisel A. Sugar for the brain: the role of glucose in physiological and pathological brain function. Trends Neurosci. 2013;36(10):587-597.
48. Rippe JM, Angelopoulos TJ. Relationship between added sugars consumption and chronic disease risk factors: current understanding. Nutrients. 2016;8(11):697.
49. Liu RH. Health benefits of fruit and vegetables are from additive and synergistic combinations of phytochemicals. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;78(3):517S-520S.
50. Choi YJ, Choi YJ, Kim N, et al. Neuroprotective effects of dietary walnuts on brain aging. J Nutr Biochem. 2020;76:108771.
51. Northern Arizona University. Health Promotion: Nutrition Facts & Myths. 2020.
52. Drewnowski A, Rehm CD. Consumption of added sugars among US children and adults by food purchase location and food source. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100(3):901-907.
53. Simopoulos AP. The importance of the omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio in cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2008;233(6):674-688.
54. DiNicolantonio JJ, Lucan SC, O'Keefe JH. The evidence for saturated fat and for sugar related to coronary heart disease. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2016;58(5):464-472.
55. Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, et al. A low-fat vegan diet and a conventional diabetes diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled, 74-wk clinical trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89(5):1588S-1596S.
56. Kahleova H, Levin S, Barnard N. Cardio-metabolic benefits of plant-based diets. Nutrients. 2017;9(8):848.
57. Bouchard C, Rankinen T. Individual differences in response to regular physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(6 Suppl):S446-S451.
58. Goodpaster BH, Sparks LM. Metabolic flexibility in health and disease. Cell Metab. 2017;25(5):1027-1036.
59. Finucane OM, Lyons CL, Murphy AM, et al. Monounsaturated fatty acid-enriched high-fat diets impede adipose NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion and insulin resistance despite obesity. Diabetes. 2015;64(6):2116-2128.
60. Evert AB, Dennison M, Gardner CD, et al. Nutrition therapy for adults with diabetes or prediabetes: a consensus report. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(5):731-754.
