膳食糖:不像人们想象的那么酸。

Q1 Medicine
Nestle Nutrition Institute workshop series Pub Date : 2020-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-11-09 DOI:10.1159/000511524
Dennis M Bier
{"title":"膳食糖:不像人们想象的那么酸。","authors":"Dennis M Bier","doi":"10.1159/000511524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Over the course of evolution, Mother Nature preserved the ability of humans to make every sugar they need for metabolic functions. Glucose is the almost exclusive fuel preferred by the human brain. Human infants are born with sweet taste receptors, sugars are a significant energy source in human milk, and mammals have a direct gut-to-brain sugar-sensing system that enhances development of a preference for sugars. If sugars are as toxic as many postulate, what species advantage was conferred by this evolutionary progression? Observational studies have reported that sugar consumption is associated with various adverse health risks. However, observational studies can never prove causality, dietary intake records are known to be highly problematic, and the huge number of correlation interdependencies among environmental \"exposome\" variables makes it impossible to attribute causality to individual dietary components. Additionally, these studies overall have been graded as low quality, and many reported the small effect sizes are likely within the propagated methodological \"noise.\" With several exceptions, data from randomized controlled trials that ensured isocaloric energy intakes have failed to confirm the causal implications of the observational data. Likewise, the comprehensive UK Scientific Committee on Nutrition Report on Carbohydrates and Health also failed to confirm the vast majority of widely postulated detrimental effects of sugar consumption per se. Current data on intakes of sugar-sweetened beverages and on the risks associated with high intakes of dietary fructose remain under debate.</p>","PeriodicalId":18986,"journal":{"name":"Nestle Nutrition Institute workshop series","volume":"95 ","pages":"100-111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dietary Sugars: Not as Sour as They Are Made Out to Be.\",\"authors\":\"Dennis M Bier\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000511524\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Over the course of evolution, Mother Nature preserved the ability of humans to make every sugar they need for metabolic functions. Glucose is the almost exclusive fuel preferred by the human brain. Human infants are born with sweet taste receptors, sugars are a significant energy source in human milk, and mammals have a direct gut-to-brain sugar-sensing system that enhances development of a preference for sugars. If sugars are as toxic as many postulate, what species advantage was conferred by this evolutionary progression? Observational studies have reported that sugar consumption is associated with various adverse health risks. However, observational studies can never prove causality, dietary intake records are known to be highly problematic, and the huge number of correlation interdependencies among environmental \\\"exposome\\\" variables makes it impossible to attribute causality to individual dietary components. Additionally, these studies overall have been graded as low quality, and many reported the small effect sizes are likely within the propagated methodological \\\"noise.\\\" With several exceptions, data from randomized controlled trials that ensured isocaloric energy intakes have failed to confirm the causal implications of the observational data. Likewise, the comprehensive UK Scientific Committee on Nutrition Report on Carbohydrates and Health also failed to confirm the vast majority of widely postulated detrimental effects of sugar consumption per se. Current data on intakes of sugar-sweetened beverages and on the risks associated with high intakes of dietary fructose remain under debate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nestle Nutrition Institute workshop series\",\"volume\":\"95 \",\"pages\":\"100-111\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nestle Nutrition Institute workshop series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000511524\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/11/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nestle Nutrition Institute workshop series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000511524","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/11/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

在进化过程中,大自然母亲保留了人类制造代谢功能所需的每一种糖的能力。葡萄糖几乎是人类大脑首选的唯一燃料。人类婴儿出生时就有甜味感受器,糖是人类乳汁中重要的能量来源,哺乳动物有一个直接从肠道到大脑的糖感知系统,该系统增强了对糖的偏好。如果糖像许多人假设的那样有毒,那么这种进化进程赋予了什么物种优势?观察性研究报告说,糖的摄入与各种不利的健康风险有关。然而,观察性研究永远无法证明因果关系,饮食摄入记录是非常有问题的,环境“暴露”变量之间的大量相关相互依赖使得不可能将因果关系归因于单个饮食成分。此外,这些研究总体上被评为低质量,许多报告的小效应可能在传播的方法学“噪音”范围内。除了少数例外,确保等热量能量摄入的随机对照试验数据未能证实观测数据的因果关系。同样,英国营养科学委员会关于碳水化合物和健康的综合报告也未能证实绝大多数被广泛假设的糖消费本身的有害影响。目前关于含糖饮料的摄入量以及与高果糖摄入量相关的风险的数据仍在争论中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dietary Sugars: Not as Sour as They Are Made Out to Be.

Over the course of evolution, Mother Nature preserved the ability of humans to make every sugar they need for metabolic functions. Glucose is the almost exclusive fuel preferred by the human brain. Human infants are born with sweet taste receptors, sugars are a significant energy source in human milk, and mammals have a direct gut-to-brain sugar-sensing system that enhances development of a preference for sugars. If sugars are as toxic as many postulate, what species advantage was conferred by this evolutionary progression? Observational studies have reported that sugar consumption is associated with various adverse health risks. However, observational studies can never prove causality, dietary intake records are known to be highly problematic, and the huge number of correlation interdependencies among environmental "exposome" variables makes it impossible to attribute causality to individual dietary components. Additionally, these studies overall have been graded as low quality, and many reported the small effect sizes are likely within the propagated methodological "noise." With several exceptions, data from randomized controlled trials that ensured isocaloric energy intakes have failed to confirm the causal implications of the observational data. Likewise, the comprehensive UK Scientific Committee on Nutrition Report on Carbohydrates and Health also failed to confirm the vast majority of widely postulated detrimental effects of sugar consumption per se. Current data on intakes of sugar-sweetened beverages and on the risks associated with high intakes of dietary fructose remain under debate.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nestle Nutrition Institute workshop series
Nestle Nutrition Institute workshop series Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信