About Dr. Katz

NuVal Attributes Program

Effect of Fructose on Glycemic Control in Diabetes
Froot Loops becomes the poster child for everything wrong with an industry-backed nutrition rating system. Global Diabetes Prevention Interventions: Search for this keyword. The harm-reduction approach to fructose taken by diabetes associations 2 , 7 , 8 , which is based on possible adverse serum lipid effects, may need to be reconciled with a possible glycemic benefit. Add to Selected Citations. Am J Clin Nutr ; 58 Suppl: Without much followup to this pilot, it seems to have fizzled away.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials

A History of What Is Required on Food Labels and the Nutrition Facts Panel

A priori subgroup analyses showed no evidence of effect modification on any end point. To confirm these findings, larger and longer fructose feeding trials assessing both possible glycemic benefit and adverse metabolic effects are required. The number of people with type 2 diabetes is likely to double during the next 20 years 1 , leading to an increased burden of cardiovascular disease 2 , renal failure 2 , blindness 2 , and risk of colon, breast, and other cancers 3.

Diabetes profoundly alters macronutrient metabolism; the roles of diet and especially carbohydrate type and quality are therefore of considerable interest. Increased total fructose consumption from both sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup has been implicated in the development of the obesity epidemic in the United States 6 and has been singled out in diabetes guidelines because of concerns about its effects on lipids.

Diabetes associations 2 , 7 , 8 have taken a harm-reduction approach to fructose recommendations, setting an upper threshold for intake that is based on putative adverse effects on serum lipids.

The American Diabetes Association guidelines, however, acknowledge that fructose produces a lower glycemic response in people with diabetes when it replaces sucrose and starch in the diet 7. Fructose has also been shown to improve glycemia without adversely affecting lipids when exchanged for other carbohydrate in controlled feeding trials in people with type 2 diabetes 9 — In the absence of clear guidance on the role of fructose in glycemic control, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials to assess the effects of isocaloric, oral fructose exchange for carbohydrates on fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and glycated blood proteins glycated hemoglobin [HbA 1c ], glycated albumin, and fructosamine in individuals with diabetes.

We followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for the planning and conduct of this meta-analysis Manual searches supplemented the electronic search strategy. We included controlled feeding trials that investigated the effect of oral fructose in isocaloric exchange for other sources of carbohydrate on markers of glycemic control in individuals with diabetes. No restriction was placed on language. Reports that met the inclusion criteria were each independently reviewed and extracted by at least two investigators with a standardized form.

Relevant information about study design, randomization, blinding, level of feeding control, sample size, subject characteristics, fructose format, dose, reference carbohydrate, duration of follow-up, and macronutrient profile of the background diet were obtained. When these statistics were unavailable, an imputed pooled SD from the other trials included in the meta-analysis was applied Imputations were necessary for 11 of 13 glycated blood protein trials, 8 of 16 fasting glucose trials, and 5 of 7 fasting insulin trials.

The quality of each study was assessed with the Heyland methodological quality score MQS Heyland score disagreements were reconciled by consensus. Authors were contacted to request additional information, where necessary. Data were analyzed with Review Manager RevMan software version 5. Stratified aggregate analyses were conducted for undifferentiated diabetes, type 1 diabetes, and type 2 diabetes with the generic inverse variance method with random-effects models. Change from baseline differences between fructose and carbohydrate comparator for fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and percentage glycated protein were extracted as the primary end points.

When these data were unavailable, end-of-treatment differences were used. Paired analyses were applied to all crossover trials A weighted average was applied within studies to combine multiple comparator arms.

When two separate control phases were present within the same crossover study, both phases were averaged and compared with the fructose intervention. Although baseline subject characteristics were reported in terms of HbA 1c , certain studies reported end values in terms of glycated albumin, necessitating the use of SMDs in our analysis.

Sources of heterogeneity were investigated by a priori subgroup analyses assessing the effects of carbohydrate comparator, fructose form, dose, baseline values, trial quality, trial design, length of follow-up, and randomization.

Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine if any single study exerted an undue influence on the overall result. To address this point, we systematically removed each individual study from the meta-analysis and recalculated the pooled effect size from the remaining studies. Meta-regression was performed to assess the significance of subgroup effects with Stata software version Publication bias was investigated by inspection of funnel plots and quantitatively assessed with Begg and Egger tests.

A total of 4, eligible reports were identified with the search; of these, 4, were determined to be irrelevant on review of the titles and abstracts. The remaining 54 reports were retrieved and reviewed in full, and a further 38 were excluded.

A total of 16 reports 18 trials were selected for pooled analyses Fig. The characteristics of the 18 included trials are shown in Table 1. Flowchart of literature search for the effect of fructose on glycemic end points fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and glycated blood proteins [HbA 1c and glycated albumin]. Characteristics of experimental trials included in the meta-analysis. Patients had a median age of Their median baseline HbA 1c values were 8. The median follow-up was 8 weeks IQR 4— No eligible study measured fructosamine.

No hypercaloric feeding trials met the inclusion criteria. Figure 2 A shows the effect of isocaloric fructose exchange for other carbohydrates on glycated blood proteins. Systematic removal of individual studies did not alter the results. Meta-regression revealed no statistically significant subgroup effects Supplementary Fig.

Forest plot of controlled feeding trials investigating the effect of isocaloric exchange of fructose for other carbohydrate on A glycated blood proteins HbA 1c and glycated albumin , B fasting glucose, and C fasting insulin. P values are for generic inverse variance random effects models. There were no studies investigating type 1 or undifferentiated diabetes for fasting insulin.

A high-quality color representation of this figure is available in the online issue. Their median baseline fasting glucose values were 9. The median follow-up was 4 weeks IQR 2— A significant fasting glucose lowering effect was seen in the overall analysis after the systematic removal of either Bantle et al. There was no change in the interstudy heterogeneity during sensitivity analyses. The median follow-up was 4 weeks IQR 3—10 weeks. No hypercaloric feeding trial met the inclusion criteria.

Sensitivity analyses did not alter the effect estimate or degree of heterogeneity for fasting insulin, and meta-regression revealed no statistically significant subgroup effects Supplementary Fig. None of the subjects were treated with insulin. In the current aggregate analyses of 18 controlled feeding trials with subjects with type 1 and 2 diabetes, isocaloric fructose exchange for other carbohydrate decreased glycated blood proteins aggregated glycated albumin and HbA 1c but not fasting glucose or insulin.

Food and Drug Administration for the development of new drugs for diabetes 29 and lies at the lower limit of efficacy expected for oral hypoglycemic agents The lack of change in fasting glucose and insulin suggests that fructose consumption does not promote hepatic and systemic insulin resistance. Future meta-analyses of direct measures of insulin sensitivity would be of value. Our observed reduction in glycated blood proteins was consistent with the findings of an earlier meta-analysis by Livesey and Taylor 31 , who found an improvement in HbA 1c It is important to note, however, that their analysis, in contrast to the current meta-analysis, did not focus exclusively on diabetes.

Unlike Livesey and Taylor 31 , we found the reduction in glycated blood proteins to be significant only in people with type 1 diabetes in stratified analyses. This discrepancy is likely due in part to the use of glycated albumin exclusively in the type 1 diabetes studies 15 , The null finding in individuals with type 2 diabetes might be explained by the choice of glycated protein, because those trials used both HbA 1c 9 — 13 , 21 — 23 and glycated albumin 15 , An improvement in glycemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes is supported by an improvement in fasting glucose after removal of either Bantle et al.

It is noteworthy that the small, unusually precise study of Turner et al. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant effect modification for glycated blood proteins, fasting glucose, or insulin. Although Livesey and Taylor 31 in their earlier meta-analysis found that the improvement in HbA 1c was dependent on the degree of dysglycemia, fructose dose, and follow-up, we did not find that these conditions altered any of the outcomes, nor in a separate analysis did we see any effect of fructose dose, follow-up, or comparator on triglycerides in type 2 diabetes with the same subgroup criteria There was, however, evidence of significant interstudy heterogeneity across most subgroup categories.

These may be related to real biological differences between study populations or to methodological differences between trials that were not assessed in our a priori subgroup analyses. A number of potential mechanisms have been proposed to explain the improvements in glycemia seen with the consumption of fructose. One possibility is that the addition of fructose to the diet may help control postprandial glycemic excursions. The resulting fructoseP is able to displace fructoseP from its binding site on the glucokinase regulatory protein, allowing increased translocation of glucokinase from the nucleus to the cytosol, where it is active.

Both these mechanisms may be operating. Although it appears that isocaloric fructose feeding benefits glycemia, a dose threshold for harm must also be considered because fructose, more than other sources of carbohydrate, may increase serum triglycerides. We therefore must consider the possible adverse effects of substituting fructose for other carbohydrates at high doses.

There are currently no meta-analyses investigating the effect of fructose on LDL. A number of limitations complicate the interpretation of these aggregate analyses. Second, several studies included participants who were receiving insulin or oral hypoglycemic agents, treatments that in themselves would be expected to influence glycemia.

Third, given the small number of trials included in each stratum, meta-regression may have been underpowered to detect true differences. Fourth, a significant amount of unexplainable heterogeneity was detected in both primary and subgroup analyses, although our random-effects model did account for this heterogeneity.

These deficiencies were especially of concern in the context of the small sample sizes, with most of the trials having 15 or fewer participants. Finally, because only published trials were included, publication bias remains a possibility for all outcomes, although we noted statistical evidence of publication bias only for fasting glucose. The harm-reduction approach to fructose taken by diabetes associations 2 , 7 , 8 , which is based on possible adverse serum lipid effects, may need to be reconciled with a possible glycemic benefit.

These conclusions, however, are limited by the short follow-up, small sample size, and poor quality of most trials included in our meta-analysis, as well as the large degree of unexplained significant heterogeneity.

Larger, longer, and higher-quality trials of controlled fructose feeding that also weigh any possible glycemic benefit against adverse metabolic effects are required for definitive confirmation of these findings.

None of the sponsors had a role in any aspect of the current study, including design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. September Volume 41, Issue 9.

We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address. Skip to main content. Diabetes Care Jul; 35 7: The original Food and Drugs Act is passed. It prohibits interstate commerce in misbranded and adulterated foods, drinks and drugs. Oleomargarine Act requires prominent labeling of colored oleomargarine, to distinguish it from butter.

Yes, swindlers tried to sell folks cheap margarine in the guise of butter. Food Additives Amendment enacted, requiring manufacturers of new food additives to establish safety. Manufacturers were required to declare all additives in a product. Fair Packaging and Labeling Act requires all consumer products in interstate commerce to be honestly and informatively labeled, including food. The guidelines are to be updated every 5 years. In there were 7 simple guidelines.

In there were 41 recommendations in a page booklet! It requires all packaged foods to bear nutrition labeling and all health claims for foods to be consistent with terms defined by the Secretary of HHS. As a concession to food manufacturers, the FDA authorizes some health claims for foods. This is pretty much the nutrition label as we know it today.

Food labels are to list the most important nutrients in an easy-to-follow format. Criteria are simple—low in saturated fat and cholesterol, for healthy people over age 2. And a certification payment to AHA by the food manufacturer. After repeated debilitation and stakeholder pressures, the law finally went into effect only 7 years later, on March 16, , and even then with many loopholes. Announcement made that FDA will require food labels to include trans-fat content.