Human-relevant levels of added sugar consumption increase female mortality and lower male fitness in mice

Human-relevant levels of added sugar consumption increase female mortality and lower male fitness in mice

Consumption of added sugar has increased over recent decades and is correlated with numerous diseases. Rodent models have elucidated mechanisms of toxicity, but only at concentrations beyond typical human exposure. Here we show that comparatively low levels of added sugar consumption have substantial negative effects on mouse survival, competitive ability, and reproduction. Using Organismal Performance Assays—in which mice fed human-relevant concentrations of added sugar (25% kcal from a mixture of fructose and glucose, modeling high fructose corn syrup) and control mice compete in seminatural enclosures for territories, resources and mates—we demonstrate that fructose/glucose-fed females experience a twofold increase in mortality while fructose/glucose-fed males control 26% fewer territories and produce 25% less offspring. These findings represent the lowest level of sugar consumption shown to adversely affect mammalian health. Clinical defects of fructose/glucose-fed mice were decreased glucose clearance and increased fasting cholesterol. Our data highlight that physiological adversity can exist when clinical disruptions are minor, and suggest that Organismal Performance Assays represent a promising technique for unmasking negative effects of toxicants.

25% of calories as sugar is a lot, but there are probably plenty of people out there who achieve it with a few sodas, ice cream, pastries a day. The lesson here: if you’re female and want to live long, don’t eat sugar, and if you’re a male who wants to control territory and/or produce more offspring, also don’t eat sugar. Yes, these were mice, but it looks pretty relevant since human-relevant levels of sugar were used.

image_pdf

Leave a Comment:

4 comments
Anonymous says October 5, 2013

I am curious what you make of Andrew Kim’s advice to eat more sugar.

http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/01/the-benefits-of-sugars-shortcomings-of.html

http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/03/diabetes-dangerous-fat-and-protective.html

I find his case convincing, though I have zero background in biochemistry or nutrition.

I was eating a fairly strict “paleo” diet and had been for a few years, but have had some inflammation problems. I think I was getting the sorts of cortisol + cellular glucose starvation issues Andrew Kim describes. So I have been experimenting with eating less fat and more frequently grabbing some fruit or a bit of table sugar. I dare say I feel noticeably better.

Reply
Mangan says October 5, 2013

Interesting. Feeling better is certainly an indication you’re doing something right, I’d say. However, I would avoid the sugar, it’s poison, I think we can reasonably say. It could be that you need more carbs, per the Jaminet’s PHD, and sources like potatoes, sweet potatoes, and rice sound to me a whole lot better than sugar.

Reply
Anonymous says October 5, 2013

Well that’s the thing, this Andrew Kim guy builds a detailed case that moderate intake of sucrose coupled with glucose, in preference to starch, is specifically therapeutic. Not poison. He apparently wound up in a back-and-forth with the PHD folks: http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/02/response-to-dr-paul-jaminets-rebuttal.html

Reply
    Anonymous says October 5, 2013

    glucose -> fructose

    Reply
Add Your Reply