In considering the volume of contemporary literature on fructose, One conclusion stands clear: fructose is safe at typical intake levels but can produce adverse metabolic effects when abused—as is true of most nutrients.
It turns out that the largest abusers of fructose are not American consumers, but research scientists. For the adult population as a whole, dietary fructose exposure ranges from very low to <18% E. Over this range, recent meta- and NHANES analyses demonstrate no differential effects of fructose compared with other sugars on weight gain, blood pressure, uric acid, blood lipids, and hyperlipidemia;
Evidence is presented in this review that fructose has not disproportionately increased in the human diet (in fact, it has increased very little in the past 90 y) and that cause-and-effect evidence of adverse effects is lacking at typical human exposure levels and patterns. The fructose hypothesis must be continually challenged for human relevance.
We are amassing tremendous amounts of data gathered at great taxpayer expense that has proved to be of little value to public health policymakers.
Is it time for granting agencies and journal editors to require more physiologically relevant experimental designs and clinically important outcomes for fructose research? I think it is.