To answer Robert Rosenstein's questions:

>The use of sugar, as "sugar" in diets was not prevalent until well into
>the 17th century and for perhaps more than a century after that it was
>not a general part of anyone's diet.

True, but honey was a general part of most people's diets (1) and in
nutritional terms, honey and refined sugar are rougly equivalent.

>The use of foods from which sugars are naturally derived such as fruits,
>have not, at least to my knowledge, been a common part of any diet,
>anywhere in the past - or the present.

Are you suggesting that fruits were not a common part of past diets?
That's new to me.  Our pre-human ancestors evolved on diets based on fruits
and berries (2).  Australian Aboriginal people ate fruit, much of it in the
form of dried fruit with concentrated sugars (3).  Humans have also availed
themselves of the concentrated sweetness in honey ants, dried dates and
figs, maple syrup, manna etc
>
>If "sugsr" is as important to the diet as Jennie indicates, it brings up
>the question of what was included in the diet of the world's peoples from
>Paleolithic times to almost the present that counteracted the four
>harmful effects Jennie has presented?

As above.  Honey, dried fruit etc.  High levels of physical activity in the
past meant people needed concentrated sources of energy.  Fat would have
been most helpful in this respect.  So in the past a high fat diet did not
lead to obesity.  On the contrary, it would have spared us from excessive
weight loss associated with high energy expenditure or large intakes of
bulky high carbohydrate foods.  The amount of dietary fat and the rising
prevalence of obesity are only important because we are so sedentary.

>
>I must add that I am disturbed by Jennie's fifth statement regarding the
>waste of consumer dollars on irrelevant research. Although it was not
>intentional, this sounds like an out and out blurb for the sugar
>industry. It is also implies that certain other researches and product
>developments never should have taken place.

It might sound like a blurb for the sugar industry but that doesn't mean it
shouldn't be said. I do not have any financial association with the sugar
industry and I say it simply because I believe it to be true and worth
saying -  low joule substitutes for refined sugar cost a lot of money to
develop, test and market.  Aspartame was the most expensive food additive
ever to be launched.  Yet there is little evidence that low joule
sweeteners are effective for weight loss or weight maintenance.  (In fact,
there is some evidence that they stimulate appetite and lead to higher
energy intake).

The sugar issue is not the first time nutritionists have misled the food
industry.  The 'great protein fiasco' of the 1970's and all the research
that went into novel proteins was based on nutritionists' assessment that
the world was short on protein specifically.  Secondly, the idea that milk
was a perfect food and good for everyone led to the introduction of dairy
technology in countries where the whole population lacked the enzyme
lactase.


References

1.  Allsop K, Brand Miller JC.  Honey revisited: a reappraisal of honey in
pre-industrial diets.  Br J Nutr; 75: 513-20.

2.  Lee RB, DeVore I (1968).  Man the Hunter.  Aldine, Chicago.

3.  Brand Miller J, James K, Maggiore P.  Tables of composition of
Australian Aboriginal foods. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, Australia,
1993.









Jennie Brand Miller  PhD
Associate Professor in Human Nutrition
Department of Biochemistry  G08
University of Sydney
NSW 2006  Australia
Phone: (61 2) 9351 3759
Fax: (61 2) 9351 6022