I am confused by Jennie Brand Miller's conclusion to her posting of 8 November. In it she states: "I am in the process of writing a paper titled 'Sugar - not a villain after all'. In it I provide the accumulated scientific evidence (most of it from the last 5-10 years) that restricting sugar may do more harm than good. This is because low sugar diets in HUMANS (not rats!) are associated with: 1. an increase in fat, especially saturated fat, intake (the sugar-fat seesaw) 2. an increase in obesity and overweight 3. an increase in the glycaemic index of the diet 4. a decrease in insulin sensitivity 5. diversion of millions of research and consumer dollars to non-sucrose sweeteners." 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. 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. 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? 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. robert robert rosenstein : [log in to unmask]