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