Skip to main content
. 2018 May 12;10(5):606. doi: 10.3390/nu10050606

Table 1.

Dietary intervention studies investigating the effect of fructose/HFCS, sucrose, or glucose on biomarkers of subclinical inflammation. Extracted data on participants’ characteristics, study designs, dietary interventions, form of sugar, and feeding control.

First Author, Year, Country Study Design Participants’ Characteristics Duration (weeks) Intervention Energy Intake Sugar form § Feeding Control ‡
Aeberli et al. (2011) [39]
Switzerland		 Crossover Double-blind 29 healthy males
Age 20–50 years
BMI 19–25 kg/m2 		3 Intervention:

  • high-fructose (80 g/day)

  • medium-fructose (40 g/day)

  • high-sucrose (80 g/day)

  • high glucose (80 g/day)

  • medium glucose (40 g/day)

Control:

  • low-fructose diet (33 g/day)

 Hypercaloric * Liquid Supp/DA
Angelopoulos et al. (2016) [38]
USA		 Parallel Double-blind Randomized 267 healthy participants (96 m/171 w)
Age 37.7 ± 12.1 years
BMI 26.3 ± 3.3 kg/m2 		10 Intervention:

  • sucrose-sweetened low-fat milk (n = 64) (18%En = 203.4 ± 53.7 g)

  • HFCS-sweetened low-fat milk (n = 61) (18%En = 203.0 ± 56.9 g)

  • fructose-sweetened low-fat milk (n = 65) (9%En = 171.6 ± 63.6 g)

  • glucose-sweetened low-fat milk (n = 77) (9%En = 160.7 ± 51.2 g)

 Hypercaloric * Liquid Supp/DA
Cox/Rezvani et al. † (2009) [33,34]
USA		 Parallel Blinded 31 overweight/obese participants (16 m/15 w)
Age 40–72 years
BMI 25–35 kg/m2 		10 Intervention:

  • fructose-sweetened beverage (n = 16) (175 g/day) (25%En)

Control:

  • glucose-sweetened beverage (n = 15) (175 g/day) (25%En)

 Hypercaloric * Liquid Met/Supp
Jin et al. (2014) [35]
USA		 Parallel Double-blind Randomized 24 overweight Hispanic-American adolescents with hepatic fat > 8%,
Age 11–18 years
BMI ≥85th percentile 		4 Intervention:

  • fructose-sweetened beverage (n = 11) (99 g/day)

Control:

  • glucose-sweetened beverage (n = 13) (99 g/day)

 Eucaloric Liquid Supp
Johnson et al. (2015) [40]
Finland		 Parallel Randomized 51 morbidly obese women with polycystic ovarian syndrome
Age 18–40 years
BMI ≥ 40 or 35–40 kg/m2 		8 Intervention:

  • moderate-fructose, low-calorie diet (LCD) (n = 24) (85 g fructose/day)

Control:

  • low-fructose LCD (n = 27) (17 g fructose/day)

 Hypocaloric Liquid Supp/DA
Johnston et al. (2013) [37]
UK		 Parallel Double-blind Randomized 32 healthy overweight males
Mean age 33–35 years
BMI 25–32 kg/m2 		2 Intervention:

  • high-fructose diet (n = 15) (25%En = 217 g/day)

Control:

  • high-glucose diet (n = 17) (25%En = 215 g/day)

 Eucaloric and Hypercaloric *
(2 weeks each) 		Liquid Supp/Met
Lowndes et al. (2014) [43]
USA		 Parallel Blinded Randomized 355 overweight or obese participants (165 m/190 w)
Age 20-–60 years
BMI 23–35 kg/m2 		10 Intervention:

  • 8%En sucrose (n = 58)

  • 18%En sucrose (n = 64)),

  • 30%En sucrose (n = 53),

  • 8%En HFCS (n = 69),

  • 18%En HFCS (n = 60),

  • 30%En HFCS (n = 51)

 Hypercaloric
Sugars administered in milk medium.		 Liquid Supp
Madero et al. (2011) [41]
Mexico		 Parallel Randomized 131 obese participants (102 w/29 m)
Age 38.8 ± 8.8 years
BMI 32.4 ± 4.5 kg/m2 		6 Intervention:

  • Low-fructose diet (<20 g/day) (n = 66)

Control:

  • moderate natural fructose diet (50–70 g/day) (n = 65)

 Hypocaloric Solid DA
Markey et al. (2013) [45]
UK		 Crossover Double-blind Randomized 50 normal or overweight participants (16 m/34 w)
Age 20–49 years
BMI 18.5–30 kg/m2 		8 Intervention:

  • diet with regular sugar products (75.1 g non-milk extrinsic sugars/d) (n = 28)

  • diet with sugar-reduced (reformulated) products (28.9 g non-milk extrinsic sugars/day) (n = 22)

 Eucaloric Mixed Supp/DA
Raatz et al. (2015) [42]
USA		 Crossover Randomized 55 participants (39 w/ 16 m): group 1 with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) (n = 28), group 2 with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) (n = 27)
Mean age of NGT 39 years, Mean age of IGT 52 years
BMI of NGT 26 kg/m2, BMI of IGT 31.5 kg/m2 		2 Intervention:

  • 50 g daily intake of HFCS (HFCS55)

  • 50 g of honey

  • 50 g of sucrose

 Eucaloric Liquid Supp
Silbernagel et al. (2014) [36]
Germany		 Parallel Single-blinded Randomized 20 healthy participants (12 m/8 w) Mean age 30 years BMI of 26 ± 0.5 kg/m2 4 Intervention:

  • 150 g fructose intake (n = 10)

Control:

  • 150 g glucose intake (n = 10)

 Hypercaloric * Liquid Supp
Sorensen et al. (2005) [46]
Denmark		 Parallel 41 overweight participants (6 m/35 w)
Age 33–37 years
BMI 27–28 kg/m2 		10 Intervention:

  • 125–175 g/d sucrose intake (n = 21)

  • artificial sweetener intake (n = 20)

 Hypercaloric Mixed Supp
Yaghoobi et al. (2008) [44]
Iran		 Parallel Randomized 55 overweight or obese participants (24 m/31 w)
Age 20-–60 years
BMI > 25 kg/m2 		≈4 Intervention:

  • sucrose intake (70 g) (n = 17)

  • honey intake (70 g) (n = 38)

 Eucaloric Liquid Supp

† Both studies report from one original study by Stanhope et al. [32] and each study (Cox et al., Rezvani et al.) reports on different inflammatory markers measured in the original study. ‡ Feeding control. Met: Metabolic feeding control was the provision of all meals, snacks, and study supplements (test sugars and foods) consumed during the study under controlled conditions. Sup: Supplement feeding control was the provision of study supplements. DA: Dietary advice is the provision of counselling on the appropriate test and control diets. § Sugar form. Dietary sugar was provided in 1 of 3 forms. Liquid: all or most of the dietary sugar was provided as beverages or crystalline sugars to be added to beverages. Solid: dietary sugar was provided as solid foods. Mixed: all or most of the dietary sugar was provided as a mix of beverages, solid foods (not fruit), and crystalline sugars. * Denotes hypercaloric studies in which fructose vs glucose interventions were administered isocalorically.