Fructose and Glucose are not the devil!

But the added sugar Americans consume as part of their daily diet can -- on its own, regardless of other health problems -- more than double the risk of death from heart disease, a new study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found.

...

"I could be eating a 2,000-calorie diet, not overeating, not overweight. But if I just drink a can of soda a day, I increase my risk of dying from [heart] disease by one-third," said Schmidt, a professor of health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. "I think people would assume one can of soda a day would not have that kind of impact over the course of their lives."

...

The risk of heart-related death increases 18 percent with the average American diet that receives about 15 percent of daily calories from added sugar, compared to diets containing little to no added sugar, the study authors found.

The risk is 38 percent higher for people who receive 17 percent to 21 percent of their calories from added sugar, and more than double for people who get more than 21 percent of their daily diet from added sugar, Yang said.

Although the study found that eating more food with added sugar was tied to a higher risk of heart-related death, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_144391.html

Added Sugar in Diet Tied to Death Risk From Heart Trouble

But the added sugar Americans consume as part of their daily diet can -- on its own, regardless of other health problems -- more than double the risk of death from heart disease, a new study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found.

...

"I could be eating a 2,000-calorie diet, not overeating, not overweight. But if I just drink a can of soda a day, I increase my risk of dying from [heart] disease by one-third," said Schmidt, a professor of health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. "I think people would assume one can of soda a day would not have that kind of impact over the course of their lives."

...

The risk of heart-related death increases 18 percent with the average American diet that receives about 15 percent of daily calories from added sugar, compared to diets containing little to no added sugar, the study authors found.

The risk is 38 percent higher for people who receive 17 percent to 21 percent of their calories from added sugar, and more than double for people who get more than 21 percent of their daily diet from added sugar, Yang said.

Although the study found that eating more food with added sugar was tied to a higher risk of heart-related death, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship.

See the bolded part. The problem is that sugar is not tied to heart disease, but those who ate more sugar (and thus were probably more likely to be overweight) had higher occurrences of heart disease. Saying that sugar causes heart disease is like saying salt causes obesity: they don't. The salt/obesity link was that more self-reported and measured salt consumption was observed in the overweight/obese (since they tended to eat more processed foods/more foods and thus more salt in general).

Correlation =/= causation. This is more sensationalism. And yes, you should be intelligent about what you consume, and most things should be in moderation. But don't tout observational studies as if they were gospel or even worth the same as clinical studies.

No, you are wrong. Added sugar is tied to heart diesease, there is a correlation that ties them together. It is a study, not sensationalism. I purposely quoted the line re: cause and effect.

Neither I nor the article said sugar causes heart disease. It is merely data for consideration.

The problem is that the other parts you quoted are out of context. And yes, it is a study, but I said it is not a clinical study, but I should have specified that it was not a clinical intervention study (to study the effects of sugar consumption). It is a meta-analysis of the data already collected, and again I think the researchers are pointing out that people who eat more sugar had higher incidents of heart disease, but I am willing to bet that those same people with the increased risks were unhealthy in having high amounts of body fat (which may not show up as a previous health condition depending on the study observed).

My point is to add the healthy dose of realism and perspective to the article. I do not want people to read this thinking sugar = heart disease, because that is not the case (or has not been proven anyway).

No, you are wrong. Added sugar is tied to heart diesease, there is a correlation that ties them together. It is a study, not sensationalism. I purposely quoted the line re: cause and effect.

Neither I nor the article said sugar causes heart disease. It is merely data for consideration.

The problem is that the other parts you quoted are out of context. And yes, it is a study, but I said it is not a clinical study, but I should have specified that it was not a clinical intervention study (to study the effects of sugar consumption). It is a meta-analysis of the data already collected, and again I think the researchers are pointing out that people who eat more sugar had higher incidents of heart disease, but I am willing to bet that those same people with the increased risks were unhealthy in having high amounts of body fat (which may not show up as a previous health condition depending on the study observed).

My point is to add the healthy dose of realism and perspective to the article. I do not want people to read this thinking sugar = heart disease, because that is not the case (or has not been proven anyway).

You'd lose that bet. Maybe you should read the article.

Perhaps you can point out where they stated that they controlled for body fat levels, because I didn't see that part. They instead gathered data from studies and established correlations. But until I see that the rate of heart disease had no significant tie to body fat, you cannot rule it out (and neither did they--they instead decided to focus on sugar intake, which is my concern).

EDIT: This is the same reason saturated fat was nailed so long ago. They studied numerous factors, and decided to focus on one correlation without actually backing up their hypothesis with evidence.