U.S. Sugar consumption trend from 1970-2021

IMO the graph is misleading a bit.<p>Sugar is much less of a problem if you are also being very active on a daily basis. For example, your work contains physical component or maybe you are walking a lot.<p>So while the graph is showing dropping amount of sugar consumption, it is not taking account for also falling healthy limit of sugar consumption, ie. the fact that we should be eating even less overall given falling activity levels.<p>And this is especially true for kids whose activity levels fallen dramatically since smartphones.<p>I can tell that the same amount of sugar has much less effect on me since I lost weight and started running a lot every day. And I know this because I put on a continuous glucose monitor from time to time and can observe sugar spikes from foods to debug my diet.<p>You can learn a lot wearing CGM like the fact that my local Starbucks was serving me lactose-free milk regardless of what I ordered. You can tell lactose-free milk on a CGM because of a huge glucose spike. The reason? &quot;Lactose free&quot; is misleading. In reality they don&#x27;t remove lactose. Lactose-free milk is obtained by adding to milk an enzyme that converts lactose to glucose and galactose which can be easily absorbed by the body and cause blood glucose spikes.

This graph does not go back far enough. Processed foods really took off during WWI, and then again in WWII. Using 1970 as a base line feels like skipping over the biggest jumps in those trends. My guess is that sugar consumption rose during those same periods.

The amount per year doesn&#x27;t tell me much, but when converted to per day it&#x27;s crazy high: 120*453.6&#x2F;365 = 149 grams. That&#x27;s 600 calories from sugar per day.<p>PS. A graph showing the total amount of daily calories from carbs, not just sugar: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;grapher&#x2F;daily-caloric-supply-derived-from-carbohydrates-protein-and-fat">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;grapher&#x2F;daily-caloric-supply-deri...</a>

Here is the page from which the chart is from <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ers.usda.gov&#x2F;data-products&#x2F;chart-gallery&#x2F;gallery&#x2F;chart-detail&#x2F;?chartId=105374" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ers.usda.gov&#x2F;data-products&#x2F;chart-gallery&#x2F;gallery...</a><p>The data in the chart is sweetener &quot;availability&quot; and not really consumption, though it can be assumed that if less is available per capita, then less is consumed as well (per capita). But, this data doesn&#x27;t explains the increase in obesity since 1970. this might be because of data being an average. Stats like p90 sugar consumption might show a better correlation with obesity rates and hence may be more meaningful than per capita sweetener availability.

Added sugar is not necessarily problematic, but consumption of anti-thyroid substances like high amounts of PUFA (especially seed oils), chlorine, bromine, fluoride (in absence of iodine) can make it so, by way of increasing energy supply which is not properly consumed. Industrial pollutants like PFAS and hexane byproducts also play a role.<p>There&#x27;s a very good reason why sugar is so &quot;addictive&quot; -- it&#x27;s good for you! It&#x27;s an obscenely easily digestible source of energy, whose products are used very easily by the cells. In the case of fructose, its consumption is relatively more insulin-friendly than the glucose-heavy starches. Sucrose is half glucose and half fructose.<p>Seriously &quot;addictive&quot; sugary foods are psychologically problematic usually for other reasons. Pure cane sugar is not very addictive when consumed alone. Try it.

My dad a farmer from Croatia always said; corn is what you feed livestock before you drive them to market.

The title says consumption but the graphic says availability. Does availability have a different meaning in this context? Or is this just the amounts of various forms of sweeteners available to a consumer

I&#x27;d like to see trends since like 1950.

is there a strong support for the refined cane sugar trend line at 60 pounds per person? :)<p>looks like a decade+ long decline trend abruptly stopped there and miraculously stayed flat for 20+ years

I&#x27;m surprised this peaked at 2000 rather than earlier

This is making me want to &quot;refine&quot; my portfolio

Alternate title: the graph that broke HN&#x27;s brain. You&#x27;ll notice that 1) sugar consumption peaked around Y2K and declined after 2) the decline was driven by a decline in consumption of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (the most vilified sugar) specifically, and 3) the average American now consumes about as much added sugar as the average American did in 1970--yet their waistlines are not remotely comparable.<p>Technically the graph is of per capita added sugar <i>availability</i> and isn&#x27;t adjusted for loss (due to spoilage, plate waste, etc.), but it meshes with NHANES survey data: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC9434277&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC9434277&#x2F;</a><p>&gt;In conclusion, over the 18 year time span, from 2001 to 2018, added sugars intake declined significantly among younger adults (19–50 years) in the U.S., regardless of race and ethnicity (i.e., similar for Black and White individuals), income level, physical activity level or body weight status, and declines were mainly due to reductions in added sugars intake from sweetened beverages (primarily soft drinks and fruit drinks). These trends coincide with the evolving emphasis in the DGA on reducing added sugars intake and the increasing focus on population-level interventions aimed at reducing intakes.

This is soooo funny, I scroll through all the comments and everyone tells that it&#x27;s so obvious that calories or sugar are responsible for the fat population. Not a single one mentions that maybe fat makes people fat... No one seems to be interested that the share of fat in the food increased in the recent decades. Why not? Because it&#x27;s not fat that makes you fat, it&#x27;s the sugar! Hilarious.<p>I wish we could get a graph of fat intake of the last hundred years.