1.
Obesity and Sex-Related Associations With Differential Effects of Sucralose vs Sucrose on Appetite and Reward Processing: A Randomized Crossover Trial.
Yunker, AG, Alves, JM, Luo, S, Angelo, B, DeFendis, A, Pickering, TA, Monterosso, JR, Page, KA
JAMA network open. 2021;4(9):e2126313
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Added sweeteners are increasingly being used in foods to maintain the sweet taste without the added calories, however the health consequences of this are still unclear. Most of the research that exists is in men of normal weight, however women and individuals with obesity have shown to have differing appetite responses. This randomised crossover trial of 74 adults aimed to determine the effect of consuming sweetener compared to sugar on brain, hormone, and appetite responses and whether these differed by sex and obesity status. The results showed that women had increased food related brain responses and consumed greater calories following ingestion of an artificially sweetened drink. In those with obesity food related brain response was also increased following sweetener consumption. Blood glucose hormone response was decreased following sweetener consumption compared to sugar consumption. It was concluded that females and individuals with obesity have differing brain activity following consumption of sweetener. This study could be used by healthcare professionals to understand that the recommendation of artificial sweeteners for weight loss in women and those who are already suffering from obesity may lead to greater calorie consumption. However further research is needed to confirm this.
Abstract
Importance: Nonnutritive sweeteners (NNSs) are used as an alternative to nutritive sweeteners to quench desire for sweets while reducing caloric intake. However, studies have shown mixed results concerning the effects of NNSs on appetite, and the associations between sex and obesity with reward and appetitive responses to NNS compared with nutritive sugar are unknown. Objective: To examine neural reactivity to different types of high-calorie food cues (ie, sweet and savory), metabolic responses, and eating behavior following consumption of sucralose (NNS) vs sucrose (nutritive sugar) among healthy young adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a randomized, within-participant, crossover trial including 3 separate visits, participants underwent a functional magnetic resonance imaging task measuring blood oxygen level-dependent signal in response to visual cues. For each study visit, participants arrived at the Dornsife Cognitive Neuroimaging Center of University of Southern California at approximately 8:00 am after a 12-hour overnight fast. Blood was sampled at baseline and 10, 35, and 120 minutes after participants received a drink containing sucrose, sucralose, or water to measure plasma glucose, insulin, glucagon-like peptide(7-36), acyl-ghrelin, total peptide YY, and leptin. Participants were then presented with an ad libitum meal. Participants were right-handed, nonsmokers, weight-stable for at least 3 months before the study visits, nondieters, not taking medication, and with no history of eating disorders, illicit drug use, or medical diagnoses. Data analysis was performed from March 2020 to March 2021. Interventions: Participants ingested 300-mL drinks containing either sucrose (75 g), sucralose (individually sweetness matched), or water (as a control). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes of interest were the effects of body mass index (BMI) status and sex on blood oxygen level-dependent signal to high-calorie food cues, endocrine, and feeding responses following sucralose vs sucrose consumption. Secondary outcomes included neural, endocrine, and feeding responses following sucrose vs water and sucralose vs water (control) consumption, and cue-induced appetite ratings following sucralose vs sucrose (and vs water). Results: A total of 76 participants were randomized, but 2 dropped out, leaving 74 adults (43 women [58%]; mean [SD] age, 23.40 [3.96] years; BMI range, 19.18-40.27) who completed the study. In this crossover design, 73 participants each received water (drink 1) and sucrose (drink 2), and 72 participants received water (drink 1), sucrose (drink 2), and sucralose (drink 3). Sucrose vs sucralose was associated with greater production of circulating glucose, insulin, and glucagon-like peptide-1 and suppression of acyl-ghrelin, but no differences were found for peptide YY or leptin. BMI status by drink interactions were observed in the medial frontal cortex (MFC; P for interaction < .001) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC; P for interaction = .002). Individuals with obesity (MFC, β, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.83; P < .001; OFC, β, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.43; P = .002), but not those with overweight (MFC, β, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.23; P = .87; OFC, β, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.21 to 0.09; P = .41) or healthy weight (MFC, β, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.34 to 0.07; P = .21; OFC, β, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.06; P = .16), exhibited greater responsivity in the MFC and OFC to savory food cues after sucralose vs sucrose. Sex by drink interactions were observed in the MFC (P for interaction = .03) and OFC (P for interaction = .03) after consumption of sucralose vs sucrose. Female participants had greater MFC and OFC responses to food cues (MFC high-calorie vs low-calorie cues, β, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.37; P = .01; MFC sweet vs nonfood cues, β, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.42; P = .03; OFC food vs nonfood cues, β, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.22; P = .03; and OFC sweet vs nonfood cues, β, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.27; P = .01), but male participants' responses did not differ (MFC high-calorie vs low-calorie cues, β, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.21; P = .90; MFC sweet vs nonfood cues, β, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.18; P = .69; OFC food vs nonfood cues, β, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.08; P = .32; OFC sweet vs nonfood cues, β, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.31 to 0.09; P = .31). A sex by drink interaction on total calories consumed during the buffet meal was observed (P for interaction = .03). Female participants consumed greater total calories (β, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.38 to 3.08; P = .01), whereas caloric intake did not differ in male participants (β, 0.68; 95% CI, -0.99 to 2.35; P = .42) after sucralose vs sucrose ingestion. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that female individuals and those with obesity may be particularly sensitive to disparate neural responsivity elicited by sucralose compared with sucrose consumption. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02945475.
2.
Non-nutritive Sweeteners and Their Associations with Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes.
Walbolt, J, Koh, Y
Journal of obesity & metabolic syndrome. 2020;29(2):114-123
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Nutritive sweeteners (NS) contribute to overall caloric intake, and their adverse effects on metabolic health are well known. Non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) on the other hand, have negligible or no calorific value and are therefore used as replacement of NS to negate their associated health risks. Whilst the consumption of NNS has steadily increased over the recent years, so has the evidence questioning their benefits. Some research suggesting that NNS could be an indirect contributor to the development of metabolic diseases. This review presents a brief compilation of current knowledge relating to NNS and metabolic syndrome, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Summarised are findings from randomised controlled trials (RCT), prospective cohort studies, observations from animal studies and recent microbiome research. The authors noted that NNS frequently exerted negative influences on health in prospective cohort studies, which observed selected population groups over time. Whilst in controlled trials, NNS often showed neutral or positive health benefits. Following a discussion of possible causes leading to such variations and conflicting outcomes, the authors called for more carefully designed studies to evaluate NNS and their metabolic influences. For clinicians, it may be worth considering further evidence relating to the individual types of sweeteners when evaluating NNS and their risks and benefits on cardiometabolic health.
Abstract
Evidence linking the excessive consumption of nutritive sweeteners (NS) to adverse metabolic health outcomes has led to an increase in consumption of non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS), particularly among the obese and individuals with diabetes. NNS are characterized by having zero-to-negligible caloric load, while also having a sweet taste. They are utilized as a replacement for traditional NS to reduce energy intake and to limit carbohydrate-related negative health outcomes. However, recent studies have suggested that NNS may actually contribute to the development or worsening of metabolic diseases, including metabolic syndrome, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Thus, it is imperative to understand the NNS efficacy and the relationship between NNS and metabolic diseases.
3.
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases and Food Additives: To Add Fuel on the Flames!
Marion-Letellier, R, Amamou, A, Savoye, G, Ghosh, S
Nutrients. 2019;11(5)
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBDs), such as Crohn’s disease (CD) and Ulcerative Colitis (UC) are becoming increasingly common. Diet is thought to play a role in the development of IBDs. The consumption of Ultra Processed Food (UPF) is increasing and has been associated with a higher risk of some chronic diseases. Food additives may be an aspect of UPF responsible for its harmful effects. This literature review examined the role of food additives in the development and severity of IBDs. The authors discuss how common food additives such as salt, emulsifiers, stabilisers, bulking agents, sweeteners, and food colouring may promote inflammation and disrupt gut bacteria. Metals and compounds found in food packaging such as aluminium and bisphenol A (BPA) may trigger intestinal permeability and increase inflammatory markers. Much of the evidence available is based on clinical trials on animals, whilst epidemiological studies on food additives and IBD risk are still limited. The authors concluded that the majority of food consumed by IBD patients should be home-cooked in order to reduce exposure to additives in the diet.
Abstract
Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) develop in genetically predisposed individuals in response to environmental factors. IBDs are concomitant conditions of industrialized societies, and diet is a potential culprit. Consumption of ultra-processed food has increased over the last decade in industrialized countries, and epidemiological studies have found associations between ultra-processed food consumption and chronic diseases. Further studies are now required to identify the potential culprit in ultra-processed food, such as a poor nutritional composition or the presence of food additives. In our review, we will focus on food additives, i.e., substances from packaging in contact with food, and compounds formed during production, processing, and storage. A literature search using PubMed from inception to January 2019 was performed to identify relevant studies on diet and/or food additive and their role in IBDs. Manuscripts published in English from basic science, epidemiological studies, or clinical trials were selected and reviewed. We found numerous experimental studies highlighting the key role of food additives in IBD exacerbation but epidemiological studies on food additives on IBD risk are still limited. As diet is a modifiable environmental risk factor, this may offer a scientific rationale for providing dietary advice for IBD patients.
4.
Effect of the artificial sweetener, sucralose, on small intestinal glucose absorption in healthy human subjects.
Ma, J, Chang, J, Checklin, HL, Young, RL, Jones, KL, Horowitz, M, Rayner, CK
The British journal of nutrition. 2010;104(6):803-6
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Recent animal-based studies have shown that the artificial sweetener, sucralose, stimulates glucose absorption by enhancing apical availability of the transporter GLUT2 [is a transmembrane carrier protein that enables protein facilitated glucose movement across cell membranes]. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether exposure of the proximal small intestine to sucralose affects the subsequent response to glucose in terms of the rate of glucose absorption and the glycaemic response. This study is a randomised, single-blind, cross-over design study for which ten healthy subjects (eight males and two females) were enrolled and studied twice. Results indicate that: - there was no difference in baseline glucose concentrations between the two study days. - there was no difference in baseline glucagon-like peptide-1 [a hormone produced in the gut and released in response to food] concentrations between the two study days. - intraduodenal administration of sucralose has no effect on the rate of glucose absorption from the lumen of the small intestine. Authors conclude that acute intraduodenal administration of sucralose does not enhance the absorption of glucose from the small intestine or increase blood glucose or plasma glucagon-like peptide-1 concentrations in healthy human subjects.
Abstract
It has been reported that the artificial sweetener, sucralose, stimulates glucose absorption in rodents by enhancing apical availability of the transporter GLUT2. We evaluated whether exposure of the proximal small intestine to sucralose affects glucose absorption and/or the glycaemic response to an intraduodenal (ID) glucose infusion in healthy human subjects. Ten healthy subjects were studied on two separate occasions in a single-blind, randomised order. Each subject received an ID infusion of sucralose (4 mM in 0.9% saline) or control (0.9% saline) at 4 ml/min for 150 min (T = - 30 to 120 min). After 30 min (T = 0), glucose (25 %) and its non-metabolised analogue, 3-O-methylglucose (3-OMG; 2.5 %), were co-infused intraduodenally (T = 0-120 min; 4.2 kJ/min (1 kcal/min)). Blood was sampled at frequent intervals. Blood glucose, plasma glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and serum 3-OMG concentrations increased during ID glucose/3-OMG infusion (P < 0.005 for each). However, there were no differences in blood glucose, plasma GLP-1 or serum 3-OMG concentrations between sucralose and control infusions. In conclusion, sucralose does not appear to modify the rate of glucose absorption or the glycaemic or incretin response to ID glucose infusion when given acutely in healthy human subjects.