Effect of Replacing Sugar with Non-Caloric Sweeteners in Beverages on the Reward Value after Repeated Exposure

Griffioen-Roose, Sanne; Smeets, Paul A.M.; Weijzen, P.L.G.; Rijn, Inge van; Bosch, I. van den; Graaf, C. de

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081924

Cited by 39 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrary to these findings, a recent clinical trial reported that repeated consumption of NNS- and sucrose-sweetened versions of a drink did not alter the reward value of either version [120]. In this study, subjects consumed fixed portions of sucrose- and NNS-sweetened versions of a beverage that were distinguishable by means of colored labels.…”

Section: Extra-oral Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 56%

Physiological mechanisms by which non-nutritive sweeteners may impact body weight and metabolism

Burke

Small

2015

Physiology & Behavior

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence linking sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption to weight gain and other negative health outcomes has prompted many individuals to resort to artificial, non-nutritive sugar (NNS) substitutes as a means of reducing SSB intake. However, there is a great deal of controversy regarding the biological consequences of NNS use, with accumulating evidence suggesting that NNS consumption may influence feeding and metabolism via a variety of peripheral and central mechanisms. Here we argue that NNSs are not physiologically inert compounds and consider the potential biological mechanisms by which NNS consumption may impact energy balance and metabolic function, including actions on oral and extra-oral sweet taste receptors, and effects on metabolic hormone secretion, cognitive processes (e.g. reward learning, memory, and taste perception), and gut microbiota.

show abstract

Section: Extra-oral Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 56%

Physiological mechanisms by which non-nutritive sweeteners may impact body weight and metabolism

Burke

Small

2015

Physiology & Behavior

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This has been tested in rodents where no evidence of extinction was noted after 10 trials with saccharin stimulation [27]. In humans, ingestion of beverages with sucralose, sucralose plus acesulfame-K or sucrose 10 times revealed no evidence that it altered their reward values [96]. The present study sought to further evaluate this question and failed to note a differential response to repeated exposure to a low calorie versus a nutritive sweetener.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The cephalic phase insulin response to nutritive and low-calorie sweeteners in solid and beverage form

Dhillon

Lee

Mattes

2017

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the study was to examine the role of the cephalic phase insulin response (CPIR) following exposure to nutritive and low-calorie sweeteners in solid and beverage form in overweight and obese adults. In addition, the role of learning on the CPIR to nutritive and low-calorie sweetener exposure was tested. Sixty-four overweight and obese adults (age: 18–50 yr, BMI: 24–37 kg/m2, body fat percentage > 25% for men and > 32% for women) were sham-fed (at 2-minute intervals for 14 minutes) a randomly assigned test load comprised of a nutritive (sucrose) or low calorie sweetener (sucralose) in beverage or solid form in phase 1 of the study. A 2–3 ml blood sample was collected before and 2, 6, 10, 14, 61, 91 and 121 minutes after oral exposure for serum insulin and glucose analysis. During phase 2, participants underwent a 2-week training period to facilitate associative learning between the sensory properties of test loads and their post-ingestive effects. In phase 3, participants were retested for their cephalic phase responses as in phase 1. Participants were classified as responders if they demonstrated a positive insulin response (rise of serum insulin above baseline i.e. Δ insulin) 2 minutes post-stimulus in phase 1. Among responders exposed to the same sweetener in Phases 1 and 3, the proportion of participants that displayed a rise of insulin with oral exposure to sucralose was significantly greater when the stimulus was in the solid form compared to the beverage form. Sucralose and sucrose exposure elicited similarly significant increases in serum insulin 2 minutes after exposure and significant decreases after 2 minutes in responders in both food forms. The solid food form elicited greater CPIR over 2, 6 and 10 minutes than the beverage form. There was no effect of learning on insulin responses after training. The results indicate the presence of a significant CPIR in a subset of individuals with overweight or obesity after oral exposure to sucralose, especially when present in solid food form. Future studies must confirm the reliability of this response.

show abstract

“…Is the response to a lowcalorie beverage with artificial sweeteners the same after repeated exposure, or do people slowly learn that "diet" product contain less calories? For this case, in which there is no deprivation, it is quite hard to demonstrate such dietary learning [78] although there is some evidence for detection of calories in the mouth [79,80]. Another important consideration is whether it makes a difference whether one goes from, for example, 200 50 kcal, or from 150 0 kcal.…”

Section: How Physiological Psychological and Emotional Factors Predmentioning

confidence: 98%

The determinants of food choice

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health nudge interventions to steer people into healthier lifestyles are increasingly applied by governments worldwide, and it is natural to look to such approaches to improve health by altering what people choose to eat. However, to produce policy recommendations that are likely to be effective, we need to be able to make valid predictions about the consequences of proposed interventions, and for this, we need a better understanding of the determinants of food choice. These determinants include dietary components (e.g. highly palatable foods and alcohol), but also diverse cultural and social pressures, cognitive-affective factors (perceived stress, health attitude, anxiety and depression), and familial, genetic and epigenetic influences on personality characteristics. In addition, our choices are influenced by an array of physiological mechanisms, including signals to the brain from the gastrointestinal tract and adipose tissue, which affect not only our hunger and satiety but also our motivation to eat particular nutrients, and the reward we experience from eating. Thus, to develop the evidence base necessary for effective policies, we need to build bridges across different levels of knowledge and understanding. This requires experimental models that can fill in the gaps in our understanding that are needed to inform policy, translational models that connect mechanistic understanding from laboratory studies to the real life human condition, and formal models that encapsulate scientific knowledge from diverse disciplines, and which embed understanding in a way that enables policy-relevant predictions to be made. Here we review recent developments in these areas.

show abstract

Effect of Replacing Sugar with Non-Caloric Sweeteners in Beverages on the Reward Value after Repeated Exposure

Cited by 39 publications

References 37 publications

Physiological mechanisms by which non-nutritive sweeteners may impact body weight and metabolism

Physiological mechanisms by which non-nutritive sweeteners may impact body weight and metabolism

The cephalic phase insulin response to nutritive and low-calorie sweeteners in solid and beverage form

The determinants of food choice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About