Effects of non-nutritive (artificial vs natural) sweeteners on 24-h glucose profiles.

Replacing nutritive sweetener with non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) has the potential to improve glycaemic control. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of consuming artificial NNS (that is, aspartame), natural NNS (that is, monk fruit and stevia), and sucrose-sweetened beverages on 24-h glucose profiles. Ten healthy males took part in this randomised, crossover study with the following four treatments: aspartame-, monk fruit-, stevia-, and sucrose- (65 g) sweetened beverages. Participants were asked to consume the test beverage as a preload mid-morning. Medtronic iPro2 continuous glucose monitoring system was used to measure mean 24-h glucose, incremental area under the curve (iAUC) and total area under the curve (AUC) for glucose, and 24-h glycaemic variability. Overall no significant differences were found in mean 24-h glucose, iAUC and total AUC for glucose, and 24-h glycaemic variability between the four test beverages. Twenty-four-hour glucose profiles did not differ between beverages sweetened with non-nutritive (artificial vs natural) and nutritive sweeteners. The simple exchange of a single serving of sucrose-sweetened beverage with NNS over a day appears to have minimal effect on 24-h glucose profiles in healthy males.

Effects of aspartame-, monk fruit-, stevia- and sucrose-sweetened beverages on postprandial glucose, insulin and energy intake.

BACKGROUND: Substituting sweeteners with non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) may aid in glycaemic control and body weight management. Limited studies have investigated energy compensation, glycaemic and insulinaemic responses to artificial and natural NNS. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the effects of consuming NNS (artificial versus natural) and sucrose (65 g) on energy intake, blood glucose and insulin responses. METHODS: Thirty healthy male subjects took part in this randomised, crossover study with four treatments: aspartame-, monk fruit-, stevia- and sucrose-sweetened beverages. On each test day, participants were asked to consume a standardised breakfast in the morning, and they were provided with test beverage as a preload in mid-morning and ad libitum lunch was provided an hour after test beverage consumption. Blood glucose and insulin concentrations were measured every 15 min within the first hour of preload consumption and every 30 min for the subsequent 2 h. Participants left the study site 3 h after preload consumption and completed a food diary for the rest of the day. RESULTS: Ad libitum lunch intake was significantly higher for the NNS treatments compared with sucrose (P=0.010). The energy 'saved' from replacing sucrose with NNS was fully compensated for at subsequent meals; hence, no difference in total daily energy intake was found between the treatments (P=0.831). The sucrose-sweetened beverage led to large spikes in blood glucose and insulin responses within the first hour, whereas these responses were higher for all three NNS beverages following the test lunch. Thus, there were no differences in total area under the curve (AUC) for glucose (P=0.960) and insulin (P=0.216) over 3 h between the four test beverages. CONCLUSIONS: The consumption of calorie-free beverages sweetened with artificial and natural NNS have minimal influences on total daily energy intake, postprandial glucose and insulin compared with a sucrose-sweetened beverage.

Removing energy from a beverage influences later food intake more than the same energy addition.

Designing reduced-calorie foods and beverages without compromising their satiating effect could benefit weight management, assuming that consumers do not compensate for the missing calories at other meals. Though research has demonstrated that compensation for overfeeding is relatively limited, the extent to which energy reductions trigger adjustments in later food intake is less clear. The current study tested satiety responses (characterised by changes in appetite and later food intake) to both a covert 200 kcal reduction and an addition of maltodextrin to a soymilk test beverage. Twenty-nine healthy male participants were recruited to consume three sensory-matched soymilk beverages across four non-consecutive study days: a medium energy control (ME: 300 kcal) and a lower energy (LE: 100 kcal) and higher energy (HE: 500 kcal) version. The ME control was consumed twice to assess individual consistency in responses to this beverage. Participants were unaware of the energy differences across the soymilks. Lunch intake 60 min later increased in response to the LE soymilk, but was unchanged after consuming the HE version. These adjustments accounted for 40% of the energy removed from the soymilk and 13% of the energy added in. Rated appetite was relatively unaffected by the soymilk energy content. No further adjustments were noted for the rest of the day. These data suggest that adult men tested were more sensitive to calorie dilution than calorie addition to a familiar beverage.