Search

Background: There has been an emerging concern that non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) can increase the risk of cardiometabolic disease. Much of the attention has focused on acute metabolic and endocrine responses to NNS. To examine whether these mechanisms are operational under real-world scenarios, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of acute trials comparing the effects of non-nutritive sweetened beverages (NNS beverages) with water and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) in humans. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched through to January 15, 2022. We included acute, single-exposure, randomized, and non-randomized, clinical trials in humans, regardless of health status. Three patterns of intake were examined: (1) uncoupling interventions, where NNS beverages were consumed alone without added energy or nutrients; (2) coupling interventions, where NNS beverages were consumed together with added energy and nutrients as carbohydrates; and (3) delayed coupling interventions, where NNS beverages were consumed as a preload prior to added energy and nutrients as carbohydrates. The primary outcome was a 2 h incremental area under the curve (iAUC) for blood glucose concentration. Secondary outcomes included 2 h iAUC for insulin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), ghrelin, leptin, and glucagon concentrations. Network meta-analysis and confidence in the network meta-analysis (CINeMA) were conducted in R-studio and CINeMA, respectively. Results: Thirty-six trials involving 472 predominantly healthy participants were included. Trials examined a variety of single NNS (acesulfame potassium, aspartame, cyclamate, saccharin, stevia, and sucralose) and NNS blends (acesulfame potassium + aspartame, acesulfame potassium + sucralose, acesulfame potassium + aspartame + cyclamate, and acesulfame potassium + aspartame + sucralose), along with matched water/unsweetened controls and SSBs sweetened with various caloric sugars (glucose, sucrose, and fructose). In uncoupling interventions, NNS beverages (single or blends) had no effect on postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, GIP, PYY, ghrelin, and glucagon responses similar to water controls (generally, low to moderate confidence), whereas SSBs sweetened with caloric sugars (glucose and sucrose) increased postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, and GIP responses with no differences in postprandial ghrelin and glucagon responses (generally, low to moderate confidence). In coupling and delayed coupling interventions, NNS beverages had no postprandial glucose and endocrine effects similar to controls (generally, low to moderate confidence). Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that NNS beverages sweetened with single or blends of NNS have no acute metabolic and endocrine effects, similar to water. These findings provide support for NNS beverages as an alternative replacement strategy for SSBs in the acute postprandial setting.

Nuts are nutrient-rich foods that contain many bioactive compounds that are beneficial for cardiovascular health. Higher consumption of nuts has been associated with a reduced risk of several cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in prospective cohort studies, including a 19% and 25% lower risk of CVD incidence and mortality, respectively, and a 24% and 27% lower risk of coronary heart disease incidence and mortality, respectively. An 18% lower risk of stroke mortality, a 15% lower risk of atrial fibrillation, and a 19% lower risk of total mortality have also been observed. The role of nuts in stroke incidence, stroke subtypes, peripheral arterial disease and heart failure has been less consistent. This narrative review summarizes recommendations for nuts by clinical practice guidelines and governmental organizations, epidemiological evidence for nuts and CVD outcomes, nut-containing dietary patterns, potential mechanisms of nuts and CVD risk reduction, and future research directions, such as the use of biomarkers to help better assess nut intake. Although there are still some uncertainties around nuts and CVD prevention which require further research, as summarized in this review, there is a substantial amount of evidence that supports that consuming nuts will have a positive impact on primary and secondary prevention of CVD.

Diabetes is a continuously growing global concern affecting >10% of adults, which may be mitigated by modifiable lifestyle factors. Consumption of nuts and their inclusion in dietary patterns has been associated with a range of beneficial health outcomes. Diabetes guidelines recommend dietary patterns that incorporate nuts; however, specific recommendations related to nuts have been limited. This review considers the epidemiological and clinical evidence to date for the role of nut consumption as a dietary strategy for the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and related complications. Findings suggest nut consumption may have a potential role in the prevention and management of T2D, with mechanistic studies assessing nuts and individual nut-related nutritional constituents supporting this possibility. However, limited definitive evidence is available to date, and future studies are needed to elucidate better the impact of nuts on the prevention and management of T2D.

The Portfolio Diet, a plant-based portfolio of cholesterol-lowering foods, has been shown to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and other cardiovascular risk factors, in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It is not known if these beneficial effects translate to a lower incidence cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. To support examinations between Portfolio Diet adherence and disease, a Portfolio Diet score (PDS) was developed and its predictive and concurrent validity was assessed within the Toronto Healthy Diet Study, a six-month RCT in overweight adults. Predictive validity was assessed using change in the PDS measured by food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and concomitant change in LDL-C from baseline to six months using multiple linear regression, adjusted for potential confounders (n = 652). Concurrent validity was assessed in a subset of participants (n = 50) who completed the FFQ and a 7-day diet record (7DDR) at baseline. The PDS determined from each diet assessment method was used to derive correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman plots to assess the between-method agreement. The change in PDS was inversely associated with change in LDL-C (β coefficients: −0.01 mmol/L (95% confidence intervals (CIs): −0.02, −0.002, p = 0.02). The correlation between the PDS from the FFQ and 7DDR was 0.69 (95% CIs: 0.48, 0.85). The Bland–Altman plot showed reasonable agreement between the score from the FFQ and 7DDR. These findings indicate predictive validity of the PDS with lower LDL-C, and reasonable concurrent validity of the PDS as assessed by an FFQ against a 7DDR.

Background: Fructose-containing sugars as sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) may increase inflammatory biomarkers. Whether this effect is mediated by the food matrix at different levels of energy is unknown. To investigate the role of food source and energy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials on the effect of different food sources of fructose-containing sugars on inflammatory markers at different levels of energy control. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through March 2022 for controlled feeding trials ≥ 7 days. Four trial designs were prespecified by energy control: substitution (energy matched replacement of sugars); addition (excess energy from sugars added to diets); subtraction (energy from sugars subtracted from diets); and ad libitum (energy from sugars freely replaced). The primary outcome was C-reactive protein (CRP). Secondary outcomes were tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. GRADE assessed certainty of evidence. Results: We identified 64 controlled trials (91 trial comparisons, n = 4094) assessing 12 food sources (SSB; sweetened dairy; sweetened dairy alternative [soy]; 100% fruit juice; fruit; dried fruit; mixed fruit forms; sweetened cereal grains and bars; sweets and desserts; added nutritive [caloric] sweetener; mixed sources [with SSBs]; and mixed sources [without SSBs]) at 4 levels of energy control over a median 6-weeks in predominantly healthy mixed weight or overweight/obese adults. Total fructose-containing sugars decreased CRP in addition trials and had no effect in substitution, subtraction or ad libitum trials. No effect was observed on other outcomes at any level of energy control. There was evidence of interaction/influence by food source: substitution trials (sweetened dairy alternative (soy) and 100% fruit juice decreased, and mixed sources (with SSBs) increased CRP); and addition trials (fruit decreased CRP and TNF-α; sweets and desserts (dark chocolate) decreased IL-6). The certainty of evidence was moderate-to-low for the majority of analyses. Conclusions: Food source appears to mediate the effect of fructose-containing sugars on inflammatory markers over the short-to-medium term. The evidence provides good indication that mixed sources that contain SSBs increase CRP, while most other food sources have no effect with some sources (fruit, 100% fruit juice, sweetened soy beverage or dark chocolate) showing decreases, which may be dependent on energy control. Clinicaltrials.gov: (NCT02716870).

Background: Fructose providing excess calories in the form of sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) increases markers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Whether this effect holds for other important food sources of fructose-containing sugars is unclear. To investigate the role of food source and energy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials of the effect of fructose-containing sugars by food source at different levels of energy control on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) markers. Methods and Findings: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through 7 January 2022 for controlled trials ≥7-days. Four trial designs were prespecified: substitution (energy-matched substitution of sugars for other macronutrients); addition (excess energy from sugars added to diets); subtraction (excess energy from sugars subtracted from diets); and ad libitum (energy from sugars freely replaced by other macronutrients). The primary outcome was intrahepatocellular lipid (IHCL). Secondary outcomes were alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST). Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. We included 51 trials (75 trial comparisons, n = 2059) of 10 food sources (sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs); sweetened dairy alternative; 100% fruit juice; fruit; dried fruit; mixed fruit sources; sweets and desserts; added nutritive sweetener; honey; and mixed sources (with SSBs)) in predominantly healthy mixed weight or overweight/obese younger adults. Total fructose-containing sugars increased IHCL (standardized mean difference = 1.72 [95% CI, 1.08 to 2.36], p < 0.001) in addition trials and decreased AST in subtraction trials with no effect on any outcome in substitution or ad libitum trials. There was evidence of influence by food source with SSBs increasing IHCL and ALT in addition trials and mixed sources (with SSBs) decreasing AST in subtraction trials. The certainty of evidence was high for the effect on IHCL and moderate for the effect on ALT for SSBs in addition trials, low for the effect on AST for the removal of energy from mixed sources (with SSBs) in subtraction trials, and generally low to moderate for all other comparisons. Conclusions: Energy control and food source appear to mediate the effect of fructose-containing sugars on NAFLD markers. The evidence provides a good indication that the addition of excess energy from SSBs leads to large increases in liver fat and small important increases in ALT while there is less of an indication that the removal of energy from mixed sources (with SSBs) leads to moderate reductions in AST. Varying uncertainty remains for the lack of effect of other important food sources of fructose-containing sugars at different levels of energy control.

Dietary carbohydrates are components of healthy foods, but many carbohydrate foods have recently been stigmatized as primary causes of diet-related risk factors for chronic disease. There is an opportunity to enhance efforts within the food landscape to encourage the consumption of higher quality carbohydrate foods. The use of labelling is one strategy that permits consumers to identify healthy carbohydrate foods at the point-of-purchase. This review discusses the regulatory frameworks and examples of associated non-mandatory food labelling claims that are currently employed to highlight healthy carbohydrate foods to consumers. The existing labelling frameworks discussed here align with established measures of carbohydrate quality, such as 1. dietary fibre nutrient content claims and associated dietary fibre-based health claims; 2. the presence of whole carbohydrate foods and ingredients that are intact or reconstituted, such as whole grains; and 3. low glycemic index and glycemic response claims. Standards from Codex Alimentarius, and regulations from Australia and New Zealand, Canada, Europe, and the United States will be used to illustrate the means by which food labelling can be used by consumers to identify quality carbohydrate foods.

Background: Global dietary guidelines recommend reducing free sugars intake, which may affect choices of sugars-containing foods, including important sources of key micronutrients. The purpose of the study was to compare the intakes of nutrients stratified by intakes of sugars in Canadian adults. Methods: The first-day 24-h dietary recalls from adults (n = 11,817) in the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey-Nutrition were used to compare macronutrients, micronutrients and food categories across quintiles of total sugars [by %energy (%E)], adjusted for misreporting status and covariates. Results: Canadian adults consumed on average 86.9 g/day (18.8 %E) from total sugars and 47.5 g/day (9.9 %E) from free sugars. Mean intakes for the 1st (Q1), 3rd (Q3) and 5th (Q5) quintiles of total sugars were 7.9%E, 18.3%E and 33.3%E, respectively. Q3 had higher fibre, calcium, vitamin D, vitamin A, vitamin C and potassium intakes than Q1 (p &lt, 0.001), reflecting higher fruit, milk and yogurt (p &lt, 0.001) consumption. Compared to Q5, Q3 had higher intakes of folate, vitamin B12, iron and zinc. Conclusion: This study provides the first detailed analyses of Canadian adults&rsquo, macro- and micro-nutrient intakes stratified by different intakes of total sugars. Moderate intakes of total sugars may result in greater intakes of fibre and micronutrients. Overall nutrient intake should be considered when making food choices.

The glycaemic index (GI) is a food metric that ranks the acute impact of available (digestible) carbohydrates on blood glucose. At present, few countries regulate the inclusion of GI on food labels even though the information may assist consumers to manage blood glucose levels. Australia and New Zealand regulate GI claims as nutrition content claims and also recognize the GI Foundation’s certified Low GI trademark as an endorsement. The GI Foundation of South Africa endorses foods with low, medium and high GI symbols. In Asia, Singapore’s Healthier Choice Symbol has specific provisions for low GI claims. Low GI claims are also permitted on food labels in India. In China, there are no national regulations specific to GI; however, voluntary claims are permitted. In the USA, GI claims are not specifically regulated but are permitted, as they are deemed to fall under general food-labelling provisions. In Canada and the European Union, GI claims are not legal under current food law. Inconsistences in food regulation around the world undermine consumer and health professional confidence and call for harmonization. Global provisions for GI claims/endorsements in food standard codes would be in the best interests of people with diabetes and those at risk.

Published meta-analyses indicate significant but inconsistent incident type-2 diabetes (T2D)-dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) risk ratios or risk relations (RR). It is now over a decade ago that a published meta-analysis used a predefined standard to identify valid studies. Considering valid studies only, and using random effects dose−response meta-analysis (DRM) while withdrawing spurious results (p < 0.05), we ascertained whether these relations would support nutrition guidance, specifically for an RR > 1.20 with a lower 95% confidence limit >1.10 across typical intakes (approximately 10th to 90th percentiles of population intakes). The combined T2D−GI RR was 1.27 (1.15−1.40) (p < 0.001, n = 10 studies) per 10 units GI, while that for the T2D−GL RR was 1.26 (1.15−1.37) (p < 0.001, n = 15) per 80 g/d GL in a 2000 kcal (8400 kJ) diet. The corresponding global DRM using restricted cubic splines were 1.87 (1.56−2.25) (p < 0.001, n = 10) and 1.89 (1.66−2.16) (p < 0.001, n = 15) from 47.6 to 76.1 units GI and 73 to 257 g/d GL in a 2000 kcal diet, respectively. In conclusion, among adults initially in good health, diets higher in GI or GL were robustly associated with incident T2D. Together with mechanistic and other data, this supports that consideration should be given to these dietary risk factors in nutrition advice. Concerning the public health relevance at the global level, our evidence indicates that GI and GL are substantial food markers predicting the development of T2D worldwide, for persons of European ancestry and of East Asian ancestry.

The Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) conducted a review of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses to explain the relationship between different dietary patterns and patient-important cardiometabolic outcomes. To update the clinical practice guidelines for nutrition therapy in the prevention and management of diabetes, we summarize the evidence from these evidence syntheses for the Mediterranean, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), Portfolio, Nordic, liquid meal replacement, and vegetarian dietary patterns. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the quality of evidence. We summarized the evidence for disease incidence outcomes and risk factor outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), respectively. The Mediterranean diet showed a cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence (RR: 0.62; 95%CI, 0.50, 0.78), and non-significant CVD mortality (RR: 0.67; 95%CI, 0.45, 1.00) benefit. The DASH dietary pattern improved cardiometabolic risk factors (P < 0.05) and was associated with the decreased incidence of CVD (RR, 0.80; 95%CI, 0.76, 0.85). Vegetarian dietary patterns were associated with improved cardiometabolic risk factors (P < 0.05) and the reduced incidence (0.72; 95%CI: 0.61, 0.85) and mortality (RR, 0.78; 95%CI, 0.69, 0.88) of coronary heart disease. The Portfolio dietary pattern improved cardiometabolic risk factors and reduced estimated 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk by 13% (−1.34% (95%CI, −2.19 to −0.49)). The Nordic dietary pattern was correlated with decreased CVD (0.93 (95%CI, 0.88, 0.99)) and stroke incidence (0.87 (95%CI, 0.77, 0.97)) and, along with liquid meal replacements, improved cardiometabolic risk factors (P < 0.05). The evidence was assessed as low to moderate certainty for most dietary patterns and outcome pairs. Current evidence suggests that the Mediterranean, DASH, Portfolio, Nordic, liquid meal replacement and vegetarian dietary patterns have cardiometabolic advantages in populations inclusive of diabetes.

While dietary factors are important modifiable risk factors for type 2 diabetes (T2D), the causal role of carbohydrate quality in nutrition remains controversial. Dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) have been examined in relation to the risk of T2D in multiple prospective cohort studies. Previous meta-analyses indicate significant relations but consideration of causality has been minimal. Here, the results of our recent meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies of 4 to 26-y follow-up are interpreted in the context of the nine Bradford-Hill criteria for causality, that is: (1) Strength of Association, (2) Consistency, (3) Specificity, (4) Temporality, (5) Biological Gradient, (6) Plausibility, (7) Experimental evidence, (8) Analogy, and (9) Coherence. These criteria necessitated referral to a body of literature wider than prospective cohort studies alone, especially in criteria 6 to 9. In this analysis, all nine of the Hill’s criteria were met for GI and GL indicating that we can be confident of a role for GI and GL as causal factors contributing to incident T2D. In addition, neither dietary fiber nor cereal fiber nor wholegrain were found to be reliable or effective surrogate measures of GI or GL. Finally, our cost–benefit analysis suggests food and nutrition advice favors lower GI or GL and would produce significant potential cost savings in national healthcare budgets. The high confidence in causal associations for incident T2D is sufficient to consider inclusion of GI and GL in food and nutrient-based recommendations.

The need for protein-rich plant-based foods continues as dietary guidelines emphasize their contribution to healthy dietary patterns that prevent chronic disease and promote environmental sustainability. However, the Canadian Food and Drug Regulations provide a regulatory framework that can prevent Canadian consumers from identifying protein-rich plant-based foods. In Canada, protein nutrient content claims are based on the protein efficiency ratio (PER) and protein rating method, which is based on a rat growth bioassay. PERs are not additive, and the protein rating of a food is underpinned by its Reasonable Daily Intake. The restrictive nature of Canada’s requirements for supporting protein claims therefore presents challenges for Canadian consumers to adapt to a rapidly changing food environment. This commentary will present two options for modernizing the regulatory framework for protein content claims in Canada. The first and preferred option advocates that protein quality not be considered in the determination of the eligibility of a food for protein content claims. The second and less preferred option, an interim solution, is a framework for adopting the protein digestibility corrected amino acid score as the official method for supporting protein content and quality claims and harmonizes Canada’s regulatory framework with that of the USA.