Search

Background: Studies investigating associations between sweeteners and health yield inconsistent results, possibly due to subjective self-report dietary assessment methods. Objectives: We compared the performance of a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), multiple 24-h dietary recalls (24hRs), and urinary biomarkers to estimate intake of sugars and low/no-calorie sweeteners (LNCSs). Methods: Participants (n = 848, age 54 ± 12 y) from a 2-y observational study completed 1 semiquantitative FFQ and ≥ 3 nonconsecutive 24hRs. Both methods assessed intake of sugars (mono- and disaccharides, sucrose, fructose, free and added sugars) and sweetened foods and beverages (sugary foods, fruit juice, and sugar or LNCS-containing beverages [sugar-sweetened beverages and low/no-calorie sweetened beverages (LNCSBs)]); 24hRs also included LNCS-containing foods and tabletop sweeteners (low/no-calorie sweetened foods [LNCSFs]). Urinary excretion of sugars (fructose+sucrose) and LNCSs (acesulfame K+sucralose+steviol glucuronide+cyclamate+saccharin) were simultaneously assessed using ultrapressure liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry in 288 participants with 3 annual 24-h urine samples. Methods were compared using, amongst others, validity coefficients (correlations corrected for measurement error). Results: Median (interquartile range) FFQ intakes ranged from 0 (0–7) g/d for LNCSBs to 94 (73–117) g/d for mono- and disaccharides. LNCSB use was reported by 32% of participants. Median LNCSB+LNCSF intake using 24hRs was 1 (0–50) g/d and reported by 58%. Total sugar excretions were detected in 100% of samples [56 (37–85) mg/d] and LNCSs in 99% of urine samples [3 (1–10) mg/d]. Comparing FFQ against 24hRs showed VCs ranging from 0.38 (fruit juice) to 0.74 (LNCSB). VCs for comparing FFQ with urinary excretions were 0.25 to 0.29 for sugars and 0.39 for LNCSBs; for 24hR they amounted to 0.31–0.38 for sugars, 0.37 for LNCSBs, and 0.45 for LNCSFs. Conclusions: The validity of the

Background: Sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SE) are used to replace energy yielding sugars and maintain sweet taste in a wide range of products, but controversy exists about their effects on appetite and endocrine responses in reduced or no added sugar solid foods. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the acute (1 day) and repeated (two-week daily) ingestive effects of 2 S&SE vs. sucrose formulations of biscuit with fruit filling on appetite and endocrine responses in adults with overweight and obesity. Methods: In a randomised crossover trial, 53 healthy adults (33 female, 20 male) with overweight/obesity in England and France consumed biscuits with fruit filling containing 1) sucrose, or reformulated with either 2) Stevia Rebaudioside M (StRebM) or 3) Neotame daily during three, two-week intervention periods with a two-week washout. The primary outcome was composite appetite score defined as [desire to eat + hunger + (100 − fullness) + prospective consumption]/4. Findings: Each formulation elicited a similar reduction in appetite sensations (3-h postprandial net iAUC). Postprandial insulin (2-h iAUC) was lower after Neotame (95% CI (0.093, 0.166); p < 0.001; d = −0.71) and StRebM (95% CI (0.133, 0.205); p < 0.001; d = −1.01) compared to sucrose, and glucose was lower after StRebM (95% CI (0.023, 0.171); p < 0.05; d = −0.39) but not after Neotame (95% CI (−0.007, 0.145); p = 0.074; d = −0.25) compared to sucrose. There were no differences between S&SE or sucrose formulations on ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1 or pancreatic polypeptide iAUCs. No clinically meaningful differences between acute vs. two-weeks of daily consumption were found. Interpretation: In conclusion, biscuits reformulated to replace sugar using StRebM or Neotame showed no differences in appetite or endocrine responses, acutely or after a two-week exposure, but can reduce postprandial insulin and glucose response in adults with overweight or obesity. Funding

Purpose: Examined associations between sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), low/no-calorie beverages (LNCB), and fruit juice (FJ) consumption and all-cause mortality in Dutch adults. Methods: Data of 118,707 adults participating (mean age = 45 years; 60% was women) the Lifelines Cohort Study were prospectively analyzed. Dietary intake was assessed using a validated food-frequency questionnaire. Participants’ vital status was followed-up until February 2022 via the National Personal Records Database. Associations between beverages of interest and all-cause mortality risk were investigated using restricted cubic spline and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses, including substitution analyses. Models were adjusted for demographics, lifestyle, and other dietary factors. Results: During follow-up (median = 9.8 years), a total of 2852 (2.4%) deaths were documented. Median (IQR) of SSB, LNCB, and FJ consumption were 0.1 (0.0–0.6), 0.1 (0.0–0.6), and 0.2 (0.0–0.6) serving/day, respectively. Dose–response analyses showed linear associations between SSB, LNCB, and FJ consumption and mortality risk. For each additional serving of SSB and LNCB, HRs of all-cause mortality risk were 1.09 (95% CI 1.03–1.16) and 1.06 (95% CI 1.00–1.11). Replacing SSB with LNCB showed a nonsignificant association with a lower mortality risk, particularly in women (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81–1.01). Finally, an inverse association between FJ and all-cause mortality was observed at moderate consumption with HR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.79–0.95) for > 0–2 servings/week and HR of 0.89 (95% CI 0.81–0.98) for > 2–< 7 servings/week when compared to no consumption. Conclusions: Our study showed adverse associations between SSB consumption and all-cause mortality. Replacing SSB with LNCB might be associated with lower mortality risk, particularly in women. Moderate intake of FJ was associated with lower all-cause mortality risk.

Background: Sweetened beverage intake may play a role in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) development, but scientific evidence on their role is limited. This study examined associations between sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), low/no-calorie beverages (LNCB) and fruit juice (FJ) intakes and NAFLD in four European studies. Methods: Data for 42,024 participants of Lifelines Cohort, NQPlus, PREDIMED-Plus and Alpha Omega Cohort were cross-sectionally analysed. NAFLD was assessed using Fatty Liver Index (FLI) (≥60). Restricted cubic spline analyses were used to visualize dose–response associations in Lifelines Cohort. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses with robust variance were performed for associations in individual cohorts; data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Models were adjusted for demographic, lifestyle, and other dietary factors. Results: Each additional serving of SSB per day was associated with a 7% higher FLI-defined NAFLD prevalence (95%CI 1.03–1.11). For LNCB, restricted cubic spline analysis showed a nonlinear association with FLI-defined NAFLD, with the association getting stronger when consuming ≤1 serving/day and levelling off at higher intake levels. Pooled Cox analysis showed that intake of >2 LNCB servings/week was positively associated with FLI-defined NAFLD (PR 1.38, 95% CI 1.15–1.61; reference: non-consumers). An inverse association was observed for FJ intake of ≤2 servings/week (PR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88–0.97; reference: non-consumers), but not at higher intake levels. Theoretical replacement of SSB with FJ showed no significant association with FLI-defined NAFLD prevalence (PR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95–1.00), whereas an adverse association was observed when SSB was replaced with LNCB (PR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03–1.21). Conclusions: Pooling results of this study showed that SSB and LNCB were positively associated with FLI-defined NAFLD prevalence. Theoretical replacement of SSB with LNCB was associated with higher FLI-defined NAFLD

Purpose: Results of prospective studies investigating associations between low/no-calorie sweeteners (LNCS) and body weight-related outcomes are inconclusive. We conducted dose–response and theoretical replacement individual patient data meta-analyses using harmonised prospective data to evaluate associations between sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption, low/no-calorie sweetened beverage (LNCB) consumption, and changes in body weight and waist circumference. Methods: Individual participant data were obtained from five European studies, i.e., Lifelines Cohort Study, NQplus study, Alpha Omega Cohort, Predimed-Plus study, and Feel4diabetes study, including 82,719 adults aged 18–89 with follow-up between 1 and 9 years. Consumption of SSB and LNCB was assessed using food-frequency questionnaires. Multiple regression analyses adjusting for major confounders and including substitution models were conducted to quantify associations in individual cohorts; random-effects meta-analyses were performed to pool individual estimates. Results: Overall, pooled results showed weak adverse associations between SSB consumption and changes in body weight (+ 0.02 kg/y, 95%CI 0.00; 0.04) and waist circumference (+ 0.03 cm/y, 95%CI 0.01; 0.05). LNCB consumption was associated with higher weight gain (+ 0.06 kg/y, 95%CI 0.04; 0.08) but not with waist circumference. No clear associations were observed for any theoretical replacements, i.e., LNCB or water for SSB or water for LNCB. Conclusion: In conclusion, this analysis of five European studies found a weak positive association between SSB consumption and weight and waist change, whilst LNCB consumption was associated with weight change only. Theoretical substitutions did not show any clear association. Thus, the benefit of LNCBs as an alternative to SSBs remains unclear.

INTRODUCTION: Intake of free sugars in European countries is high and attempts to reduce sugar intake have been mostly ineffective. Non-nutritive sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SEs) can maintain sweet taste in the absence of energy, but little is known about the impact of acute and repeated consumption of S&SE in foods on appetite. This study aims to evaluate the effect of acute and repeated consumption of two individual S&SEs and two S&SE blends in semisolid and solid foods on appetite and related behavioural, metabolic and health outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A work package of the SWEET Project; this study consists of five double-blind randomised cross-over trials which will be carried out at five sites across four European countries, aiming to have n=213. Five food matrices will be tested across three formulations (sucrose-sweetened control vs two reformulated products with S&SE blends and no added sugar). Participants (body mass index 25-35 kg/m2; aged 18-60 years) will consume each formulation for 14 days. The primary endpoint is composite appetite score (hunger, inverse of fullness, desire to eat and prospective food consumption) over a 3-hour postprandial incremental area under the curve during clinical investigation days on days 1 and 14. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by national ethical committees and will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed open-access scientific journals. Research data from the trial will be deposited in an open-access online research data archive. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04633681.

Quality of life is a key outcome that is not rigorously measured in obesity treatment research due to the lack of standardization of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PRO measures (PROMs). The S.Q.O.T. initiative was founded to Standardize Quality of life measurement in Obesity Treatment. A first face-to-face, international, multidisciplinary consensus meeting was conducted to identify the key PROs and preferred PROMs for obesity treatment research. It comprised of 35 people living with obesity (PLWO) and healthcare providers (HCPs). Formal presentations, nominal group techniques, and modified Delphi exercises were used to develop consensus-based recommendations. The following eight PROs were considered important: self-esteem, physical health/functioning, mental/psychological health, social health, eating, stigma, body image, and excess skin. Self-esteem was considered the most important PRO, particularly for PLWO, while physical health was perceived to be the most important among HCPs. For each PRO, one or more PROMs were selected, except for stigma. This consensus meeting was a first step toward standardizing PROs (what to measure) and PROMs (how to measure) in obesity treatment research. It provides an overview of the key PROs and a first selection of the PROMs that can be used to evaluate these PROs.

Background/Methods: Prospective studies investigating sweet beverages and body weight associations show inconsistent results. Within the SWEET project, we examined prospective dose-response associations of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), low/no-calorie beverages (LNCB), and fruit juice with body weight-related outcomes among 78,286 Dutch adults followed for ~4 years. Baseline intakes were assessed using a validated food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) with 150 ml representing a standard serving. Outcome variables were body weight change, waist circumference change, overweight/obesity, and abdominal obesity. Associations were investigated by using linear and non-linear dose-response analysis, as well as substitution models while adjusting for multiple socio-demographic, lifestyle, health, and dietary variables. Results: Participants were 46 ± 13 (mean ± SD) years old and 60% were women. Adjusted dose-response analyzes indicated an association between SSB and LNCB, and both body weight (+0.02 kg/year; SE 0.01 and +0.06 kg/year; SE 0.01) and waist circumference changes (+0.04 cm/year; SE: 0.01 and +0.11 cm/year; SE: 0.01). Associations for overweight/obesity and abdominal obesity incidence were +3% (95%CI: 1.00–1.06) and +2% (95%CI: 0.99–1.06) for SSB and +8% (95%CI: 1.06–1.11) and +5% (95%CI: 1.03–1.07) for LNCB, respectively. Substitution of SSB with LNCB was associated with higher weight change (+0.04 kg/year), waist circumference change (+0.09 cm/year), overweight/obesity incidence (+6%), but not abdominal obesity incidence. For fruit juice, we observed beneficial associations for intake levels below ~1 serving/day with weight, waist circumference change, and overweight/obesity incidence, and no association with abdominal obesity. Subsequent substitution analyzes indicated a small beneficial association for the replacement of SSB with fruit juice on weight (−0.04 kg/year) and waist circumference (−0.04 cm/year), but not with other outcomes. Conclusions: Overall, our

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate whether prolonged consumption of sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SEs) within a healthy diet will improve weight loss maintenance and obesity-related risk factors and affect safety markers compared with sugar. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SWEET (S&SEs: prolonged effects on health, obesity and safety) is a 1-year multicentre RCT including at least 330 adults with overweight (18-65 years, body mass index (BMI) >25 kg/m2) and 40 children (6-12 years, BMI-for-age >85th percentile). In an initial 2-month period, adults will consume a low-energy diet with the aim to achieve ≥5% weight loss. Children are advised to consume a generally healthy diet to maintain body weight, thus reducing their BMI-for-age z-score. In the following 10 months, participants will be randomised to follow a healthy ad libitum diet with or without S&SE products. Clinical investigations are scheduled at baseline, after 2, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcomes are body weight for efficacy and gut microbiota composition (in relation to metabolic health) for safety, both in adults. Secondary outcomes include anthropometry, risk markers for type-2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, questionnaires including, for example, food preferences, craving and appetite and tests for allergenicity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial protocol has been approved by the following national ethical committees; The research ethics committees of the capital region (Denmark), approval code: H-19040679, The medical ethics committee of the University Hospital Maastricht and Maastricht University (the Netherlands), approval code: NL70977.068.19/METC19-056s, Research Ethics Committee of the University of Navarra (Spain), approval code: 2019.146 mod1, Research Ethics Committee of Harokopio University (Greece), approval code: 1810/18-06-2019. The trial will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Results will be published in i