Do low-calorie sweetened beverages help to control food cravings? Two experimental studies.

Low-calorie sweetened (LCS) beverages may help consumers to satisfy hedonic food cravings without violating dieting goals, however this remains unexplored. The present research investigated the effect of priming hedonic eating motivations on ad libitum energy intake in frequent and non-consumers of LCS beverages. It was hypothesised that energy intake would be greater after the hedonic eating prime relative to a control prime in non-consumers, but that frequent LCS beverage consumers would be protected from this effect. In Study 1 (N = 120), frequent and non-consumers were exposed to either chocolate or neutral cues (craving vs. control condition) and then completed a beverage-related visual probe task with concurrent eye-tracking. Ad libitum energy intake from sweet and savoury snacks and beverages (including LCS) was then assessed. Study 2 followed a similar protocol, but included only frequent consumers (N = 172) and manipulated the availability of LCS beverages in the ad libitum eating context (available vs. unavailable). Measures of guilt and perceived behavioural control were also included. In Study 1 , as hypothesised, non-consumers showed greater energy intake in the craving condition relative to the control condition, but frequent consumers had similar energy intake in both conditions. Frequent consumers (but not non-consumers) also demonstrated an attentional bias for LCS beverage stimuli compared to both sugar and water stimuli. In contrast, in Study 2 frequent consumers showed greater energy intake in the craving condition relative to the control condition; however, overall energy intake was significantly greater when LCS beverages were unavailable compared to when they were available. Ratings of guilt were higher and perceived control was lower in the LCS-unavailable condition relative to the LCS-available condition. Conclusions: LCS beverages did not consistently protect consumers from craving-induced increases in energy intake. However, frequent consumers consumed fewer calories overall when LCS beverages were available (relative to unavailable), as well as perceiving more control over their food intake and feeling less guilty. • LCS beverages did not reliably protect consumers from craving-induced increases in energy intake. • Energy intake was lower when LCS beverages were available (vs. unavailable) in frequent consumers. • Frequent consumers had an attentional bias for LCS beverages compared to both sugar and water. • Frequent consumers felt less guilty and more in control of their eating when LCS beverages were available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]