Tabular Summaries Table
Study
Subjects
Sweetener &
Dose
Vehicle
Control
Delay
Hunger/Appetite
Measure
Primary
Smeets et
al. (2011)
10 M
normal
weight
20-25 yo
11 mg
aspartame
450 ml
of Juice
(Orange
ade)
450 ml of
Sucrose
sweetene
d Juice
(Orangea
de)
30-60
min
Subjective
appetite
ratings were
given (hunger,
thirst, fullness,
desire
to eat, desired
amount to be
eaten) on
9-point
hedonic scale
Statistical/ Test
Seconda
ry
anatomi Repeated
cal MRI measures ANOVA
for brain
imaging
P value
Hunger/Appetite
Effect by aspartame
Primary: P=0.08
Hunger: No Effect
Secondary:
P=0.001
Primary: Hunger and
fullness ratings were
not differentially
affected by the
treatments.
Secondary:
Amygdala activated
more by non-caloric
than by caloric
orangeade.
Sensory and
metabolic satiation
differentially affect
taste activation in
these areas.
Van
Wymelbe
ke
et al.
(2004)
12 M
12 F
normal
weight
20-25 yo
40 mg
Aspartame
1 L Fruit
drink/d
ay
1L
sucrose
fruit
drink/day
Variable
, Over
month
(1) the energy
intakes (2)
hunger ratings
Hunger and
hedonic
values were
(3) the
hedonic
value of
meals
taken at
lunch
and at
ANOVA
Primary
Energy Intakes
P<0.001
Hunger:
Not significantly
different, no P
Hunger: No Effect
Energy Intake: No
Effect
Tabular Summaries Table
rated on 100
mm visual
analogue
scales (VAS).
dinner
value reported
Secondary:
P<0.001
Primary: total energy
intake after the
ingestion of
beverages with
sucrose were
significantly higher
than after the
ingestion of
beverages with
intense sweeteners.
Therefore food
intake wasn’t
reduced in response
to a liquid extra
caloric load and
wasn’t increased
after an aspartame
drink. There was no
change in hunger
ratings after the
beverages in any of
the sessions.
Secondary
The E– drinks were
significantly less
palatable than the
Eþ drinks.
Tabular Summaries Table
Lavin et
al. (1997)
14 F
normal
weight
restraine
d eaters
19-25
Aspertame
330 ml * 4
Lemona
de
1)Sucrose
sweetene
d
lemonade
2)Carbon
ated
mineral
water
Over 3
weeks,
2 days
measur
ed (one
in lab,
one at
home)
1)Hunger,
fullness and
prospective
food
consumption
were indicated
on 100mm
visual
analogue
scales
2) Energy
intake using
food scales
-
1) Repeated
measures
analysis of
covariance
(ANCOVA) for
hunger, fullness
and prospective
consumption
2)Energy and
macronutrient
intakes were
evaluated using
analysis of variance
(ANOVA)
1)hunger,
fullness,
prospective
consumption not
significant (no p
value given)
2a) Energy intake
sucrose drink vs
aspartame P<0.01
2b)Energy intakes
not significantly
different for
aspartame vs
water.
Hunger: No effect
Energy Intake:
Increased Vs Sucrose
Increased energy
intake when
consuming
aspartame vs
sucrose sweetened
drink, however no
increase in energy
intake when
comparing
aspartame vs water.
No difference in
hunger or fullness.
Tabular Summaries Table
Steinert
et al.
(2011)
6M
6F
Normal
weight
19-29
-Aspartame
169 mg in
250 ml water
Water
Water,
Water
+glucose,
fructose,
120
mins
Visual
analogue
scales,
100mm for
hunger
GLP-1
Total
PYY,
total
ghrelin,
insulin
and
glucago
n
Blood
glucose
Differences
between water and
either
carbohydrate
sugars or AS were
assessed using the
non-parametric
Friedman
test due to nonnormal data
distribution.
Significant
differences,
pairwise
comparison was
performed
using the Wilcoxon
signed-rank test,
followed by
Bonferroni’s
correction to
account for
multiple
comparison
Primary:
No statistically
significant
difference
between
aspartame,
sugars and water
on appetite
Secondary
Glucose
stimulated GLP-1
(P=0·002) and
peptide tyrosine
tyrosine (PYY;
P=0·046)
secretion and
reduced fasting
plasma ghrelin
(P=0·046),
AS did not affect
gastrointestinal
peptide secretion
with minimal
effects on
appetite.
Hunger: No effect
No significant
difference between
the AS, glucose,
fructose and water
on satiety. The AS
increased satiety and
fullness and reduced
hunger ratings to
an amount that was
intermediate
between the
carbohydrate
sugars and the water
control.
Tabular Summaries Table
Holt et al.
(2000)
11 M
19-30 YO
Normal
weight
Aspartame
131 mg,
acesulfame-K
15 mg 375 ml
Diet
coke
Coke375
ml
Mineral
water 375
ml
20, 110
mins,
through
out day
1)Hunger:100
mm visual
analogue scale
-
1)Significant
differences in the
VAS ratings and
food intake
responses among
the preloads were
analysed
using two-way
repeated measures
ANOVA
2) Food intake:
Food scales
2) The Fisher PLSD
test for multiple
Comparisons for
appetite and food
intake responses
BeridotTherode
et al.
12M, 12F
BMI 1923
50mg/L
aspartame
-Participants
Fruit
drink
-Water
Unsweete
~15
mins
~6.5hr
1)Hunger,
satiation and
hedonic value:
-
1)Hedonic ratings,
energy intake and
macronutrient
1)The total crisp
consumption
not significantly
related to
either the fullness
AUC (r = 0.09, n =
33, NS) or
hunger AUC
vaues (r = 0.15).
2) The highenergy,
drink initially
suppressed
hunger to a
greater
extent than both
the low-energy,
sugar-free soft
drink and mineral
water, but the
differences were
not significant
(Table 2).
3) On average,
there were no
significant
differences in
crisp
consumption
1)Energy intake
during lunch,
dinner: not
Hunger: No Effect
Energy Intake: No
Effect
No stat significant in
hunger/energy
intake.
Intake was slightly
increased in low cal
interventions
throughout day.
Hunger: No effect
Energy Intake: No
effect
Tabular Summaries Table
(1998)
20–25
years
Slightly
dehtdrat
ed
could drink as
much as
wanted
ned drink
-Sucrose
sweetene
d drink
100mm visual
analogue scale
(VAS).
2) Food intake:
weighed all food
and drink: on a
portable
balance Ohaus
electronic
balance LS2000
content were
subjected to an
ANOVA, with
subject as blocking
factor and
beverage as
experimental
Factor
2) Student’s
t
-tests
were used to make
comparisons
between pairs of
treatments.
significant
between
beverages
2)energy
content of
sucrose in
beverage added
to the
food intake, total
energy intake was
significantly
greater in this
condition than
in the other four
[F(4,92)=8·08,
p<0·001].
Subsequent energy
intake didn’t differ
between the 4
beverage conditions,
and there was no
compensation for
caloric intake after
the sucrose
sweetened beverage
was ingested.
3)no significant
difference in the
hunger and
satiation ratings
between the
beverages
King et al.
(1999)
16 M
Mean
age: 21.3
Mean
BMI: 22.8
After
exercisin
g
Aspartame,
dose NA, 790
ml drinka
Fruit
drink
Water
Sucrosesweetene
d fruit
drink
15 mins
1) Visual
analogue scales
(150 mm) were
used to monitor
subjective
feelings of
hunger
1)A two-way
analysis of variance
ANOVA (with time
and
condition as the
repeated
measures) was
used to analyse the
VAS and the pre-
1)hunger
between the
three conditions,
F (2, 30) 5
0.04, NS.
2) energy intake
following the
artificially
Hunger: no effect
Energy Intake:
increasesd
There was no
significant difference
Tabular Summaries Table
/postexercise
sample drinks data.
2) Student’s
t
-tests
were used to make
comparisons
between pairs of
treatments.
Little
(2009)
8 male,
12
female
Mean
age: 29
(range
19–60)
Mean
BMI 23.7
200 mg
Apartame in
500 ml of
intragastric
infusion
Water
1)Sucrose
,
2)glucose
3)fructose
all in
water
0, 5, 10,
15, 30,
and 45
min
Hunger and
fullness were
assessed by
100-mmvisual
analog scale
(VAS)
questionnaire
Gastric
Emptyi
ng was
evalua
ted
using a
[13C]ac
etate
breath
test Each
meal
was
labele
d with
100
mg
[13C]so
dium
acetat
1)VAS scores were
analyzed using
repeated-measures
ANOVA with time
and treatment as
factors.
2)GE data were
analyzed
comparing AUC
values using
repeated-measures
ANOVA with
treatment as a
factor
sweetened (L)
drink vs water
and the
sucrose (H) drinks
(p <
0.05)
1)no statistical
significant
differential effect
of any treatment,
on perceptions of
hunger or fullness
in subjective feelings
of
hunger between the
three conditions
Artificial sweetener
increased
food intake during a
postexercise test
meal, and
carbohydrate
suppressed intake.
Hunger: No Effect
Artificial sweeteners
didn’t significantly
impact subjective
2) Although
measures of hunger
glucose slowed
GE when
and appetite
compared with
compared to
water (P = 0.03),
carbohydrates,
equisweet
however the
solutions of
fructose (P= 0.15) addition of artificial
sweeteners to food
and the artificial
sweeteners
is unlikely to provide
aspartame (P =
health benefits (ex
0.24) and
treatment of obesity
saccharin (P = 1.0)
and type 2 diabetes)
Tabular Summaries Table
e
Melanson
(1999)
10 males
19 and
31 years
BMI:1927
5g
aspartame in
350 g drink
Lemon
flavour
ed
drinks
(350 g)
High fat
drink
Simple
CHO drink
At
baseline
and
random
intervals
through
out day
1)ratings
of hunger,
satiety, and
desire to eat on
100mm visual
analogue scales,
2) Food intake
measured by
food scales
2)
Blood
glucos
e
1) Comparisons
between the
results from the
different
drinks were made
by repeated
measures ANOVA
with a
Scheffe F test
2) Associations
between changes
in blood glucose
and meal initiation
were
tested using the x
2
test for 2 × 2
contingency tables
with
correction for
continuity
did not.
for the regulation of
GE.
1)Ad libitum food
intakes: Not
statistical
significance
Hunger: No effect
Appetite: No effect
2)For all drinks
combined,
declines in blood
glucose and meal
initiation were
significantly
associated (x
216⋅8, P ,0⋅001),
the duration of
blood glucose
responses and
intermeal
intervals
correlated
significantly (R
0⋅715, P =
0⋅0001), and
sweetness
perception
correlated
negatively with
hunger
suppression (R
−0⋅471, P =
Artificial sweetener
did not affect
appetite or food
intake differently
than the other two
test solutions. No
energy intake
compensation
for the group as a
whole was observed
after aspartame
preload ingestion.
In both the
postabsorptive and
postprandial states
transient
declines in blood
glucose were tightly
synchronized with
spontaneous meal
initiation in these
time-blinded males
Tabular Summaries Table
0⋅015).