Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Sep 1;4(9):e2126313.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.26313.

Obesity and Sex-Related Associations With Differential Effects of Sucralose vs Sucrose on Appetite and Reward Processing: A Randomized Crossover Trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Obesity and Sex-Related Associations With Differential Effects of Sucralose vs Sucrose on Appetite and Reward Processing: A Randomized Crossover Trial

Alexandra G Yunker et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Nonnutritive sweeteners (NNSs) are used as an alternative to nutritive sweeteners to quench desire for sweets while reducing caloric intake. However, studies have shown mixed results concerning the effects of NNSs on appetite, and the associations between sex and obesity with reward and appetitive responses to NNS compared with nutritive sugar are unknown.

Objective: To examine neural reactivity to different types of high-calorie food cues (ie, sweet and savory), metabolic responses, and eating behavior following consumption of sucralose (NNS) vs sucrose (nutritive sugar) among healthy young adults.

Design, setting, and participants: In a randomized, within-participant, crossover trial including 3 separate visits, participants underwent a functional magnetic resonance imaging task measuring blood oxygen level-dependent signal in response to visual cues. For each study visit, participants arrived at the Dornsife Cognitive Neuroimaging Center of University of Southern California at approximately 8:00 am after a 12-hour overnight fast. Blood was sampled at baseline and 10, 35, and 120 minutes after participants received a drink containing sucrose, sucralose, or water to measure plasma glucose, insulin, glucagon-like peptide(7-36), acyl-ghrelin, total peptide YY, and leptin. Participants were then presented with an ad libitum meal. Participants were right-handed, nonsmokers, weight-stable for at least 3 months before the study visits, nondieters, not taking medication, and with no history of eating disorders, illicit drug use, or medical diagnoses. Data analysis was performed from March 2020 to March 2021.

Interventions: Participants ingested 300-mL drinks containing either sucrose (75 g), sucralose (individually sweetness matched), or water (as a control).

Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcomes of interest were the effects of body mass index (BMI) status and sex on blood oxygen level-dependent signal to high-calorie food cues, endocrine, and feeding responses following sucralose vs sucrose consumption. Secondary outcomes included neural, endocrine, and feeding responses following sucrose vs water and sucralose vs water (control) consumption, and cue-induced appetite ratings following sucralose vs sucrose (and vs water).

Results: A total of 76 participants were randomized, but 2 dropped out, leaving 74 adults (43 women [58%]; mean [SD] age, 23.40 [3.96] years; BMI range, 19.18-40.27) who completed the study. In this crossover design, 73 participants each received water (drink 1) and sucrose (drink 2), and 72 participants received water (drink 1), sucrose (drink 2), and sucralose (drink 3). Sucrose vs sucralose was associated with greater production of circulating glucose, insulin, and glucagon-like peptide-1 and suppression of acyl-ghrelin, but no differences were found for peptide YY or leptin. BMI status by drink interactions were observed in the medial frontal cortex (MFC; P for interaction < .001) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC; P for interaction = .002). Individuals with obesity (MFC, β, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.83; P < .001; OFC, β, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.43; P = .002), but not those with overweight (MFC, β, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.23; P = .87; OFC, β, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.21 to 0.09; P = .41) or healthy weight (MFC, β, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.34 to 0.07; P = .21; OFC, β, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.06; P = .16), exhibited greater responsivity in the MFC and OFC to savory food cues after sucralose vs sucrose. Sex by drink interactions were observed in the MFC (P for interaction = .03) and OFC (P for interaction = .03) after consumption of sucralose vs sucrose. Female participants had greater MFC and OFC responses to food cues (MFC high-calorie vs low-calorie cues, β, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.37; P = .01; MFC sweet vs nonfood cues, β, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.42; P = .03; OFC food vs nonfood cues, β, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.22; P = .03; and OFC sweet vs nonfood cues, β, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.27; P = .01), but male participants' responses did not differ (MFC high-calorie vs low-calorie cues, β, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.21; P = .90; MFC sweet vs nonfood cues, β, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.18; P = .69; OFC food vs nonfood cues, β, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.08; P = .32; OFC sweet vs nonfood cues, β, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.31 to 0.09; P = .31). A sex by drink interaction on total calories consumed during the buffet meal was observed (P for interaction = .03). Female participants consumed greater total calories (β, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.38 to 3.08; P = .01), whereas caloric intake did not differ in male participants (β, 0.68; 95% CI, -0.99 to 2.35; P = .42) after sucralose vs sucrose ingestion.

Conclusions and relevance: These findings suggest that female individuals and those with obesity may be particularly sensitive to disparate neural responsivity elicited by sucralose compared with sucrose consumption.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02945475.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Overview of Study Visits
BOLD indicates blood oxygen level–dependent; MPRAGE, 3D magnetization prepared rapid gradient echo sequence. aDrinks were either 75 g of sucrose in 300 mL of water, sucralose (1.5, 2, or 3 mM based on individual sweetness match to sucrose drink) in 300 mL of water, or plain water (300 mL).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Participant Enrollment Flowchart for the Randomized Crossover Brain Response to Sugar II Trial
aOf the 76 participants who received at least 1 drink allocation, 2 participants received neither of the primary drink (ie, drink 2 or drink 3) allocations because of drop-out, and therefore were excluded from this analysis (n = 74).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Brain Magnetic Resonance Images and Blood Oxygen Level–Dependent (BOLD) Signals
Panels A and B show region of interest (ROI) masks for medial frontal cortex (MFC) (total voxels = 568; center voxel, 0 x-axis, 44 y-axis, −19 z-axis) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) (total voxels, 1695; center voxel left, −29 x-axis, 21 y-axis, and −17 z-axis; center voxel right, 28 x-axis, 22 y-axis, and −17 z-axis) derived from the Harvard-Oxford subcortical atlas. Data in panels C through H, show MFC and OFC BOLD signal after consumption of sucralose vs sucrose stratified by body mass index (BMI) group (C and D) and sex (E-H), in food cue contrasts where significant interactions between BMI group and drink or between sex and drink were found. Data are unadjusted mean and SEM (denoted by the error bars) for visual and interpretive purposes, but all statistical analyses were adjusted for covariates and multiple ROI and food cue contrast comparisons.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sylvetsky AC, Jin Y, Clark EJ, Welsh JA, Rother KI, Talegawkar SA. Consumption of low-calorie sweeteners among children and adults in the United States. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017;117(3):441-448.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2016.11.004 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rogers PJ, Hogenkamp PS, de Graaf C, et al. . Does low-energy sweetener consumption affect energy intake and body weight? a systematic review, including meta-analyses, of the evidence from human and animal studies. Int J Obes (Lond). 2016;40(3):381-394. doi:10.1038/ijo.2015.177 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Peters JC, Beck J. Low calorie sweetener (LCS) use and energy balance. Physiol Behav. 2016;164(Pt B):524-528. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.03.024 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Burke MV, Small DM. Physiological mechanisms by which non-nutritive sweeteners may impact body weight and metabolism. Physiol Behav. 2015;152(Pt B):381-388. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.05.036 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lohner S, Toews I, Meerpohl JJ. Health outcomes of non-nutritive sweeteners: analysis of the research landscape. Nutr J. 2017;16(1):55. doi:10.1186/s12937-017-0278-x - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data