Applied Evidence

What we know—and don’t—about non-nutritive sweeteners

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

However, subsequent research studies found no relationship between the use of NNSs and appetite.28-30 Mattes and colleagues hypothesized that such a difference in findings could result from the fact that earlier studies focused on isolating NNSs from other energy-yielding products, which emphasized an association with heightened hunger.29 Subsequent studies showed that when NNSs were incorporated into energy-yielding products, there was no association between NNSs and increased hunger or appetite.

DO NNSs INCREASE THE RISK FOR TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS?

The data are mixed. One study of women participating in the Nurses’ Health Study II showed that those who consumed caffeinated, artificially-sweetened beverages had a 35% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); however, this risk was no longer significant after adjusting for BMI and energy intake.31

The Health Professionals Follow-Up Trial studied more than 40,000 men for more than 20 years and found that NNS consumption increased the risk of developing T2DM by 40%.32 However, this finding lost statistical significance after adjusting for BMI.32

These results make it difficult to determine whether there is any association between NNSs and T2DM; rather NNS-containing beverages are likely consumed more often by those who have higher BMIs and by those trying to lose weight.

A 2017 randomized crossover study involving 10 healthy men looked at the effects of a variety of caloric and non-caloric sweeteners on 24-hour glucose profiles and found no differences.33 Another study, a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial involving 60 non-obese adults without diabetes who did not consume NNSs, randomized the participants one-to-one to drink either 2 cans per day of either a beverage containing aspartame and acesulfame K or an unsweetened, no-calorie beverage for 12 weeks.34

Continue to: After a 4-week washout period...

Pages

Recommended Reading

The costs and benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors & GLP-1 RAs
MDedge Family Medicine
BMI screening trigger for type 2 diabetes is unreliable for at-risk black, Hispanic adults
MDedge Family Medicine
CARMELINA confirms linagliptin’s renal, CV safety, but it’s still third-line for type 2 diabetes
MDedge Family Medicine
FDA declines dapagliflozin indication as adjunct for type 1 diabetes
MDedge Family Medicine
Plant-based foods could keep type 2 diabetes at bay
MDedge Family Medicine
DECLARE-TIMI58 shows improved kidney function with dapagliflozin
MDedge Family Medicine
Inadequate glycemic control in type 1 diabetes leads to increased fracture risk
MDedge Family Medicine
No increase in UTI risk with SGLT-2 inhibitors
MDedge Family Medicine
Endocrine Society advises on diabetes care for older adults
MDedge Family Medicine
GLP-1 agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors offer more options in diabetes management
MDedge Family Medicine