Non-nutritive sweeteners: evidence for benefit vs. risk : Current Opinion in Lipidology (original) (raw)

NUTRITION AND METABOLISM: Edited by Frank M. Sacks and Lawrence J. Appel

evidence for benefit vs. risk

Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA

Corresponding to Christopher Gardner, PhD, 1265 Welch Road, SPRC X310 Stanford, CA 94305-5411, USA. Tel: +1 650 725 2751; fax: +1 650 725 6247; e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Purpose of review

Intake of added sugars in the American diet is high and has been linked to weight gain and adverse effects on glycemic control and diabetes. Several national health organizations recommend decreasing added sugars intake. Among the many strategies to consider to achieve this reduction is substitution with non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS – artificial sweeteners and stevia). The purpose of this review is to critically examine existing evidence for this strategy.

Recent findings

Short-term intervention studies suggest that NNS, when substituted for added sugars, may be useful in supporting energy intake reduction, and promoting glycemic control and weight management. However, the magnitude of effect in these studies has ranged from modest to null. Compensatory eating behaviors likely diminish, and in some cases negate, potential effects. Findings from longer-term observational studies that examine associations between NNS use and obesity or type 2 diabetes are potentially confounded by reverse causality.

Summary

Existing data are insufficient to clearly support or refute the effectiveness of substitution with NNS as a means of reducing added sugar intake. It is important to not lose sight of the impact of incorporating NNS-containing beverages and foods on overall diet quality when assessing potential health benefits vs. risks.