These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effects of Unsweetened Preloads and Preloads Sweetened with Caloric or Low-/No-Calorie Sweeteners on Subsequent Energy Intakes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Human Intervention Studies.
    Author: Lee HY, Jack M, Poon T, Noori D, Venditti C, Hamamji S, Musa-Veloso K.
    Journal: Adv Nutr; 2021 Jul 30; 12(4):1481-1499. PubMed ID: 33439973.
    Abstract:
    Effects of isocaloric (sweetness differences but constant calories) preloads and isosweet (caloric differences but constant sweetness) preloads, as well as preloads that were neither isosweet nor isocaloric (sweetness and caloric differences) on subsequent ad libitum meal and total (preload + ad libitum) energy intakes were investigated. Thirty-five crossover studies were eligible for inclusion, representing 116 comparisons (41, isocaloric; 41, isosweet; and 34, neither isosweet nor isocaloric). References of existing reviews and literature from 4 databases were searched. The calculated raw mean differences in ad libitum and total energy intakes were pooled in meta-analyses using a random-effects model and the inverse of the variance as the weighting factor. Energy intakes at an ad libitum meal were significantly lower for low-/no-calorie sweetener (LNCS)-sweetened compared with unsweetened preloads in the isocaloric comparison (-55.5 kcal; 95% CI: -82.9, -28.0 kcal; P < 0.001); however, the difference in energy intake was not significant in additional sensitivity analyses (i.e., removal of comparisons where the matrix was a capsule and when xylitol was the LNCS). For the isosweet comparison, although the pooled energy intake at the ad libitum meal was significantly greater with the LNCS-sweetened preload compared with the caloric sweetener (CS)-sweetened preload (58.5 kcal; 95% CI: 35.4, 81.7 kcal; P < 0.001), the pattern was reversed when total energy intake was considered (-132.4 kcal; 95% CI: -163.2, -101.6 kcal; P < 0.001), explained by only partial compensation from the CS-sweetened preload. The results were similar when assessing ad libitum and total energy intakes when unsweetened compared with CS-sweetened preloads were consumed. Unsweetened or LNCS-sweetened preloads appear to have similar effects on intakes when compared with one another or with CS-sweetened preloads. These findings suggest that LNCS-sweetened foods and beverages are viable alternatives to CS-sweetened foods and beverages to manage short-term energy intake.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]