This report describes a set of scientific procedures used to assess the impact of foods and food ingredients on the expression of appetite (psychological and behavioural). An overarching priority has been to enable potential evaluators of health claims about foods to identify justified claims, and to exclude claims that are not supported by scientific evidence for the effect cited. This priority follows precisely from the principles set down in the PASSCLAIM report. (4) The report allows the evaluation of the strength of health claims, about the effects of foods on appetite, which can be sustained on the basis of the commonly used scientific designs and experimental procedures. The report includes different designs for assessing effects on satiation as opposed to satiety,detailed coverage of the extent to which a change in hunger can stand-alone as a measure of appetite control, and an extensive discussion of the statistical procedures appropriate for handling data in this field of research.Since research in this area is continually evolving, new improved methodologies may emerge over time and will need to be incorporated into the framework. One main objective of the report has been to produce guidance on good practice in carrying out appetite research, and not to set down a series of commandments that must be followed.

By reducing energy density, low-energy sweeteners (LES) might be expected to reduce energy intake (EI) and body weight (BW). To assess the totality of the evidence testing the null hypothesis that LES exposure (versus sugars or unsweetened alternatives) has no effect on EI or BW, we conducted a systematic review of relevant studies in animals and humans consuming LES with ad libitum access to food energy. In 62 of 90 animal studies exposure to LES did not affect or decreased BW. Of 28 reporting increased BW, 19 compared LES with glucose exposure using a specific ‘learning' paradigm. Twelve prospective cohort studies in humans reported inconsistent associations between LES use and body mass index (−0.002 kg m−2 per year, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.009 to 0.005). Meta-analysis of short-term randomized controlled trials (129 comparisons) showed reduced total EI for LES versus sugar-sweetened food or beverage consumption before an ad libitum meal (−94 kcal, 95% CI −122 to −66), with no difference versus water (−2 kcal, 95% CI −30 to 26). This was consistent with EI results from sustained intervention randomized controlled trials (10 comparisons). Meta-analysis of sustained intervention randomized controlled trials (4 weeks to 40 months) showed that consumption of LES versus sugar led to relatively reduced BW (nine comparisons; −1.35 kg, 95% CI –2.28 to −0.42), and a similar relative reduction in BW versus water (three comparisons; −1.24 kg, 95% CI –2.22 to −0.26). Most animal studies did not mimic LES consumption by humans, and reverse causation may influence the results of prospective cohort studies. The preponderance of evidence from all human randomized controlled trials indicates that LES do not increase EI or BW, whether compared with caloric or non-caloric (for example, water) control conditions. Overall, the balance of evidence indicates that use of LES in place of sugar, in children and adults, leads to reduced EI and BW, and possibly also when compared with water.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract