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.

Summary Objectives:  In many countries, recent data on the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are available. However, in England, there is a paucity of such data. We sought to determine the prevalence and predictors of CAM use in England. Design:  Data were obtained from the Health Survey for England 2005, a national household survey that included questions on CAM use. We used binary logistic regression modelling to explore whether demographic, health and lifestyle factors predict CAM use. Results:  Data were available for 7630 respondents (household response rate 71%). Lifetime and 12‐month prevalence of CAM use were 44.0% and 26.3% respectively; 12.1% had consulted a practitioner in the preceding 12 months. Massage, aromatherapy and acupuncture were the most commonly used therapies. Twenty‐nine percent of respondents taking prescription drugs had used CAM in the last 12 months. Women (OR 0.491, 95% CI: 0.419, 0.577), university educated respondents (OR 1.296, 95% CI: 1.088, 1.544), those suffering from anxiety or depression (OR 1.341, 95% CI: 1.074, 1.674), people with poorer mental health (on GHQ: OR 1.062, 95% CI 1.026, 1.100) and lower levels of perceived social support (1.047, 95% CI: 1.008, 1.088), people consuming ≥ 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day (OR 1.327, 95% CI: 1.124, 1.567) were significantly more likely to use CAM. Conclusion:  Complementary and alternative medicine use in England remains substantial, even amongst those taking prescription drugs. These data serve as a valuable reminder to medical practitioners to ask patients about CAM use and should be routinely collected to facilitate prioritisation of the research agenda in CAM.

Total sedentary time was consistently shown to be associated with poorer insulin sensitivity, even after adjusting for time spent in physical activity. This finding supports the proposed association between sedentary time and the development of Type 2 diabetes and reinforces the need to identify interventions to reduce time spent sedentary.