Energy compensation following consumption of sugar-reduced products: a randomized controlled trial

Markey, Oonagh; Jeune, Julia Le; Lovegrove, Julie A.

doi:10.1007/s00394-015-1028-5

Cited by 38 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of 285 reports reviewed in full, an additional 164 reports were excluded for failure to meet the eligibility criteria. The final analysis included 118 reports of controlled intervention studies, 5 11 12 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food sources of fructose-containing sugars and glycaemic control: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention studies

Choo

Viguiliouk

Mejía

et al. 2018

BMJ

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo assess the effect of different food sources of fructose-containing sugars on glycaemic control at different levels of energy control.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention studies.Data sourcesMedine, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to 25 April 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesControlled intervention studies of at least seven days’ duration and assessing the effect of different food sources of fructose-containing sugars on glycaemic control in people with and without diabetes were included. Four study designs were prespecified on the basis of energy control: substitution studies (sugars in energy matched comparisons with other macronutrients), addition studies (excess energy from sugars added to diets), subtraction studies (energy from sugars subtracted from diets), and ad libitum studies (sugars freely replaced by other macronutrients without control for energy). Outcomes were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose, and fasting blood glucose insulin.Data extraction and synthesisFour independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled by random effects models and overall certainty of the evidence assessed by the GRADE approach (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation).Results155 study comparisons (n=5086) were included. Total fructose-containing sugars had no harmful effect on any outcome in substitution or subtraction studies, with a decrease seen in HbA1c in substitution studies (mean difference −0.22% (95% confidence interval to −0.35% to −0.08%), −25.9 mmol/mol (−27.3 to −24.4)), but a harmful effect was seen on fasting insulin in addition studies (4.68 pmol/L (1.40 to 7.96)) and ad libitum studies (7.24 pmol/L (0.47 to 14.00)). There was interaction by food source, with specific food sources showing beneficial effects (fruit and fruit juice) or harmful effects (sweetened milk and mixed sources) in substitution studies and harmful effects (sugars-sweetened beverages and fruit juice) in addition studies on at least one outcome. Most of the evidence was low quality.ConclusionsEnergy control and food source appear to mediate the effect of fructose-containing sugars on glycaemic control. Although most food sources of these sugars (especially fruit) do not have a harmful effect in energy matched substitutions with other macronutrients, several food sources of fructose-containing sugars (especially sugars-sweetened beverages) adding excess energy to diets have harmful effects. However, certainty in these estimates is low, and more high quality randomised controlled trials are needed.Study registrationClinicaltrials.gov (NCT02716870).

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food sources of fructose-containing sugars and glycaemic control: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention studies

Choo

Viguiliouk

Mejía

et al. 2018

BMJ

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We found 31 interventional studies (27 RCTs [ 58 , 61 , 62 , 74 , 77 , 184 – 205 ] and 4 non-RCTs [ 67 , 68 , 79 , 206 ]) and 36 observational studies [ 158 , 159 , 202 , 203 , 207 – 241 ] on the effect of NNS consumption on BMI or weight change, including recently published studies, which were not included in the systematic reviews presented above.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health outcomes of non-nutritive sweeteners: analysis of the research landscape

Lohner

Toews

Meerpohl

2017

Nutr J

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundFood products containing non-nutritive sweeteners (NNSs) instead of sugar have become increasingly popular in the last decades. Their appeal is obviously related to their calorie-free sweet taste. However, with the dramatic increase in their consumption, it is reasonable and timely to evaluate their potential health benefits and, more importantly, potential adverse effects. The main aim of this scoping review was to map the evidence about health outcomes possibly associated with regular NNS consumption by examining the extent, range, and nature of research activity in this area.MethodsWe systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane CENTRAL databases for studies on NNSs (artificial sweeteners or natural, non-caloric sweeteners, either used individually or in combination) using text terms with appropriate truncation and relevant indexing terms. All human studies investigating any health outcomes of a NNS intervention or exposure were eligible for inclusion. No studies were excluded based on language, study design or methodological quality. Data for each health outcome were summarized in tabular form and were discussed narratively.ResultsFinally, we included 372 studies in our scoping review, comprising 15 systematic reviews, 155 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 23 non-randomized controlled trials, 57 cohort studies, 52 case-control studies, 28 cross sectional studies and 42 case series/case reports.In healthy subjects, appetite and short term food intake, risk of cancer, risk of diabetes, risk of dental caries, weight gain and risk of obesity are the most investigated health outcomes. Overall there is no conclusive evidence for beneficial and harmful effects on those outcomes. Numerous health outcomes including headaches, depression, behavioral and cognitive effects, neurological effects, risk of preterm delivery, cardiovascular effects or risk of chronic kidney disease were investigated in fewer studies and further research is needed. In subjects with diabetes and hypertension, the evidence regarding health outcomes of NNS use is also inconsistent.ConclusionsThis scoping review identifies the needs for future research to address the numerous evidence gaps related to health effects of NNSs use.It also specifies the research questions and areas where a systematic review with meta-analyses is required for the proper evaluation of health outcomes associated to regular NNSs consumption.

show abstract

“…Participants (female, n=15; male, n=5; age, 36.3 years; body mass index, 22.9 kg/m 2 ) had recorded their food consumption over a 24-hour period using standard protocols [11]. Briefly, the WFR consisted of recording the time, brand name, description of food or drink, cooking method, weight (grams) and leftovers (grams) prospectively.…”

Section: Dietary Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Popular Nutrition-Related Mobile Apps: An Agreement Assessment Against a UK Reference Method (Preprint)

Fallaize¹,

Franco²,

Pasang³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Nutrition-related apps are commonly used to provide information about the users' dietary intake, but limited research has been performed on the evaluation of their reliability. Objective: To evaluate the relative reliability of popular nutrition-related apps for the assessment of energy and available macro-and micronutrients against a standard method. Methods: Dietary analysis of 24-hour weighed food records (n = 20) were compared between five nutrition-related apps: S Health, MyFitnessPal, FatSecret, Noom Coach and Lose It!, and DietPlan6 (reference method). Estimates of energy, macronutrients (carbohydrate, protein, fat, saturated fat and fibre) and micronutrients (sodium, calcium, iron, vitamin A and vitamin C) were compared using t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. 24-hour weighed food records from 20 participants (female/male, 15/5; mean age, 36.3 years; mean body mass index, 22.9 kg/m 2 ) recruited from previous controlled studies conducted at the Hugh Sinclair Unit of Human Nutrition, University of Reading, UK. Results: No significant difference in estimation of energy and saturated fat intake between DietPlan6 and the diet apps was observed. Estimates of protein and sodium intake were significantly lower using Lose It! and FatSecret than DietPlan6. Lose It! also gave significantly lower estimates for other reported outputs: carbohydrate, fat, fibre and sodium, compared with DietPlan6. For S Health and MyFitnessPal, calcium, iron and vitamin C were all significantly under-estimated compared with DietPlan6, although there was no significant difference for vitamin A. No other significant differences were observed between DietPlan6 and the apps. Correlation coefficients ranged from -0.12 for iron (S Health vs. DietPlan6) to 0.91 for protein (FatSecret vs DietPlan6). Noom Coach was limited to energy output but it had a high correlation with DietPlan6 (r=0.91) and S Health had the greatest variation of correlation, with energy at 0.79. Bland-Altman analysis revealed potential proportional bias for vitamin A. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the apps provide comparable estimates of energy and saturated fat intake compared with DietPlan6. With the exception of Lose It!, the apps also provided comparable estimates of carbohydrate, total fat and fibre. Two apps displayed a tendency to underestimate protein and sodium (FatSecret and Lose It!). Apart from vitamin A, the estimates of micronutrient intake (calcium, iron and vitamin C) by the two apps (S Health and MyFitnessPal) were inconsistent and less reliable. Lose It! was the less comparable app in relation to DietPlan6. As the use and availability of apps grows, this study helps clinicians and researchers to make betterinformed decisions about using these apps in research and practice.

show abstract

Energy compensation following consumption of sugar-reduced products: a randomized controlled trial

Cited by 38 publications

References 51 publications

Food sources of fructose-containing sugars and glycaemic control: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention studies

Food sources of fructose-containing sugars and glycaemic control: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention studies

Health outcomes of non-nutritive sweeteners: analysis of the research landscape

Popular Nutrition-Related Mobile Apps: An Agreement Assessment Against a UK Reference Method (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About