Obesity and Sex-Related Associations With Differential Effects of Sucralose vs Sucrose on Appetite and Reward Processing: A Randomized Crossover Trial

Alexandra G Yunker, Jasmin M Alves, Shan Luo, Brendan Angelo, Alexis DeFendis, Trevor A Pickering, John R Monterosso, Kathleen A Page, Alexandra G Yunker, Jasmin M Alves, Shan Luo, Brendan Angelo, Alexis DeFendis, Trevor A Pickering, John R Monterosso, Kathleen A Page

Abstract

Importance: Nonnutritive sweeteners (NNSs) are used as an alternative to nutritive sweeteners to quench desire for sweets while reducing caloric intake. However, studies have shown mixed results concerning the effects of NNSs on appetite, and the associations between sex and obesity with reward and appetitive responses to NNS compared with nutritive sugar are unknown.

Objective: To examine neural reactivity to different types of high-calorie food cues (ie, sweet and savory), metabolic responses, and eating behavior following consumption of sucralose (NNS) vs sucrose (nutritive sugar) among healthy young adults.

Design, setting, and participants: In a randomized, within-participant, crossover trial including 3 separate visits, participants underwent a functional magnetic resonance imaging task measuring blood oxygen level-dependent signal in response to visual cues. For each study visit, participants arrived at the Dornsife Cognitive Neuroimaging Center of University of Southern California at approximately 8:00 am after a 12-hour overnight fast. Blood was sampled at baseline and 10, 35, and 120 minutes after participants received a drink containing sucrose, sucralose, or water to measure plasma glucose, insulin, glucagon-like peptide(7-36), acyl-ghrelin, total peptide YY, and leptin. Participants were then presented with an ad libitum meal. Participants were right-handed, nonsmokers, weight-stable for at least 3 months before the study visits, nondieters, not taking medication, and with no history of eating disorders, illicit drug use, or medical diagnoses. Data analysis was performed from March 2020 to March 2021.

Interventions: Participants ingested 300-mL drinks containing either sucrose (75 g), sucralose (individually sweetness matched), or water (as a control).

Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcomes of interest were the effects of body mass index (BMI) status and sex on blood oxygen level-dependent signal to high-calorie food cues, endocrine, and feeding responses following sucralose vs sucrose consumption. Secondary outcomes included neural, endocrine, and feeding responses following sucrose vs water and sucralose vs water (control) consumption, and cue-induced appetite ratings following sucralose vs sucrose (and vs water).

Results: A total of 76 participants were randomized, but 2 dropped out, leaving 74 adults (43 women [58%]; mean [SD] age, 23.40 [3.96] years; BMI range, 19.18-40.27) who completed the study. In this crossover design, 73 participants each received water (drink 1) and sucrose (drink 2), and 72 participants received water (drink 1), sucrose (drink 2), and sucralose (drink 3). Sucrose vs sucralose was associated with greater production of circulating glucose, insulin, and glucagon-like peptide-1 and suppression of acyl-ghrelin, but no differences were found for peptide YY or leptin. BMI status by drink interactions were observed in the medial frontal cortex (MFC; P for interaction < .001) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC; P for interaction = .002). Individuals with obesity (MFC, β, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.83; P < .001; OFC, β, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.43; P = .002), but not those with overweight (MFC, β, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.23; P = .87; OFC, β, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.21 to 0.09; P = .41) or healthy weight (MFC, β, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.34 to 0.07; P = .21; OFC, β, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.06; P = .16), exhibited greater responsivity in the MFC and OFC to savory food cues after sucralose vs sucrose. Sex by drink interactions were observed in the MFC (P for interaction = .03) and OFC (P for interaction = .03) after consumption of sucralose vs sucrose. Female participants had greater MFC and OFC responses to food cues (MFC high-calorie vs low-calorie cues, β, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.37; P = .01; MFC sweet vs nonfood cues, β, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.42; P = .03; OFC food vs nonfood cues, β, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.22; P = .03; and OFC sweet vs nonfood cues, β, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.27; P = .01), but male participants' responses did not differ (MFC high-calorie vs low-calorie cues, β, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.21; P = .90; MFC sweet vs nonfood cues, β, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.18; P = .69; OFC food vs nonfood cues, β, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.08; P = .32; OFC sweet vs nonfood cues, β, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.31 to 0.09; P = .31). A sex by drink interaction on total calories consumed during the buffet meal was observed (P for interaction = .03). Female participants consumed greater total calories (β, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.38 to 3.08; P = .01), whereas caloric intake did not differ in male participants (β, 0.68; 95% CI, -0.99 to 2.35; P = .42) after sucralose vs sucrose ingestion.

Conclusions and relevance: These findings suggest that female individuals and those with obesity may be particularly sensitive to disparate neural responsivity elicited by sucralose compared with sucrose consumption.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02945475.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1.. Overview of Study Visits
Figure 1.. Overview of Study Visits
BOLD indicates blood oxygen level–dependent; MPRAGE, 3D magnetization prepared rapid gradient echo sequence. aDrinks were either 75 g of sucrose in 300 mL of water, sucralose (1.5, 2, or 3 mM based on individual sweetness match to sucrose drink) in 300 mL of water, or plain water (300 mL).
Figure 2.. Participant Enrollment Flowchart for the…
Figure 2.. Participant Enrollment Flowchart for the Randomized Crossover Brain Response to Sugar II Trial
aOf the 76 participants who received at least 1 drink allocation, 2 participants received neither of the primary drink (ie, drink 2 or drink 3) allocations because of drop-out, and therefore were excluded from this analysis (n = 74).
Figure 3.. Brain Magnetic Resonance Images and…
Figure 3.. Brain Magnetic Resonance Images and Blood Oxygen Level–Dependent (BOLD) Signals
Panels A and B show region of interest (ROI) masks for medial frontal cortex (MFC) (total voxels = 568; center voxel, 0 x-axis, 44 y-axis, −19 z-axis) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) (total voxels, 1695; center voxel left, −29 x-axis, 21 y-axis, and −17 z-axis; center voxel right, 28 x-axis, 22 y-axis, and −17 z-axis) derived from the Harvard-Oxford subcortical atlas. Data in panels C through H, show MFC and OFC BOLD signal after consumption of sucralose vs sucrose stratified by body mass index (BMI) group (C and D) and sex (E-H), in food cue contrasts where significant interactions between BMI group and drink or between sex and drink were found. Data are unadjusted mean and SEM (denoted by the error bars) for visual and interpretive purposes, but all statistical analyses were adjusted for covariates and multiple ROI and food cue contrast comparisons.

References

    1. Sylvetsky AC, Jin Y, Clark EJ, Welsh JA, Rother KI, Talegawkar SA. Consumption of low-calorie sweeteners among children and adults in the United States. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017;117(3):441-448.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2016.11.004
    1. Rogers PJ, Hogenkamp PS, de Graaf C, et al. . Does low-energy sweetener consumption affect energy intake and body weight? a systematic review, including meta-analyses, of the evidence from human and animal studies. Int J Obes (Lond). 2016;40(3):381-394. doi:10.1038/ijo.2015.177
    1. Peters JC, Beck J. Low calorie sweetener (LCS) use and energy balance. Physiol Behav. 2016;164(Pt B):524-528. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.03.024
    1. Burke MV, Small DM. Physiological mechanisms by which non-nutritive sweeteners may impact body weight and metabolism. Physiol Behav. 2015;152(Pt B):381-388. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.05.036
    1. Lohner S, Toews I, Meerpohl JJ. Health outcomes of non-nutritive sweeteners: analysis of the research landscape. Nutr J. 2017;16(1):55. doi:10.1186/s12937-017-0278-x
    1. Toews I, Lohner S, Küllenberg de Gaudry D, Sommer H, Meerpohl JJ. Association between intake of non-sugar sweeteners and health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ. 2019;364:k4718. doi:10.1136/bmj.k4718
    1. Gardner C. Non-nutritive sweeteners: evidence for benefit vs. risk. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2014;25(1):80-84. doi:10.1097/MOL.0000000000000034
    1. Yunker AG, Patel R, Page KA. Effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on sweet taste processing and neuroendocrine regulation of eating behavior. Curr Nutr Rep. 2020;9(3):278-289. doi:10.1007/s13668-020-00323-3
    1. Frank GKW, Oberndorfer TA, Simmons AN, et al. . Sucrose activates human taste pathways differently from artificial sweetener. Neuroimage. 2008;39(4):1559-1569. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.10.061
    1. Smeets PAM, Weijzen P, de Graaf C, Viergever MA. Consumption of caloric and non-caloric versions of a soft drink differentially affects brain activation during tasting. Neuroimage. 2011;54(2):1367-1374. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.054
    1. van Opstal AM, Kaal I, van den Berg-Huysmans AA, et al. . Dietary sugars and non-caloric sweeteners elicit different homeostatic and hedonic responses in the brain. Nutrition. 2019;60:80-86. doi:10.1016/j.nut.2018.09.004
    1. Crézé C, Candal L, Cros J, et al. . The impact of caloric and non-caloric sweeteners on food intake and brain responses to food: a randomized crossover controlled trial in healthy humans. Nutrients. 2018;10(5):615. doi:10.3390/nu10050615
    1. Rudenga KJ, Small DM. Amygdala response to sucrose consumption is inversely related to artificial sweetener use. Appetite. 2012;58(2):504-507. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.12.001
    1. Green E, Murphy C. Altered processing of sweet taste in the brain of diet soda drinkers. Physiol Behav. 2012;107(4):560-567. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.05.006
    1. Opstal AMV, Hafkemeijer A, Berg-Huysmans AA, et al. . Brain activity and connectivity changes in response to nutritive natural sugars, non-nutritive natural sugar replacements and artificial sweeteners. Nutr Neurosci. 2021;24(5):395-405. doi:10.1080/1028415X.2019.1639306
    1. Smeets PAM, de Graaf C, Stafleu A, van Osch MJP, van der Grond J. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of human hypothalamic responses to sweet taste and calories. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;82(5):1011-1016. doi:10.1093/ajcn/82.5.1011
    1. van Rijn I, de Graaf C, Smeets PAM. Tasting calories differentially affects brain activation during hunger and satiety. Behav Brain Res. 2015;279:139-147. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2014.11.019
    1. Crézé C, Notter-Bielser M-L, Knebel J-F, et al. . The impact of replacing sugar- by artificially-sweetened beverages on brain and behavioral responses to food viewing: an exploratory study. Appetite. 2018;123:160-168. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.12.019
    1. Epstein LH, Paluch R, Coleman KJ. Differences in salivation to repeated food cues in obese and nonobese women. Psychosom Med. 1996;58(2):160-164. doi:10.1097/00006842-199603000-00011
    1. Ferriday D, Brunstrom JM. ‘I just can’t help myself’: effects of food-cue exposure in overweight and lean individuals. Int J Obes (Lond). 2011;35(1):142-149. doi:10.1038/ijo.2010.117
    1. Swithers SE, Sample CH, Davidson TL. Adverse effects of high-intensity sweeteners on energy intake and weight control in male and obesity-prone female rats. Behav Neurosci. 2013;127(2):262-274. doi:10.1037/a0031717
    1. Rothemund Y, Preuschhof C, Bohner G, et al. . Differential activation of the dorsal striatum by high-calorie visual food stimuli in obese individuals. Neuroimage. 2007;37(2):410-421. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.05.008
    1. Stoeckel LE, Weller RE, Cook EW III, Twieg DB, Knowlton RC, Cox JE. Widespread reward-system activation in obese women in response to pictures of high-calorie foods. Neuroimage. 2008;41(2):636-647. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.02.031
    1. Uher R, Treasure J, Heining M, Brammer MJ, Campbell IC. Cerebral processing of food-related stimuli: effects of fasting and gender. Behav Brain Res. 2006;169(1):111-119. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2005.12.008
    1. Cornier M-A, Salzberg AK, Endly DC, Bessesen DH, Tregellas JR. Sex-based differences in the behavioral and neuronal responses to food. Physiol Behav. 2010;99(4):538-543. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.01.008
    1. Killgore WDS, Weber M, Schwab ZJ, et al. . Cortico-limbic responsiveness to high-calorie food images predicts weight status among women. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013;37(11):1435-1442. doi:10.1038/ijo.2013.26
    1. Stanhope KL, Havel PJ. Endocrine and metabolic effects of consuming beverages sweetened with fructose, glucose, sucrose, or high-fructose corn syrup. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;88(6):1733S-1737S. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.25825D
    1. Galderisi A, Giannini C, Van Name M, Caprio S. Fructose consumption contributes to hyperinsulinemia in adolescents with obesity through a GLP-1 mediated mechanism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(8):3481-3490. doi:10.1210/jc.2019-00161
    1. Yunker AG, Luo S, Jones S, et al. . Appetite-regulating hormones are reduced after oral sucrose vs glucose: influence of obesity, insulin resistance, and sex. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021;106(3):654-664. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgaa865
    1. Page K, Luo S, Dorton H, et al. . Neural mechanisms for appetitive response for high reward foods. July 30, 2020. Accessed August 25, 2021.
    1. Blechert J, Meule A, Busch NA, Ohla K. Food-pics: an image database for experimental research on eating and appetite. Front Psychol. 2014;5:617. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00617
    1. Dorton HM, Luo S, Monterosso JR, Page KA. Influences of dietary added sugar consumption on striatal food-cue reactivity and postprandial GLP-1 response. Front Psychiatry. 2018;8:297. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00297
    1. Chen J, Papies EK, Barsalou LW. A core eating network and its modulations underlie diverse eating phenomena. Brain Cogn. 2016;110:20-42. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2016.04.004
    1. Mehta S, Melhorn SJ, Smeraglio A, et al. . Regional brain response to visual food cues is a marker of satiety that predicts food choice. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96(5):989-999. doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.042341
    1. Page KA, Seo D, Belfort-DeAguiar R, et al. . Circulating glucose levels modulate neural control of desire for high-calorie foods in humans. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(10):4161-4169. doi:10.1172/JCI57873
    1. Tang DW, Fellows LK, Small DM, Dagher A. Food and drug cues activate similar brain regions: a meta-analysis of functional MRI studies. Physiol Behav. 2012;106(3):317-324. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.03.009
    1. Le Floch JP, Escuyer P, Baudin E, Baudon D, Perlemuter L. Blood glucose area under the curve: methodological aspects. Diabetes Care. 1990;13(2):172-175. doi:10.2337/diacare.13.2.172
    1. Allison DB, Paultre F, Maggio C, Mezzitis N, Pi-Sunyer FX. The use of areas under curves in diabetes research. Diabetes Care. 1995;18(2):245-250. doi:10.2337/diacare.18.2.245
    1. Matthews JN, Altman DG, Campbell MJ, Royston P. Analysis of serial measurements in medical research. BMJ. 1990;300(6719):230-235. doi:10.1136/bmj.300.6719.230
    1. Carnell S, Benson L, Gibson EL, Mais LA, Warkentin S. Caloric compensation in preschool children: relationships with body mass and differences by food category. Appetite. 2017;116:82-89. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.04.018
    1. Cheah YS, Lee S, Ashoor G, et al. . Ageing diminishes the modulation of human brain responses to visual food cues by meal ingestion. Int J Obes (Lond). 2014;38(9):1186-1192. doi:10.1038/ijo.2013.237
    1. Chia CW, Egan JM, Ferrucci L. Age-related changes in glucose metabolism, hyperglycemia, and cardiovascular risk. Circ Res. 2018;123(7):886-904. doi:10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.118.312806
    1. Frank S, Laharnar N, Kullmann S, et al. . Processing of food pictures: influence of hunger, gender and calorie content. Brain Res. 2010;1350:159-166. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2010.04.030
    1. Pursey KM, Stanwell P, Callister RJ, Brain K, Collins CE, Burrows TL. Neural responses to visual food cues according to weight status: a systematic review of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Front Nutr. 2014;1:7. doi:10.3389/fnut.2014.00007
    1. Petrovich GD, Ross CA, Holland PC, Gallagher M. Medial prefrontal cortex is necessary for an appetitive contextual conditioned stimulus to promote eating in sated rats. J Neurosci. 2007;27(24):6436-6441. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5001-06.2007
    1. Rolls ET. Sensory processing in the brain related to the control of food intake. Proc Nutr Soc. 2007;66(1):96-112. doi:10.1017/S0029665107005332
    1. Kringelbach ML, O’Doherty J, Rolls ET, Andrews C. Activation of the human orbitofrontal cortex to a liquid food stimulus is correlated with its subjective pleasantness. Cereb Cortex. 2003;13(10):1064-1071. doi:10.1093/cercor/13.10.1064
    1. Dimitropoulos A, Tkach J, Ho A, Kennedy J. Greater corticolimbic activation to high-calorie food cues after eating in obese vs. normal-weight adults. Appetite. 2012;58(1):303-312. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.10.014
    1. Martin LE, Holsen LM, Chambers RJ, et al. . Neural mechanisms associated with food motivation in obese and healthy weight adults. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2010;18(2):254-260. doi:10.1038/oby.2009.220
    1. Ishikawa A, Ambroggi F, Nicola SM, Fields HL. Dorsomedial prefrontal cortex contribution to behavioral and nucleus accumbens neuronal responses to incentive cues. J Neurosci. 2008;28(19):5088-5098. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0253-08.2008
    1. Murray EA, Izquierdo A. Orbitofrontal cortex and amygdala contributions to affect and action in primates. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007;1121(1):273-296. doi:10.1196/annals.1401.021
    1. Steinert RE, Frey F, Töpfer A, Drewe J, Beglinger C. Effects of carbohydrate sugars and artificial sweeteners on appetite and the secretion of gastrointestinal satiety peptides. Br J Nutr. 2011;105(9):1320-1328. doi:10.1017/S000711451000512X
    1. Nichol AD, Holle MJ, An R. Glycemic impact of non-nutritive sweeteners: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2018;72(6):796-804. doi:10.1038/s41430-018-0170-6
    1. Ma J, Bellon M, Wishart JM, et al. . Effect of the artificial sweetener, sucralose, on gastric emptying and incretin hormone release in healthy subjects. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2009;296(4):G735-G739. doi:10.1152/ajpgi.90708.2008
    1. Ford HE, Peters V, Martin NM, et al. . Effects of oral ingestion of sucralose on gut hormone response and appetite in healthy normal-weight subjects. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2011;65(4):508-513. doi:10.1038/ejcn.2010.291
    1. Tucker RM, Tan S-Y. Do non-nutritive sweeteners influence acute glucose homeostasis in humans? a systematic review. Physiol Behav. 2017;182:17-26. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.09.016
    1. Grotz VL, Pi-Sunyer X, Porte D Jr, Roberts A, Richard Trout J. A 12-week randomized clinical trial investigating the potential for sucralose to affect glucose homeostasis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017;88:22-33. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.05.011
    1. Casperson SL, Johnson L, Roemmich JN. The relative reinforcing value of sweet versus savory snack foods after consumption of sugar- or non-nutritive sweetened beverages. Appetite. 2017;112:143-149. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.01.028
    1. Hill SE, Prokosch ML, Morin A, Rodeheffer CD. The effect of non-caloric sweeteners on cognition, choice, and post-consumption satisfaction. Appetite. 2014;83:82-88. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.003
    1. Tey SL, Salleh NB, Henry J, Forde CG. Effects of aspartame-, monk fruit-, stevia- and sucrose-sweetened beverages on postprandial glucose, insulin and energy intake. Int J Obes (Lond). 2017;41(3):450-457. doi:10.1038/ijo.2016.225
    1. Fantino M, Fantino A, Matray M, Mistretta F. Beverages containing low energy sweeteners do not differ from water in their effects on appetite, energy intake and food choices in healthy, non-obese French adults. Appetite. 2018;125:557-565. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2018.03.007
    1. Rolls BJ, Kim S, McNelis AL, Fischman MW, Foltin RW, Moran TH. Time course of effects of preloads high in fat or carbohydrate on food intake and hunger ratings in humans. Am J Physiol. 1991;260(4 Pt 2):R756-R763. doi:10.1152/ajpregu.1991.260.4.R756
    1. Higgins KA, Mattes RD. A randomized controlled trial contrasting the effects of 4 low-calorie sweeteners and sucrose on body weight in adults with overweight or obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019;109(5):1288-1301. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqy381
    1. Dalenberg JR, Patel BP, Denis R, et al. . Short-term consumption of sucralose with, but not without, carbohydrate impairs neural and metabolic sensitivity to sugar in humans. Cell Metab. 2020;31(3):493-502.e7. doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2020.01.014

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj