Oral Post-Oral Actions of Low-Calorie Sweeteners: A Tale of Contradictions and Controversies

Does sweetness exposure drive 'sweet tooth'?

It is widely believed that exposure to sweetened foods and beverages stimulates the liking and desire for sweetness. Here we provide an updated review of the empirical evidence from human research examining whether exposure to sweet foods or beverages influences subsequent general liking for sweetness (‘sweet tooth’), based on the conclusions of existing systematic reviews and more recent research identified from a structured search of literature. Prior reviews have concluded that the evidence for a relationship between sweet taste exposure and measures of sweet taste liking is equivocal, and more recent primary research generally does not support the view that exposure drives increased liking for sweetness, in adults or children. In intervention trials using a range of designs, acute exposure to sweetness usually has the opposite effect (reducing subsequent liking and desire for sweet taste), while sustained exposures have no significant effects or inconsistent effects. Recent longitudinal observational studies in infants and children also report no significant associations between exposures to sweet foods and beverages with measures of sweet taste preferences. Overall, while it is widely assumed that exposure to sweetness stimulates a greater liking and desire for sweetness, this is not borne out by the balance of empirical evidence. While new research may provide a more robust evidence base, there are also a number of methodological, biological and behavioural considerations that may underpin the apparent absence of a positive relationship between sweetness exposure and liking.

Could Insulin Be a Better Regulator of Appetite/Satiety Balance and Body Weight Maintenance in Response to Glucose Exposure Compared to Sucrose Substitutes? Unraveling Current Knowledge and Searching for More Appropriate Choices

BACKGROUND

Insulin exerts a crucial impact on glucose control, cellular growing, function, and metabolism. It is partially modulated by nutrients, especially as a response to the intake of foods, including carbohydrates. Moreover, insulin can exert an anorexigenic effect when inserted into the hypothalamus of the brain, in which a complex network of an appetite/hunger control system occurs. The current literature review aims at thoroughly summarizing and scrutinizing whether insulin release in response to glucose exposure may be a better choice to control body weight gain and related diseases compared to the use of sucrose substitutes (SSs) in combination with a long-term, well-balanced diet.

METHODS

This is a comprehensive literature review, which was performed through searching in-depth for the most accurate scientific databases and applying effective and relevant keywords.

RESULTS

The insulin action can be inserted into the hypothalamic orexigenic/anorexigenic complex system, activating several anorexigenic peptides, increasing the hedonic aspect of food intake, and effectively controlling the human body weight. In contrast, SSs appear not to affect the orexigenic/anorexigenic complex system, resulting in more cases of uncontrolled body weight maintenance while also increasing the risk of developing related diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Most evidence, mainly derived from in vitro and in vivo animal studies, has reinforced the insulin anorexigenic action in the hypothalamus of the brain. Simultaneously, most available clinical studies showed that SSs during a well-balanced diet either maintain or even increase body weight, which may indirectly be ascribed to the fact that they cannot cover the hedonic aspect of food intake. However, there is a strong demand for long-term longitudinal surveys to effectively specify the impact of SSs on human metabolic health.

Ultraprocessed Foods and Obesity Risk: A Critical Review of Reported Mechanisms

Epidemiologic evidence supports a positive association between ultraprocessed food (UPF) consumption and body mass index. This has led to recommendations to avoid UPFs despite very limited evidence establishing causality. Many mechanisms have been proposed, and this review critically aimed to evaluate selected possibilities for specificity, clarity, and consistency related to food choice (i.e., low cost, shelf-life, food packaging, hyperpalatability, and stimulation of hunger/suppression of fullness); food composition (i.e., macronutrients, food texture, added sugar, fat and salt, energy density, low-calorie sweeteners, and additives); and digestive processes (i.e., oral processing/eating rate, gastric emptying time, gastrointestinal transit time, and microbiome). For some purported mechanisms (e.g., fiber content, texture, gastric emptying, and intestinal transit time), data directly contrasting the effects of UPF and non-UPF intake on the indices of appetite, food intake, and adiposity are available and do not support a unique contribution of UPFs. In other instances, data are not available (e.g., microbiome and food additives) or are insufficient (e.g., packaging, food cost, shelf-life, macronutrient intake, and appetite stimulation) to judge the benefits versus the risks of UPF avoidance. There are yet other evoked mechanisms in which the preponderance of evidence indicates ingredients in UPFs actually moderate body weight (e.g., low-calorie sweetener use for weight management; beverage consumption as it dilutes energy density; and higher fat content because it reduces glycemic responses). Because avoidance of UPFs holds potential adverse effects (e.g., reduced diet quality, increased risk of food poisoning, and food wastage), it is imprudent to make recommendations regarding their role in diets before causality and plausible mechanisms have been verified.

The β2-adrenergic receptor in the apical membrane of intestinal enterocytes senses sugars to stimulate glucose uptake from the gut

The presence of sugar in the gut causes induction of SGLT1, the sodium/glucose cotransporter in intestinal epithelial cells (enterocytes), and this is accompanied by stimulation of sugar absorption. Sugar sensing was suggested to involve a G-protein coupled receptor and cAMP - protein kinase A signalling, but the sugar receptor has remained unknown. We show strong expression and co-localization with SGLT1 of the β2-adrenergic receptor (β ₂-AR) at the enterocyte apical membrane and reveal its role in stimulating glucose uptake from the gut by the sodium/glucose-linked transporter, SGLT1. Upon heterologous expression in different reporter systems, the β ₂-AR responds to multiple sugars in the mM range, consistent with estimated gut sugar levels after a meal. Most adrenergic receptor antagonists inhibit sugar signaling, while some differentially inhibit epinephrine and sugar responses. However, sugars did not inhibit binding of I¹²⁵-cyanopindolol, a β ₂-AR antagonist, to the ligand-binding site in cell-free membrane preparations. This suggests different but interdependent binding sites. Glucose uptake into everted sacs from rat intestine was stimulated by epinephrine and sugars in a β ₂-AR-dependent manner. STD-NMR confirmed direct physical binding of glucose to the β ₂-AR. Oral administration of glucose with a non-bioavailable β ₂-AR antagonist lowered the subsequent increase in blood glucose levels, confirming a role for enterocyte apical β ₂-ARs in stimulating gut glucose uptake, and suggesting enterocyte β ₂-AR as novel drug target in diabetic and obese patients. Future work will have to reveal how glucose sensing by enterocytes and neuroendocrine cells is connected, and whether β ₂-ARs mediate glucose sensing also in other tissues.

Early-life low-calorie sweetener consumption disrupts glucose regulation, sugar-motivated behavior, and memory function in rats

Low-calorie sweetener (LCS) consumption in children has increased dramatically due to its widespread presence in the food environment and efforts to mitigate obesity through sugar replacement. However, mechanistic studies on the long-term impact of early-life LCS consumption on cognitive function and physiological processes are lacking. Here, we developed a rodent model to evaluate the effects of daily LCS consumption (acesulfame potassium, saccharin, or stevia) during adolescence on adult metabolic, behavioral, gut microbiome, and brain transcriptomic outcomes. Results reveal that habitual early-life LCS consumption impacts normal postoral glucose handling and impairs hippocampal-dependent memory in the absence of weight gain. Furthermore, adolescent LCS consumption yielded long-term reductions in lingual sweet taste receptor expression and brought about alterations in sugar-motivated appetitive and consummatory responses. While early-life LCS consumption did not produce robust changes in the gut microbiome, brain region-specific RNA-Seq analyses reveal LCS-induced changes in collagen- and synaptic signaling-related gene pathways in the hippocampus and nucleus accumbens, respectively, in a sex-dependent manner. Collectively, these results reveal that habitual early-life LCS consumption has long-lasting implications for glucoregulation, sugar-motivated behavior, and hippocampal-dependent memory in rats, which may be based in part on changes in nutrient transporter, sweet taste receptor, and central gene pathway expression.

Is There an Academic Bias against Low-Energy Sweeteners?

This perspective considers evidence of a common academic bias against low-energy sweeteners (LES). The core proposition is that this bias is manifested in research and reporting focused on generating and placing a negative spin on LESs, largely through selective citation, interpretation and reporting. The evidence centres on three inter-related points, which together may generate a misleading impression of the balance of evidence: (1) basic and mechanistic research on LES perpetuates “explanations” for unsubstantiated adverse effects of LES; (2) the literature on LES—particularly narrative reviews and commentaries—continually reprises hypotheses of adverse effects without acknowledging where these hypotheses have been rigorously tested and rejected; and (3) negative interpretations of the effects of LES largely rely upon selectively emphasising lower-quality research whilst ignoring or dismissing higher-quality evidence. The expert community should consider these issues in assuring scientific integrity and balance in the academic discourse on LES, and how this is translated into messages for public health and consumers.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as a sugar taste sensor in mouse tongue

AIM

We investigated potential neuron types that code sugar information and how sodium-glucose cotransporters (SGLTs) and T1Rs are involved.

METHODS

Whole-nerve recordings in the chorda tympani (CT) and the glossopharyngeal (GL) nerves and single-fibre recordings in the CT were performed in T1R3-KO and wild-type (WT) mice. Behavioural response measurements were conducted in T1R3-KO mice using phlorizin (Phl), a competitive inhibitor of SGLTs.

RESULTS

Results indicated that significant enhancement occurred in responses to sucrose and glucose (Glc) by adding 10 mmol/L NaCl but not in responses to KCl, monopotassium glutamate, citric acid, quinine sulphate, SC45647(SC) or polycose in both CT and GL nerves. These enhancements were abolished by lingual application of Phl. In single-fibre recording, fibres showing maximal response to sucrose could be classified according to responses to SC and Glc with or without 10 mmol/L NaCl in the CT of WT mice, namely, Phl-insensitive type, Phl-sensitive Glc-type and Mixed (Glc and SC responding)-type fibres. In T1R3-KO mice, Phl-insensitive-type fibres disappeared. Results from behavioural experiments showed that the number of licks and amount of intake for Glc with or without 10 mmol/L NaCl were significantly suppressed by Phl.

CONCLUSION

We found evidence for the contribution of SGLTs in sugar sensing in taste cells of mouse tongue. Moreover, we found T1R-dependent (Phl-insensitive) type, Glc-type and Mixed (SGLTs and T1Rs)-type fibres. SGLT1 may be involved in the latter two types and may play important roles in the glucose-specific cephalic phase of digestion and palatable food intake.

An alternative pathway for sweet sensation: possible mechanisms and physiological relevance

Sweet substances are detected by taste-bud cells upon binding to the sweet-taste receptor, a T1R2/T1R3 heterodimeric G protein-coupled receptor. In addition, experiments with mouse models lacking the sweet-taste receptor or its downstream signaling components led to the proposal of a parallel "alternative pathway" that may serve as metabolic sensor and energy regulator. Indeed, these mice showed residual nerve responses and behavioral attraction to sugars and oligosaccharides but not to artificial sweeteners. In analogy to pancreatic β cells, such alternative mechanism, to sense glucose in sweet-sensitive taste cells, might involve glucose transporters and K_ATP channels. Their activation may induce depolarization-dependent Ca²⁺ signals and release of GLP-1, which binds to its receptors on intragemmal nerve fibers. Via unknown neuronal and/or endocrine mechanisms, this pathway may contribute to both, behavioral attraction and/or induction of cephalic-phase insulin release upon oral sweet stimulation. Here, we critically review the evidence for a parallel sweet-sensitive pathway, involved signaling mechanisms, neural processing, interactions with endocrine hormonal mechanisms, and its sensitivity to different stimuli. Finally, we propose its physiological role in detecting the energy content of food and preparing for digestion.

Perspective: Standards for Research and Reporting on Low-Energy ("Artificial") Sweeteners

Widely differing views exist among experts, policy makers, and the general public with regard to the potential risks and benefits of reduced- or low-energy sweeteners (LES) in the diet. These views are informed and influenced by different types of research in LES, with differing hypotheses, designs, interpretation, and communication. Given the high level of interest in LES, and the public health relevance of the research evidence base, it is important that all aspects of the research process are framed and reported in an appropriate and balanced manner. In this Perspective, we identify and give examples of a number of issues relating to research and reviews on LES, which may contribute toward apparent inconsistencies in the content and understanding of the totality of evidence. We conclude with a set of recommendations for authors, reviewers and journal editors, as general guidance to improve and better standardize the quality of LES research design, interpretation, and reporting. These focus on clarity of underlying hypotheses, characterization of exposures, and the placement and weighting of new research within the wider context of related prior work.

Low-calorie sweeteners cause only limited metabolic effects in mice

There are widespread concerns that low-calorie sweeteners (LCSs) cause metabolic derangement. These concerns stem in part from prior studies linking LCS consumption to impaired glucose tolerance in humans and rodents. Here, we examined this linkage in mice. In experiment 1, we provided mice with chow, water, and an LCS-sweetened solution (saccharin, sucralose, or acesulfame K) for 28 days and measured glucose tolerance and body weight across the exposure period. Exposure to the LCS solutions did not impair glucose tolerance or alter weight gain. In experiment 2, we provided mice with chow, water, and a solution containing saccharin, glucose, or a mixture of both for 28 days, and tested for metabolic changes. Exposure to the saccharin solution increased the insulinemic response of mice to the glucose challenge, and exposure to the saccharin + glucose solution increased the rate of glucose uptake during the glucose challenge. However, neither of these test solutions altered glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, plasma triglycerides, or percent body fat. In contrast, exposure to the glucose solution increased glucose tolerance, early insulin response, insulin sensitivity, and percent body fat. We conclude that whereas the LCS-containing solutions induced a few metabolic changes, they were modest compared with those induced by the glucose solution.

A Comparison of Psychophysical Dose-Response Behaviour across 16 Sweeteners

Reduction or replacement of sucrose while maintaining sweetness in foods is challenging, but today there are many sweeteners with diverse physical and caloric compositions to choose from. The choice of sweetener can be adapted to match reformulation goals whether these are to reduce calories, lower the glycaemic response, provide bulk or meet criteria as a natural ingredient. The current study sought to describe and compare the sweetness intensity dose-response, sweetness growth rate, sweetness potency, and potential for calorie reduction across 16 different sweeteners including sucrose. Sweetness growth rate was defined as the rate of change in sweetness intensity per unit of sweetener concentration. Sweetness potency was defined as the ratio of the concentration of a sweetener to that of sucrose at equivalent sweetness intensity, whereas the potential for calorie reduction is the caloric value of a sweetener compared to sucrose at matched sweetness intensities. Sweeteners were drawn from a range of nutritive saccharide (sucrose, dextrose, fructose, allulose (d-psicose), palatinose (isomaltulose), and a sucrose⁻allulose mixture), nutritive polyol (maltitol, erythritol, mannitol, xylitol, sorbitol), non-nutritive synthetic (aspartame, acesulfame-K, sucralose) and non-nutritive natural sweeteners stevia (rebaudioside A), luo han guo (mogroside V). Sweetness intensities of the 16 sweeteners were compared with a sensory panel of 40 participants (n = 40; 28 females). Participants were asked to rate perceived sweetness intensity for each sweetener series across a range of concentrations using psychophysical ratings taken on a general labelled magnitude scale (gLMS). All sweeteners exhibited sigmoidal dose-response behaviours and matched the 'moderate' sweetness intensity of sucrose (10% w/v). Fructose, xylitol and sucralose had peak sweetness intensities greater than sucrose at the upper concentrations tested, while acesulfame-K and stevia (rebA) were markedly lower. Independent of sweetener concentration, the nutritive sweeteners had similar sweetness growth rates to sucrose and were greater than the non-nutritive sweeteners. Non-nutritive sweeteners on the other hand had higher potencies relative to sucrose, which decreases when matching at higher sweetness intensities. With the exception of dextrose and palatinose, all sweeteners matched the sweetness intensity of sucrose across the measured range (3.8⁻25% w/v sucrose) with fewer calories. Overall, the sucrose⁻allulose mixture, maltitol and xylitol sweeteners were most similar to sucrose in terms of dose-response behaviour, growth rate and potency, and showed the most potential for sugar replacement within the range of sweetness intensities tested.