Effects of graded sucrose additions on taste preference, acceptability, glycemic index, and insulin response to butter beans

Non-nutritive sweeteners for diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Products sweetened with non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) are widely available. Many people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes use NNS as a replacement for nutritive sweeteners to control their carbohydrate and energy intake. Health outcomes associated with NNS use in diabetes are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-nutritive sweeteners in people with diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Scopus, the WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search of all databases (except for Scopus) was May 2019. We last searched Scopus in January 2019. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of four weeks or more comparing any type of NNS with usual diet, no intervention, placebo, water, a different NNS, or a nutritive sweetener in individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Trials with concomitant behaviour-changing interventions, such as diet, exercise, or both, were eligible for inclusion, given that the concomitant interventions were the same in the intervention and comparator groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened abstracts, full texts, and records retrieved from trials registries, assessed the certainty of the evidence, and extracted data. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated effect estimates as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs that randomised a total of 979 people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The intervention duration ranged from 4 to 10 months. We judged none of these trials as at low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains; most of the included trials did not report the method of randomisation. Three trials compared the effects of a dietary supplement containing NNS with sugar: glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was 0.4% higher in the NNS group (95% CI -0.5 to 1.2; P = 0.44; 3 trials; 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The MD in weight change was -0.1 kg (95% CI -2.7 to 2.6; P = 0.96; 3 trials; 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials with sugar as comparator reported on adverse events. Five trials compared NNS with placebo. The MD for HbA1c was 0%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; P = 0.99; 4 trials; 360 participants; very low-certainty evidence. The 95% prediction interval ranged between -0.3% and 0.3%. The comparison of NNS versus placebo showed a MD in body weight of -0.2 kg, 95% CI -1 to 0.6; P = 0.64; 2 trials; 184 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Three trials reported the numbers of participants experiencing at least one non-serious adverse event: 36/113 participants (31.9%) in the NNS group versus 42/118 participants (35.6%) in the placebo group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.56; P = 0.48; 3 trials; 231 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared NNS with a nutritive low-calorie sweetener (tagatose). HbA1c was 0.3% higher in the NNS group (95% CI 0.1 to 0.4; P = 0.01; 1 trial; 354 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This trial did not report body weight data and adverse events. The included trials did not report data on health-related quality of life, diabetes complications, all-cause mortality, or socioeconomic effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence of very low certainty regarding the effects of NNS consumption compared with either sugar, placebo, or nutritive low-calorie sweetener consumption on clinically relevant benefit or harm for HbA1c, body weight, and adverse events in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Data on health-related quality of life, diabetes complications, all-cause mortality, and socioeconomic effects are lacking.

Pulse consumption, satiety, and weight management

The prevalence of obesity has reached epidemic proportions, making finding effective solutions to reduce obesity a public health priority. One part of the solution could be for individuals to increase consumption of nonoilseed pulses (dry beans, peas, chickpeas, and lentils), because they have nutritional attributes thought to benefit weight control, including slowly digestible carbohydrates, high fiber and protein contents, and moderate energy density. Observational studies consistently show an inverse relationship between pulse consumption and BMI or risk for obesity, but many do not control for potentially confounding dietary and other lifestyle factors. Short-term (≤1 d) experimental studies using meals controlled for energy, but not those controlled for available carbohydrate, show that pulse consumption increases satiety over 2-4 h, suggesting that at least part of the effect of pulses on satiety is mediated by available carbohydrate amount or composition. Randomized controlled trials generally support a beneficial effect of pulses on weight loss when pulse consumption is coupled with energy restriction, but not without energy restriction. However, few randomized trials have been conducted and most were short term (3-8 wk for whole pulses and 4-12 wk for pulse extracts). Overall, there is some indication of a beneficial effect of pulses on short-term satiety and weight loss during intentional energy restriction, but more studies are needed in this area, particularly those that are longer term (≥1 y), investigate the optimal amount of pulses to consume for weight control, and include behavioral elements to help overcome barriers to pulse consumption.

Dietary therapy in NIDDM

Clearly the dietary treatment of the NIDDM patient remains an act of faith bearing in mind the poor compliance of the patient to dietary advice, and the lack of long-term studies confirming the efficacy of diets (old or new) in the prevention of diabetic vascular complications. Few of the newer recommended diets seem to have been tested in the hurly-burly of the busy, understaffed diabetic clinic. Perhaps another major hurdle has been the attitude of patients and doctors in failing to regard diet therapy as a form of treatment, akin to tablets. The phrase 'I eat my diet, doctor, then I have my usual meal' sums up the problem. There needs to be a change in attitude to diet by both doctors and patients so that the dietary changes suggested should be eating habits which would become second nature to patients--the so called 'healthy eating'--more fibre, less refined carbohydrate, less total and saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fats. It seems difficult for a majority of NIDDM patients to add onto 'healthy eating' calorie restriction to achieve weight loss. This difficulty also applies to non-diabetic obese subjects with similar poor results. One cannot help but feel that NIDDM patients should benefit from the general change in attitude of the general population towards nutrition, but reinforced education concerning diet goals for NIDDM patients is an urgent requirement and needs closer examination by the diabetic health care team as to how it may be delivered to the individual NIDDM patients. Perhaps dietitians in particular should become more critical in their approach to diet strategies and should investigate and report on the results of this treatment.