Finlayson, G. (Graham)

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Impact of acute consumption of beverages containing plant-based or alternative sweetener blends on postprandial appetite, food intake, metabolism, and gastro-intestinal symptoms: Results of the SWEET beverages trial
    (Elsevier, 2023) Martinez, J.A. (José Alfredo); Maloney, N. (Niamh); Scott, C. (Corey); Almiron-Roig, E. (Eva); Finlayson, G. (Graham); Harrold, J.A. (Joanne A.); Kjølbæk, L. (Louise); Castelnuovo, G. (Gabriele); Halford, J.C.G. (Jason C. G.); Raats, M.M. (Monique M.); Raben, A. (Anne); Normand, M. (Mie); Hardman, C.H. (Charlotte A.); Navas-Carretero, S. (Santiago); Romo‐Hualde, A. (Ana); Moshoyiannis, H. (Hariklia); Hodgkins, C.E. (Charo E.)
    Project SWEET examined the barriers and facilitators to the use of non-nutritive sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (hereafter "S&SE") alongside potential risks/benefits for health and sustainability. The Beverages trial was a double-blind multi-centre, randomised crossover trial within SWEET evaluating the acute impact of three S&SE blends (plant-based and alternatives) vs. a sucrose control on glycaemic response, food intake, appetite sensations and safety after a carbohydrate-rich breakfast meal. The blends were: mogroside V and stevia RebM; stevia RebA and thaumatin; and sucralose and acesulfame-potassium (ace-K). At each 4 h visit, 60 healthy volunteers (53% male; all with overweight/obesity) consumed a 330 mL beverage with either an S&SE blend (0 kJ) or 8% sucrose (26 g, 442 kJ), shortly followed by a standardised breakfast (∼2600 or 1800 kJ with 77 or 51 g carbohydrates, depending on sex). All blends reduced the 2-h incremental area-under-the-curve (iAUC) for blood insulin (p < 0.001 in mixed-effects models), while the stevia RebA and sucralose blends reduced the glucose iAUC (p < 0.05) compared with sucrose. Post-prandial levels of triglycerides plus hepatic transaminases did not differ across conditions (p > 0.05 for all). Compared with sucrose, there was a 3% increase in LDL-cholesterol after stevia RebA-thaumatin (p < 0.001 in adjusted models); and a 2% decrease in HDL-cholesterol after sucralose-ace-K (p < 0.01). There was an impact of blend on fullness and desire to eat ratings (both p < 0.05) and sucralose-acesulfame K induced higher prospective intake vs sucrose (p < 0.001 in adjusted models), but changes were of a small magnitude and did not translate into energy intake differences over the next 24 h. Gastro-intestinal symptoms for all beverages were mostly mild. In general, responses to a carbohydrate-rich meal following consumption of S&SE blends with stevia or sucralose were similar to sucrose.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Acute and two-week effects of neotame, stevia rebaudioside M and sucrose-sweetened biscuits on postprandial appetite and endocrine response in adults with overweight/obesity—a randomised crossover trial from the SWEET consortium
    (Elsevier, 2024) Wilton, M. (Moon); Gibbons, C. (Catherine); O'Hara, B. (Beverly); Scott, C. (Corey); Almiron-Roig, E. (Eva); Finlayson, G. (Graham); Harrold, J.A. (Joanne A.); Kjølbæk, L. (Louise); Le Bail, A. (Alain); Martínez, J. A. (J. Alfredo); Halford, J.C.G. (Jason C. G.); Raben, A. (Anne); Beaulieu, K. (Kristine); Rannou, C. (Cécile); Nazare, J.A. (Julie-Anne); Hardman, C.H. (Charlotte A.); Navas-Carretero, S. (Santiago); O'Connor, D. (Dominic); Moshoyiannis, H. (Hariklia)
    Background: Sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SE) are used to replace energy yielding sugars and maintain sweet taste in a wide range of products, but controversy exists about their effects on appetite and endocrine responses in reduced or no added sugar solid foods. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the acute (1 day) and repeated (two-week daily) ingestive effects of 2 S&SE vs. sucrose formulations of biscuit with fruit filling on appetite and endocrine responses in adults with overweight and obesity. Methods: In a randomised crossover trial, 53 healthy adults (33 female, 20 male) with overweight/obesity in England and France consumed biscuits with fruit filling containing 1) sucrose, or reformulated with either 2) Stevia Rebaudioside M (StRebM) or 3) Neotame daily during three, two-week intervention periods with a two-week washout. The primary outcome was composite appetite score defined as [desire to eat + hunger + (100 − fullness) + prospective consumption]/4. Findings: Each formulation elicited a similar reduction in appetite sensations (3-h postprandial net iAUC). Postprandial insulin (2-h iAUC) was lower after Neotame (95% CI (0.093, 0.166); p < 0.001; d = −0.71) and StRebM (95% CI (0.133, 0.205); p < 0.001; d = −1.01) compared to sucrose, and glucose was lower after StRebM (95% CI (0.023, 0.171); p < 0.05; d = −0.39) but not after Neotame (95% CI (−0.007, 0.145); p = 0.074; d = −0.25) compared to sucrose. There were no differences between S&SE or sucrose formulations on ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1 or pancreatic polypeptide iAUCs. No clinically meaningful differences between acute vs. two-weeks of daily consumption were found. Interpretation: In conclusion, biscuits reformulated to replace sugar using StRebM or Neotame showed no differences in appetite or endocrine responses, acutely or after a two-week exposure, but can reduce postprandial insulin and glucose response in adults with overweight or obesity. Funding: The present study was funded by the Horizon 2020 program: Sweeteners and sweetness enhancers: impact on health, obesity, safety and sustainability (acronym: SWEET, grant no: 774293).
  • Thumbnail Image
    A rational review on the effects of sweeteners and sweetness enhancers on appetite, food reward and metabolic/adiposity outcomes in adults
    (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2021) Gibbons, C. (Catherine); Almiron-Roig, E. (Eva); Finlayson, G. (Graham); Castelnuovo, G. (Gabriele); Raben, A. (Anne); Harrold, J. (Jo); Pang, M. (Michelle); Blaak, E.E. (Ellen E.); Navas-Carretero, S. (Santiago); O'Connor, D. (Dominic); Martinez, A. (Alfredo)
    Numerous strategies have been investigated to overcome the excessive weight gain that accompanies a chronic positive energy balance. Most approaches focus on a reduction of energy intake and the improvement of lifestyle habits. The use of high intensity artificial sweeteners, also known as non-caloric sweeteners (NCS), as sugar substitutes in foods and beverages, is rapidly developing. NCS are commonly defined as molecules with a sweetness profile of 30 times higher or more that of sucrose, scarcely contributing to the individual's net energy intake as they are hardly metabolized. The purpose of this review is first, to assess the impact of NCS on eating behaviour, including subjective appetite, food intake, food reward and sensory stimulation; and secondly, to assess the metabolic impact of NCS on body weight regulation, glucose homeostasis and gut health. The evidence reviewed suggests that while some sweeteners have the potential to increase subjective appetite, these effects do not translate in changes in food intake. This is supported by a large body of empirical evidence advocating that the use of NCS facilitates weight management when used alongside other weight management strategies. On the other hand, although NCS are very unlikely to impair insulin metabolism and glycaemic control, some studies suggest that NCS could have putatively undesirable effects, through various indirect mechanisms, on body weight, glycemia, adipogenesis and the gut microbiota; however there is insufficient evidence to determine the degree of such effects. Overall, the available data suggests that NCS can be used to facilitate a reduction in dietary energy content without significant negative effects on food intake behaviour or body metabolism, which would support their potential role in the prevention of obesity as a complementary strategy to other weight management approaches. More research is needed to determine the impact of NCS on metabolic health, in particular gut microbiota.