Dataset Information

Rationale, Design and Baseline Characteristics for the Strategies to Oppose SUGARS With Non-nutritive Sweeteners or Water (STOP Sugars NOW) Trial

ABSTRACT: Abstract

Objectives

Health authorities recommend reducing added or free sugars to ≤5–10% energy. Much attention has focussed of the reduction of SSBs with the recommendation that SSBs be replaced with unsweetened healthy alternatives such as water but not non-nutritive sweetened beverages (NSBs). There are concerns that non-nutritive sweeteners do not have the intended benefits and may induce glucose intolerance through changes in the gut microbiome. Whether NSBs have benefits similar to water in their intended substitution for SSBs is unclear.

Methods

To address this question, we have undertaken the STOP Sugars NOW trial (NCT03543644), a pragmatic “head-to-head” crossover randomized controlled trial of the effect of NSBs (the intended substitution) versus water (the standard of care) as a replacement strategy for SSBs on glucose tolerance and gut microbiome diversity. We recruited overweight or obese participants with a high waist circumference who regularly consume ≥1 SSBs/day. Each participant underwent a ≥2-week run-in period followed by three 4- week treatment phases in random order (usual SSBs, equivalent NSBs, or water) with each phase separated by a ≥4-week washout. The two primary outcomes are change in glucose tolerance and gut microbiome beta- diversity. Adherence to the interventions will be assessed by objective biomarkers of added sugars (13C/12C isotopic ratio in serum fatty acids and urinary fructose and sucrose) and non-nutritive sweeteners (urinary sucralose and acesulfame-potassium).

Results

The trial started on June 1st, 2018 with the first participant undergoing randomization on August 1st, 2019 and the last participant finishing on October 15th, 2020. We screened 1,086 individuals, out of which 80 were randomized. Baseline characteristics showed a mean age of 41.8 ± 13.0 y, BMI of 33.7 ± 6.8 kg/m2, waist circumference of 108.7 ± 13.5 cm, and mean SSBs intake of 2 SSBs/day.

Conclusions

The results of this trial will directly inform public health guidance on the use of NSBs in sugars reduction strategies.

Funding Sources

CIHR.

SUBMITTER: Ayoub-Charette S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8181061 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recent studies suggest that preferences are conditioned by nutritive (sucrose) but not by non-nutritive (sucralose) sweeteners in mice. Here we compared the effectiveness of nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners to condition flavor preferences in three mouse strains. Isopreferred sucrose and sucralose solutions both conditioned flavor preferences in C57BL/6J (B6) mice but sucrose was more effective, consistent with its post-oral appetition action. Subsequent experiments compared flavor conditioning by fructose, which has no post-oral appetition effect in B6 mice, and a sucralose+saccharin mixture (SS) which is highly preferred to fructose in 24-h choice tests. Both sweeteners conditioned flavor preferences but fructose induced stronger preferences than SS. Training B6 mice to drink a flavored SS solution paired with intragastric fructose infusions did not enhance the SS-conditioned preference. Thus, the post-oral nutritive actions of fructose do not explain the sugar's stronger preference conditioning effect. Training B6 mice to drink a flavored fructose solution containing SS did not reduce the sugar-conditioned preference, indicating that SS does not have an off-taste that attenuates conditioning. Although B6 mice strongly preferred flavored SS to flavored fructose in a direct choice test, they preferred the fructose-paired flavor to the SS-paired flavor when these were presented in water. Fructose conditioned a stronger flavor preference than an isopreferred saccharin solution, indicating that sucralose is not responsible for the limited SS conditioning actions. SS is highly preferred by FVB/NJ and CAST/EiJ inbred mice, yet conditioned only weak flavor preferences. It is unclear why highly or equally preferred non-nutritive sweeteners condition weaker preferences than fructose, when all stimulate the same T1r2/T1r3 sweet receptor. Recent findings support the existence of non-T1r2/T1r3 glucose taste sensors; however, there is no evidence for receptors that respond to fructose but not to non-nutritive sweeteners.

Project description:BackgroundThe mechanisms by which chronic stress increases the risk of non-communicable diseases remain poorly understood. On one hand, chronic stress may increase systemic vascular resistance (SVR) and blood pressure, which may lead to blood vessels injury and altered myocardial perfusion. On the other hand, chronic stress may promote the overconsumption of sugar-containing foods and favor obesity. There is indeed evidence that sweet foods are preferentially consumed to alleviate stress responses. The effects of nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) on hemodynamic stress responses remain however largely unknown.Objective/designThis study aimed at comparing the effects of sucrose-containing and NNS-containing drinks, as compared to unsweetened water, on hemodynamic responses to acute stress in twelve healthy female subjects. Acute stress responses were elicited by a 30-min mental stress (5-min Stroop's test alternated with 5-min mental arithmetic) and a 3-min cold pressure test (CPT), each preceded by a resting baseline period. Hemodynamic stress responses were investigated by the repeated measurement of mean arterial pressure and the continuous monitoring of cardiac output by thoracic electrical bioimpedance measurement. SVR was selected as a primary outcome because it is a sensitive measure of hemodynamic responses to acute stress procedures.ResultsWith all three drinks, SVR were not changed with mental stress (P = 0.437), but were increased with CPT (P = 0.045). Both mental stress and CPT increased mean arterial pressure and heart rate (all P < 0.001). Cardiac output increased with mental stress (P < 0.001) and remained unchanged with CPT (P = 0.252). No significant differences in hemodynamic responses were observed between water, sucrose and NNS (stress × condition, all P > 0.05).ConclusionsThese results demonstrate that sucrose and NNS do not alter hemodynamic responses to two different standardized acute stress protocols.