Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Am J Clin Nutr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 March 3.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2650084

Non-nutritive sweetener consumption in humans: Effects on appetite and food intake and their putative mechanisms


Non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) are ecologically novel chemosensory signaling compounds that influence ingestive processes and behavior. Only about 15% of the US population >2y/o ingest NNS, but the incidence is increasing. They hold the potential to moderate sugar and energy intake while maintaining diet palatability, but their use has increased in concert with BMI in the population. This association may be coincidental or causal where either mode of directionality is plausible. A critical review of the literature suggests the addition of NNS to non-energy yielding products may heighten appetite, but this is not observed under the more common condition where NNS is ingested in conjunction with other energy sources. Substitution of NNS for nutritive sweetener generally elicits incomplete energy compensation, but evidence of long-term efficacy for weight management is not available. The addition of NNS to diets poses no benefit for weight loss or reduced weight gain without energy restriction. There are long-standing and recent concerns that inclusion of NNS in the diet promotes energy intake and contributes to obesity. Most of the purported mechanisms by which this may occur are not supported by the available evidence, although some warrant further consideration. Resolution of this important issue will require long-term randomized controlled trials.

Keywords: nonnutritive sweeteners, sweeteners, diet sweeteners, appetite regulation, energy compensation


Nutritive sweetener (NS) intake has increased markedly in the United States and globally over the past three decades, coincident with the increased incidence and prevalence of overweight and obesity (1). This has prompted considerable research on their role in energy balance. Numerous reviews (29) have attempted to summarize the literature, but no consensus has emerged. Nevertheless, recommendations have been made to moderate intake of NS (10, 11). Given the contribution of sweeteners to food palatability and recognition that adherence to diets of moderate or low palatability is likely to be limited, one approach to limit intake is to substitute non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) for NS in products and discretionary applications. The success of this approach is open to debate and requires resolution to determine best clinical practices and public health recommendations. This review describes recent trends in NNS use and current knowledge of their effects on short-term appetite and food intake, as well as longer term energy balance and body weight. More importantly, given the current controversy about NNS and energy balance, we critically review the reported mechanisms by which they may exert their effects on these outcomes.

Currently, five NNS are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) —saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, acesulfame-K and neotame. In addition, stevia, a herb extract of intense sweetness, is used in limited applications. While research on NNS began more than a century ago, it was not until concerns about diabetes and weight control intensified that the food industry began to move NNS to market and to obtain regulatory approval for their inclusion in the diet (Table 1). Thus, there has been relatively little time to assess the long-term effects of these substances that mimic certain sensory properties (i.e., sweetness), but lack the energy value of the class of compounds that have provided the mainstay of dietary energy during human evolution. Cyclamate was designated as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) in 1958, but in 1969 it was banned in the US due to evidence that high concentrations in the diet were associated with bladder cancer in rats. Subsequent review of the evidence raised questions about the physiological relevance of the trials, but the sweetener remains unapproved in the US. Cyclamate is approved for use in the European Union and in more than 100 countries.

Table 1
Date of discovery and approval of currently marketed NNS and their Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADI).

There are published safety standards for consumption of NNS. For example, the United States Food and Drug Administration, Joint Commission of Experts on Food Additives (JECFA) of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization of Food and Agriculture (FAO), as well as the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) have established Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADI) (Table 1). The FDA estimates the ADI equivalents to be 18 to 19 cans (1 can=12oz or 355ml) of diet cola for aspartame, 9 to12 packets of sweetener for saccharin, 30 to 32 cans of diet lemon-lime soda for acesulfame-K and 6 cans of diet cola for sucralose.

Consumption levels of NNS

Data on the amounts of NNS in foods and beverages are not readily accessible. Total estimates of tons of aspartame produced based on sales data are available, but there is no direct measure of use. Since all of the approved NNS are regarded as “GRAS”, producers and manufacturers are not required to provide content data on food labels or to release this information to federal agencies. There are a few studies that directly measured the amounts of NNS in foods, specifically beverages. For instance, one was a safety study undertaken in Hong Kong (12). It documented wide ranges of concentrations and multiple combinations of NNS in products, as would be expected since each product has different properties. Others in small selected samples have published overall NNS consumption but not content in specific foods (1316).

Given the absence of reliable data on the concentrations of NNS in the food supply, estimates can only be derived from information about foods that contain them. In the present paper, two methods were used to identify foods that contain NNS: 1) based on an earlier toxicity study (17), that identified aspartame containing foods, we located these same foods in the US nutrient monitoring system food composition tables; 2) using food descriptions, keyword searches were conducted that included the terms: low-cal, low calorie, reduced calorie, dietetic, sugar-free, sugarless, sugar substitute, lite or light, sweetener, aspartame, splenda, sucralose, and stevia. The nutrient content of each of these items was then reviewed using the USDA food composition table to eliminate items with names that did not match their content.

Foods were initially grouped using the University of North Carolina (UNC) food-grouping system (18). It places foods and beverages into nutrient-based subgroups according to their fat and fiber content. However, these food groups varied widely with respect to added sugar values. To more accurately assess added NS and NNS in foods and beverages, the initial UNC food groups were further subdivided into sweetened with NS and NNS (i.e. the “soda” food group was divided into “soda, with sugar” and “soda, with non-nutritive sweetener” food groups).

Table 2 presents an estimate of foods with NNS. The added NS foods and beverages are readily measured and represent the total grams of food consumed for all Americans aged 2 and older on a per capita daily intake level. Thus, it is estimated that in 2003–2004, the average American consumed 585 g (20.5 oz) of beverages with added NS and 375 g of food with added NS. Over 66% of Americans consumed these beverages and the mean grams of energy-yielding beverage consumed by those who drank them was 872 g (30.5 oz). For foods, 90.3% of Americans consumed foods with added NS and the mean intake of these foods was 381 grams.

Table 2
Trends in consumption of foods and beverages with either added nutritive sweeteners (NS)# or non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) among Americans ≥ 2 years*

Foods and beverages with added NNS were consumed by a relatively small proportion of the population. Beverages with NNS were consumed by 10.8% of the population and 5.8% consumed foods with NNS(See Table 2). Overall, only 15.1% of all Americans indicated that they consumed any food or beverage with NNS added in 2003–2004. The grams per consumer of the NNS beverages was 752 (26.2 ounces) or just 120 g below that for NS beverages. Among the foods with NNS, the amount consumed per capita was 233 g. Assuming the products containing NNS were equi-sweet to the comparable products with NS, this indicates NNS are adding the equivalent of over 60% of the sweetening contributed by NS. It corresponds to 53 grams per day or 862 kJ/d of sweetener in the average American over 2 years of age.

The consumption trends for NNS containing foods and beverages are clearly upward, but differ between categories. The proportion of consumers ingesting NNS in beverages remained relatively stable between 1989–2004 (6.9% increase), while the proportion of consumers of NNS in foods increased 81.2%, although, in 2004, this still represented only 5.8% of the population over 2 years of age. The amount of NNS ingested in beverages and foods by NNS consumers increased by 37.7% and 14.2%, respectively between 1989 and 2004. If anything, we expect that these figures for the proportion of the sample consuming foods with NNS’s might be overestimated. The literature shows selected underestimation of less healthy more energy dense foods and overestimation of healthier ones (1922). Following this logic, it is possible that amounts per consumer are also overestimated.

Association between NNS consumption and appetite, energy intake and BMI

The influence of NNS on appetite, energy intake, and body weight has been the topic of a number of scholarly reviews (8, 9, 2330). While these authors represent different disciplines and are supported by various funding agencies, the consistencies in their findings are striking.

NNS and Appetite

Although there were reports to the contrary (3133), earlier reviews faithfully summarized the preponderance of then existing evidence indicating acute exposure to NNS in vehicles providing little or no energy, such as water or chewing gum, augments hunger relative to effects of exposure to the vehicle alone (31, 3436). The interpretation of such trials was that the sweetness of NNS enhances post-ingestive hunger. However, a study of comparable design, using NaCl in soup, replicated the findings suggesting the phenomenon may be attributable, more generally, to oral exposure to a palatable stimulus in the absence of an energy load (37).

Subsequent studies explored the addition of NNS to energy-yielding foods, beverages or meals, and commonly observed no alteration of hunger relative to vehicle alone or vehicle sweetened with sucrose (3840). This holds when the foods are equally energetic, sweet, and palatable indicating a lack of effect of sweetener type. Additional support for this latter finding is provided through studies reporting no effects on hunger when sweeteners are delivered via a nasogastric tube (41) or capsules (31, 4244) to eliminate orosensory stimulation. Some work suggests ingestion of aspartame in a capsule actually decreases hunger (42, 43), although the validity of this observation and a likely mechanism remain to be established. Aspartame doses were similar in trials noting effects or not. With the addition of this evidence, later reviews consistently concluded NNS have little effect on appetite (26, 29, 45).

Evidence that NNS promotes hunger when delivered without energy, but not when incorporated into an energy-yielding food requires this effect to be weighed in light of the fact the beverages are the primary source of NNS (46). This is a medium that commonly does not supply energy, but is most often ingested periprandially (39, 47) negating the conditions apparently required for the rise in hunger. Further, if a rise of hunger is elicited, the question becomes, does this translate into increased energy intake?

Preload design trials are the most common approach for assessing appetitive effects on intake, but because, by design, they are short-term, they fail to reflect known (4850) longer-term dietary compensation responses. Thus, their predictive value for energy intake over intervals likely to impact body weight is questionable. Due to this limitation, only evidence from human trials lasting at least 3 days is considered here.

NNS and Energy Intake

Based on modeling with data from the Beltsville One Year Dietary Study, it was predicted that carbohydrate replacement in core foods would result in increased fat and protein consumption (51), thereby offsetting a reduction of energy intake. The authors noted that their findings were predicated on substitution rather than addition of reduced carbohydrate products. While controlled feeding trials, where sugars were replaced with NNS, have yielded mixed support for the the model’s predictions (52, 53), a test in free-living populations has not occurred because consumers largely use products with NNS as additions to the diet. Absolute quantities of carbohydrates, sugars specifically, and NNS products have increased over the past two decades (2). Indeed, as a percent of energy intake, the contribution from carbohydrate has also risen (1, 46).

There are reports from controlled trials in humans of enhanced energy intake following ingestion of a sweetened, non-caloric beverage (5457). However, the preponderance of evidence indicates NNS exert no short-term effect on energy intake (28, 35, 58). Longer-term feeding trials generally indicate NNS use results in no change or reduced energy intake. Early feeding trials conducted in a metabolic ward indicated substitution of NNS for NS during 3d blocks resulted in incomplete energy compensation as intake was 14–23% lower than baseline (59). When the sucrose-sweetened products were re-introduced, energy intake exceeded baseline by 7.4% and 5.3% in the next two 3-day trial blocks. A subsequent trial that entailed reducing the energy content of an ad libitum diet by 25% for 12 days, though the use of NNS, revealed energy intake stabilized at 85% of baseline (52). However, baseline intake in this group was approximately 15.9MJ/d, raising questions about the ecological validity of the trial. Thus, these data suggest covert introduction of NNS can lead to a reduction of energy intake over days, but with uncertain sustainability. The covert manipulation and controlled test setting were appropriate for the hypotheses under study, but left open questions about extrapolation of the data to free-living individuals who largely know when they are consuming products with NNS.

In partial response to these concerns, a later three arm, cross-over design study monitored the energy intake and body weight of 30 free-living, normal weight, males and females who were provided 1150 g/d of soda with NS, NNS or no soda, each for three weeks (60). Relative to the no soda condition, daily energy intake rose significantly with NS and declined with the NNS. However, poor dietary compensation for beverages with different energy sources has been reported (61) so attributing the effects to sweetness or sweetener is not possible. This concern was addressed in another cross-over design trial that monitored the intake of 14 free-living males for two 10-day periods when they were provided three meals per day containing sucrose sweetened beverage and solid food products or counterparts containing NNS (aspartame and acesulfame K) (53). For the 10 participants ingesting NS followed by products with NNS, energy intake was consistently lower with the NNS intervention, although it still averaged about 12.41MJ/d. Mean dietary compensation was approximately 42%, but was marked by high individual variability with responses ranging from reverse compensation to about 90%.

A more recent trial (62), examined the effects of a 10-week intervention where overweight males and females were required to consume specific minimum amounts of sucrose or NNS products daily, but otherwise intake was ad libitum. In the sucrose group, 70% of sugar was provided via beverages and in the NNS group, the value was 80%. The diets provided 3.4MJ of sucrose/d or 1.0MJ of NNS products/d. Mean energy intake rose in the sucrose group by approximately 1617 kJ/d (16.4%) and declined by 439 kJ/d (4.8%) in the NNS group. There was a significant group difference, but the change in energy intake of the NNS group over the trial was not statistically significant.

Thus, short-term trials of NNS consumption provide mixed evidence for reduced energy intake, while longer-term trials consistently indicate their use results in incomplete compensation and slightly lower energy intake. The latter studies are arguably the more nutritionally relevant. These conclusions are consistent with those of prior reviewers (9, 23, 24, 2629, 45, 63).


The primary interest in effects of NNS on feeding is based on the assumption that a stimulatory effect will result in weight gain or reduced weight loss in those attempting to lose weight. The pendulum of concern about the contribution of NNS use on body weight has made a full cycle in the past two decades. The potential for NNS consumption to promote weight gain drew attention in 1986 based on findings from an American Cancer Society (ACS) survey conducted over one year with 78,694 women 50–69 years of age (64). After controlling for initial body weight, those who used NNS were significantly more likely to gain weight than non-users. However, the authors noted that mean weight changes differed by less than two pounds between users and non-users, so no conclusion was actually drawn regarding long-term effects on weight change. Despite the conservative interpretation of the data, the hypothesis generated considerable debate. Although some additional supporting data were published (65), the noted shortcomings in the ACS data (66) and proposed alternative explanations of the findings (e.g., the association was equally well explained by reverse causality) combined with the publication of data from shorter-term [i.e., 10 days (53); 3 weeks (60); 10 weeks (62); 12 weeks (58); 16 weeks (67)] intervention trials that failed to support the original hypothesis, allayed concerns. Inverse associations were also reported in some observational studies (68).

The largest intervention trial with NNS aimed to promote weight loss through substitution of NNS for sucrose in the diet (69). A sample of 163 adults participated in a 3-week run-in, 16-week intervention, 1-year maintenance, and 2-year follow-up. At the end of the intervention, there was no difference in weight loss between groups using and avoiding aspartame, but the former group better maintained the loss during the subsequent 2 years. While the reports of Stellman and Garfinkel (1986) and Blackburn (1999) are often cited as support for antithetical views about the role of NNS in weight loss, in fact, they draw essentially the same conclusions. The former group stated, “These data do not support the hypothesis that long-term AS [aspartame] use either helps in losing weight or prevents weight gain.” While the latter stated, “… the use of aspartame-containing foods and beverages is as effective at promoting weight loss as the same diet, exercise, and behavior program devoid of aspartame-containing products.” This lack of clear evidence for efficacy or exacerbation of weight gain, coupled with increasing concern about the role of fat in the diet, diverted attention away from the issue.

However, with the popularity of higher fat diets and renewed implication of carbohydrate in obesity incidence and prevalence during the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, attention was again focused on a role for NNS. Since this reversal, no new large scale intervention trial has been published and, as before, the recent observational evidence has failed to clarify the issue. An analysis of data from the Nurses Health Study (70), which had previously suggested a direct association between NNS use and body mass index (BMI) (71), noted no differences in risk of weight gain with long-term consumption of soda with NNS and those who increased intake had a lower weight gain than those decreasing use. In contrast, findings from the San Antonio Heart Study indicate there is a direct relationship. This trial recruited 5,158 adults and completed 3,682 (74%) between 1979 and 1988 (72). After controlling for baseline BMI, age, ethnicity, gender, years of education, and socio-economic status, a dose response relationship was noted between NNS beverage consumption and the incidence of overweight/obesity among individuals with baseline BMI <25 kg/m2 as well as those with baseline BMI <30 kg/m2. Significantly elevated odds ratios were noted for individuals consuming 11–21 or ≥22 NNS beverages per week (1.60 and 1.79 in the former group and 1.92 and 2.08 in the latter group). The mean BMI gain was 1.47kg/m2 in the combined group of NNS users and 1.01kg/m2 in nonusers. NNS use and BMI gains were higher in dieters (1.97 kg/m2) than non-dieters (1.26kg/m2) that used NNS beverages, although the rise among non-dieters was still significant. While reverse causality remains a likely explanation for a portion of the findings, changes noted for non-dieting, normal weight individuals fits less well with this interpretation. Whether these findings hold when total NNS use is considered is an important question. Limiting analyses to NNS beverage use may bias the data towards significant effects as this is a medium more consistently associated with NNS augmentation of appetite and intake (27).

Thus, intervention trials consistently fail to document that NNS promote weight gain and observational studies provide only equivocal evidence that they may. Reflecting these findings, conclusions from prior reviews are ambivalent about a contribution of NNS to weight gain (9, 23, 24, 2629, 45, 63). Nevertheless, concern about their use persists. This is fueled by existing and evolving evidence for plausible mechanisms. They appear to be afforded greater weight given the noted methodological difficulties in documenting associations between NNS use, feeding, and BMI. Thus, a critical examination of commonly evoked mechanisms linking NNS to appetite and feeding should help clarify the issue.

Mechanisms by which NNS may aid in weight management

NNS have been introduced into the food supply to achieve several aims. From an economics perspective, NNS may be less expensive than NS and supplies are more reliable, resulting in reduced product cost, hence profitability to the food industry (73). NNS may also yield products with desirable sensory properties (74) not easily achieved with NS and thereby increase product sales. Health considerations are also a driving force. NNS provide greater food choice to diabetic individuals attempting to moderate their ingestion of NS. They also provide options to healthy consumers interested in limiting NS consumption for reasons unrelated to energy balance (e.g., dental health, behavioral disorders), although, clearly, concerns have been voiced about the health effects of NNS use as well. Perhaps the most widely recognized function of NNS in the food supply is to help maintain the palatability of foods reduced in energy and, as a consequence, aid weight management.

On a metabolic level, there are no data indicating intrinsic properties of NNS modify energy balance independently of their influence on macronutrient and energy intake. With respect to the former, if it is assumed that substitution of NNS for NS only results in decreased carbohydrate intake, the fat and protein to carbohydrate ratios of the diet would increase. While weight loss is achievable on energy restricted diets of varying macronutrient composition (75), recent evidence supports the efficacy of an unrestricted diet with elevated fat and protein to carbohydrate ratios (76, 77). However, the degree to which NNS may contribute to this macronutrient shift is not established and could be low in free-living individuals where trends indicate NNS are commonly used as dietary additions rather than substitutes for NS (2). The preponderance of research on NNS and weight management has focused on their ability to promote negative energy balance through maintenance of the appeal and consumption of an energy diluted food. It is an uncontested maxim that, with free choice, consumers will not purchase or consume products on a chronic basis that do not meet their sensory expectations.

Mechanisms by which NNS may stimulate appetite Cephalic Phase Stimulation

Neurally-mediated physiological responses to sensory stimulation reportedly prime the body to optimize the digestion of foods and the absorption and use of the energy and nutrients they yield (7880). There are hypotheses that lack of activation of cephalic phase responses may increase the risk of obesity (81). Conversely, others hypothesize that activation of cephalic phase responses, through eating in general (82, 83) or exposure to sweet items in particular (84), will be problematic by stimulating appetite and intake. One proposed mechanism for the latter view entails a NNS exposure effect on insulin secretion and glucose metabolism. However, supportive evidence is lacking. An independent effect of sweetness stimulation on insulin release in humans has been reported in some studies (85, 86), but not others (8790). This may be due, in part, to sweetener differences in effectiveness since a cephalic phase insulin response (CPIR) has been reported in humans with glucose and saccharin (86, 87) but not with aspartame (88, 9092).

Still, if sweet exposure provided through a NNS does prompt a rise of insulin, it cannot be assumed this will enhance hunger. Elevated levels of insulin in the brain decrease feeding in animals and hunger responses in humans do not track insulin concentrations during euglycemic clamp studies (93). Clamp studies also show that hunger does not track glucose concentrations. However, if glucose was an appetitive signal, a decline of hunger due to NNS stimulation of insulin is unlikely because the CPIR moderates glucose excursions (94, 95) rather than augmenting swings. Moreover, there are other cephalic phase responses that could counter mechanisms promoting hunger. For example, the thermogenic response, particularly to palatable stimuli (96), is associated with reduced hunger (97), although not consistently (98). As with the CPIR, this response may not be elicited by all sweeteners [e.g., aspartame (99)]. Taken together, there is inadequate support that NNS stimulate hunger via cephalic phase responses.

Nutritive and osmotic effects

The stomach provides primarily volumetric-based appetitive signals whereas the intestines are more responsive to nutrient cues (100, 101). However, these properties are not absolute as there are intestinal osmoreceptors and gastric chemoreceptors (102). Gastric distention promoted by mechanical inflation of a balloon (103, 104) or nutritive fill (41, 105) is associated with enhanced satiety. Within a beverage type, those containing NS have higher energy content and osmotic load (106). Beverages of higher energy density empty from the stomach more slowly (102, 107), independent of osmotic effects (108, 109). Similarly, the gastric emptying rate is reduced with higher osmotic challenges (110112) independently of energy content (113). Activation of both gastric stretch and intestinal nutrient signals results in synergistic effects on satiety (101, 114). Consequently, beverages with NNS may be hypothesized to weaken satiety properties associated with NS. However, the absolute importance of these properties is uncertain.

The osmotic effects on gastric emptying are transient. Within 30 minutes of ingestion of beverages with marked differences in osmotic load, emptying rates equilibrate as the greater gastric volume generated by the high osmotic load itself promotes increased emptying (113). Further, nutritive effects are inconsistent. Sucrose empties from the stomach more quickly than an iso-energetic load of maltose, yet the former results in greater fullness (41). Also an iso-energetic and iso-osmotic load of fructose empties more quickly than a load of glucose (115). Thus, the nature of the sweetener is also a factor. Ultimately, the gut is only one source of a highly redundant matrix of appetitive signals and its contribution may be over-ridden by cognitive, sensory, metabolic, and other sources of input (116). Long-term gastrectomized individuals differ little from healthy controls in appetitive sensations and food intake regulation (117). Thus, changes in the osmotic and nutrient properties of foods and beverages through substitution of NNS for NS would not be predicted to enhance hunger or diminish satiety.

Gut peptide response

Dietary macronutrients are differentially effective at stimulating the release of gut peptides. Carbohydrate is an adequate stimulus for secretion of glucagon-like peptide -1 (GLP-1) (118120), a potent incretin and satiety factor (121, 122). Failure of a NNS to elicit the release of such peptides could theoretically result in lower satiety and augmented energy intake. Recent evidence suggests receptors with properties similar to sweet taste receptors on the tongue are present in the GI tract and involved in GLP-1 release (123). The NNS sucralose is a ligand for the gut receptor and elicits GLP-1 secretion (123). However, just as aspartame was not an effective elicitor of cephalic phase responses, it also is not effective for GLP-1 secretion (124). Thus, with these data, the hypothesis that NNS will be less effective stimuli for carbohydrate responsive satiety hormones is uncertain. There may be compound specificity in responsiveness.


A primary motivation to add NNS to foods or beverages is to enhance their palatability. Often they are added to improve the acceptability of low or energy–reduced foods or diets with the aim of increasing their intake over more energy-dense versions. NNS may also be added to items with real or perceived health benefits independent of their energy content (e.g., high fiber or nutrient fortified foods) or with desired physiological effects (e.g., caffeinated products) to promote intake. In any case, the assumption is that palatability stimulates hunger and/or reduces satiation/satiety and thereby facilitates intake. However, support for this view is very limited. One report noted hunger increased in anticipation of eating a preferred food (125), but most trials have monitored appetite within an eating occasion. As reviewed previously (126), greater palatability has been associated with augmented (125, 127), unchanged (128), or diminished (129, 130) hunger after controlling for intake. Studies monitoring appetitive effects beyond the meal (e.g., rebound hunger) have also yielded mixed findings (125, 130132). Thus, there is inconclusive evidence that palatability influences appetitive sensations. Part of the explanation may be that the relationship is not static and with repeated exposures to a food, its hedonic tone changes (133). Generally, the acceptability of less palatable foods improves with familiarity.

Mechanisms by which NNS may enhance energy intake or balance

NNS substitution for NS may increase fat intake

Strictly replacing NS with NNS will, by definition, result in a higher proportion of energy from fat in the diet. Less straightforward are claims that NNS use may preferentially stimulate an absolute increase of fat intake. Based on mathematical modeling, a reduction of 20 grams of NS in core foods through the substitution of NNS would shift food choice and result in an increase of 10 g of fat and 6 g of protein in the diet. From an energy balance perspective, this leads to little change (about 100kJ), but there are data suggesting the energy from iso-energetic diets that are higher in fat may be more efficiently used (134, 135). It is important to emphasize two points in this model: first NNS are substituted for NS rather than being added to the diet; and second, the substitutions are made in core foods that provide energy from fat and/or protein as well. Given the increased use of NNS has not been accompanied by a reduction of NS, as documented elsewhere (1, 46), the assumption that NNS are used as a substitute for NS likely does not hold. Second, the replacement of foods providing energy only in the form of sugars, such as sodas, would not influence the intake of other macronutrients.

Intervention trials provide limited support for the modeling prediction of increased fat intake and they do not confirm an impact on body weight. In a metabolic ward study (52), covert reduction of NS intake, by substitution with NNS, prompted energy compensation and an 18% increment in fat relative to baseline. However, total energy intake remained at only 85% of baseline suggesting the increment in fat would not pose a threat to weight gain. In a short-term trial with free-living adults, the substitution of NNS for NS, accounting for a 2092kJ/d energy reduction, resulted in an 11% increase in fat intake over 10 days (53). However, mean total energy compensation was only 50% so participants still consumed less energy than baseline and, again, an adverse effect on body weight would not be predicted. Several acute feeding trials, testing the effects of beverages containing NNS or NS on intake, noted no significant changes of dietary fat or energy intake (55, 136). A 4-week intervention where adults were provided supplementary beverages containing either NS or NNS revealed no change of fat intake with either beverage. Additionally, NNS use for 10 weeks in free-living adults was not accompanied by significant shifts of macronutrient or energy intake or body weight (137). Taken together, published evidence does not indicate that NNS use leads to increased fat consumption resulting in greater energy intake. An enhanced efficiency of energy use with a higher proportional fat composition of the diet would likely be offset by incomplete energy compensation.

Informed use leads to over compensation

Nutrient labeling allows consumers to make informed decisions about the nutritive quality of their diet, but this may be counter-productive if the information is not correctly interpreted. Labeling foods as lower in energy could lead consumers to alter their feeding behavior and paradoxically increase energy intake. This may occur if the expected savings in energy attributed to the substitution of an energy diluted product is greater than any subsequent indulgence rationalized by the prior savings. This may also hold if information about an energy reduction leads to the mistaken belief that such products may be added to the diet without consequence. Acutely, beliefs about the energy content of foods may exert stronger effects on hunger than their true energy value (138) and coupling knowledge of energy loading with activation of digestive processes augments satiety responses relative to physiological challenges alone (139). Short-term studies have yielded mixed data on expectations and intake. In one crossover trial (140), participants ingested breakfast cereals that contained no sweetener, sucrose, or aspartame. The sweet versions were matched on energy, sweetness, and palatability. Half of the participants were informed about the sweetener used and half were not. Informed aspartame use was associated with a non-significant, but noteworthy, increase of total daily energy intake. Compared to informed sucrose use, the increment was 937kJ/d and with uninformed aspartame use, the increment was 791/d. However, other work has failed to observe this effect (55, 141, 142). In a long-term trial where participants were motivated to maintain weight loss, NNS use was associated with lower weight re-gain. The importance of this mechanism remains poorly characterized. It is not specific to sweeteners or sweetness. Indeed, more pronounced effects may occur with manipulated expectations of fat content (143, 144) where small errors lead to larger energy differences due to the higher energy density of fat. In this instance, the purported problem stems from an inappropriate use of NNS rather than an inherent problem with such products.

Loss of signal fidelity

Sweetness is inherently pleasant (145), but the sensation acquires salience through associative learning. That is, based upon acquired knowledge of the metabolic consequence of ingesting a food through previous exposures, its sensory properties signal information about the impending metabolic challenge posed by ingestion of the item. This allows decisions about what type and quantity of food to eat as well as initiation of an appropriate post-ingestive physiological response (146). Combined, such a homeostatic system contributes to maintenance of energy balance.

NNS, and other means of diluting the energy density of foods, pose a challenge to this system. Repeated exposure to low-energy, NNS foods could lead to a non-cognitive expectation that their consumption would contribute little energy to the diet. Thus, if presented with a higher energy version with similar sensory properties, intake may reflect the expected, rather than the true energy value, leading to greater energy consumption. This has been demonstrated in a recent trial in rats where chow energy intake was higher after ingestion of a pre-meal with a flavor previously paired to a low-energy food compared to when the same preload had a flavor previously paired to a comparable high-energy food (147). There are also preliminary data in humans documenting the effect, albeit not solely through manipulation of sweeteners (148, 149). However, the long-term nutritional consequences of such misguided feeding are uncertain. The frequency of exposures to these conditions is likely to be low and energy compensation may occur at a later time point. Further, associative learning is continuous so each exposure to a food results in a recalibration of the sensory signal’s meaning and, as a consequence, its influence on intake.

Another variation on this concept entails repeated pairings between a single sensory property, such as sweetness, and inconsistent metabolic consequences. Here, again the predictability of the signal may be compromised (84, 150, 151). Recent provocative findings from rat models suggest diminished predictability results in positive energy balance. In one set of studies (152), two groups of rats were provided sweet solutions overnight for 10 nights. In one group, they were sweetened with either 10% glucose or sucrose, so their sweet exposures were consistently paired with energy. The other group received 10% glucose or 0.3% saccharin and, as a result, sweetness was inconsistently associated with energy. This was followed by an acute feeding test where a sweet, chocolate-flavored caloric beverage premeal was consumed followed by ad libitum access to chow. While intake of the sweet premeal was comparable for both groups, those that received inconsistent pairings consumed more energy from the chow than the group receiving consistent pairings. Thus, when a sensory cue such as sweetness, lacks predictive power, energy regulation is disrupted and is biased towards positive balance. The longer-term implications of this acute trial were demonstrated in a subsequent 5 week study (151). The rats receiving inconsistent training consumed more energy, gained more body weight and more body fat due to a weaker dietary compensation response. It is unclear whether these findings can be extrapolated to humans who eat a more varied diet and where non-nutritively sweetened foods may be ingested concurrently with high energy foods (e.g., diet soda with a hamburger, non-nutritively sweetened coffee with pie). Under such conditions, associative learning would be considerably more complicated and subtle (e.g., will signal veracity be compromised if a meal contains 4184kJ versus 5021kJ by the substitution of a NNS beverage for one with a NS)?

Beverages sweetened with NNS are most commonly consumed with food (47). Other recent evidence indicates that learning does occur in humans, but is counter to predictions from the animal studies (153). Participants reported consuming beverages containing NNS alone on at least some occasions, so their energy-taste associations would be inconsistent. In short-term tests, participants failed to report increased appetite or energy intake in response to NNS exposure whereas NNS non-users reported heightened appetite and energy intake following such stimulation. These findings indicate inconsistent NNS exposure (paired or not paired with energy) from beverages results in blunted responses to their consumption and no elevation of risk for weight gain. However, this work explored only one source of exposure, beverages, and short-term, one day, responses. The implications of chronic, widespread use of NNS on taste-energy associations and their influence on appetite and feeding are questions open to study.

Water effects

Given that a high proportion of NNS are consumed in beverage form (see Table 2), effects of hydration state on feeding are relevant. A reciprocal association between food and water intake is widely recognized. Animals reduce food intake when water restricted, and reduce water intake when food deprived (154). Similar responses are observed in humans (155). However, hydrational effects on feeding are also apparent in animals provided ad libitum access to food and water (156). This relationship prompted an early hypothesis that obesity stemmed from excess fluid consumption, independent of energy provided by the fluids (157). That is, drinking begets eating. Approximately 75% of beverage consumption is peri-prandial (47). Drinking may facilitate eating by numerous mechanisms including dilution or buffering of intense and/or irritating stimuli, thereby improving food palatability (158), and aiding deglutition (159, 160). The hypothesis is that drinking may initiate eating events to address the osmotic challenge posed by hypotonic beverage ingestion. There has been considerable research on feeding induction of drinking, but much less on the reverse (161163). Whether NNS stimulate drinking and, as a consequence, compensatory eating, has not been adequately evaluated.

Activation of reward systems

The concept of reward in feeding is difficult to define (164), and is proposed to be multi-faceted with elements of liking, wanting, and learning (165). Sweetness is a prototypical stimulus to document each of these elements (166). There is increasing recognition that reward systems activated by the anticipation and actual act of feeding interact with, and may dominate, appetitive systems in modulating food and beverage consumption (166168). One way to operationalize reward is to document effects of sensory exposures on its neural substrates. Sweetness is an effective stimulus for the release of mediators of reward such as dopamine (169171) and opioids (172, 173) that may stimulate food intake. However, the view that sweet foods are preferred and consumed because of the activation of these systems is only one proposed mechanism. Higher intake may also be due to a lack of responsiveness of these systems (171, 174). Thus, over-eating can stem from a lower reward value of foods or motivation to seek them (175, 176).

Recently, it was proposed that these phenomena co-exist (171), but it may also be argued that the data are presently more descriptive than mechanistic. Behaviorally, common experience indicates that food palatability can initiate eating in the absence of energy need and increase energy intake within a meal (125, 127, 177179). Reduced palatability during a meal is not a primary determinant of its termination (180). While there is no evidence NNS are uniquely able to stimulate feeding acutely, their addition to an energy-yielding food or meal has been associated with greater intake (45, 181, 182). The effect is magnified if intake occurs when individuals are hungry (179) and persists, albeit to a lesser degree, in a state of higher satiety (183). Whether longer term intake is increased by this mechanism is not established. With repeated exposure, less palatable foods gain acceptability and intake can match initially preferred items (133). Similarly, palatability may decline for foods with high hedonic quality with frequent exposure (184, 185).

Individuals with heightened reward sensitivity may be at particular risk for palatability driven feeding as preliminary evidence indicates this characteristic is directly related to food intake and BMI (170, 186). However, it cannot be assumed that obese individuals derive greater pleasure from foods (168, 187). Indeed, some work indicates there are no differences between lean and obese individuals (188, 189) or that the former actually provide higher hedonic ratings to a standard list of foods (190). The evidence may be stronger that obese individuals express a stronger desire, “wanting” to eat than pleasure, “liking” from doing so (191).

The importance of post-ingestive learning in establishment of food preferences has been well documented (192) and often attributed to flavor cues. However, recent findings raise questions about the role of sweet taste in reward-mediated feeding. The neural substrates of reward are also activated in sweet-blind (trpm5−/− knock-out) mice due to the energy provided by sucrose (193). In this model, NNS is not as effective at stimulating dopamine release, or either flavor conditioning or promoting intake. Existing evidence does not support nor refute a role for NNS enhanced palatability on reward motivated feeding.

Training the palate: learning to like the familiar

There is an old adage that ‘we like what we eat more than eat what we like’. This statement highlights the fact that while there are inherently pleasant (e.g., sweetness) and unpleasant (e.g., bitterness) sensations (194196), their influence on ingestive behavior is commonly overwhelmed by learned flavor preferences (197, 198). This is best exemplified by the wide variety of cuisines in a global population with largely common inherent hedonic predilections. A primary mechanism by which flavor preferences are entrained is through repeated exposure. This phenomenon has been most clearly described for salt and fat. Observational data indicate there is a direct association between customary salt intake and the preferred concentration of salt in food (199). Some evidence suggests a more specific association between use of discretionary salt and intake (200) which underscores the contribution of sensory exposure. Experimentally, the required addition of salt to food, which increases sensory exposure to the taste, leads to a preference for higher levels of salt in food (201). In contrast, no hedonic shift occurs when adding the same quantity of salt to the diet via capsule, which matches the metabolic challenge posed by salting food, but without the same sensory exposure.

With the exception of extreme sodium depletion (202), systematic reduction of salt exposure for more than several weeks has the opposite effect (203205). Similarly, placing individuals on the same reduced-fat diet where one group is deprived of sensory exposure to fats while another is allowed to use fat replacers to simulate continued sensory exposure, leads to a preference for lower fat levels in foods in the former group, but not the latter (206, 207). Generally, these hedonic shifts occur without changes of sensitivity to or intensity perception of the sensory qualities and typically require about 8–12 weeks to manifest. With respect to sweetness, several (208212) although not all (207) observational studies note a significant association between hedonic ratings for sweet items and customary sweetener exposure. Infants repeatedly provided sweetened water early in life exhibit a heighten acceptance of sweetened water at two years of age (208). This preference is not apparent for a novel fruit-flavored beverage, indicating the effect is food specific. However, ethnographic studies suggest learned sweet preferences in children generalize, at least across beverages (209). Broader associations have also been noted between the percent of energy ingested from predominantly sweet foods and beverages and optimal concentrations of sweetness in foods in adults (213). Measures of sweet liking permitted classification of individuals into tertiles of intake of sweet food intakes or percent of energy from predominantly sweet items with 94–100% accuracy. In other work, the dietary sweetness level, calculated as the gram sum of fructose, sucrose, and alternative sucrose equivalents, correlated with peak hedonic ratings of a fruit-flavored beverage containing graded sucrose concentrations (211). These observations are supported by limited data from a controlled intervention trial where 59 children (mean age 9.2±0.9 years) and 46 young adults (mean age 22±2.0 years) were exposed to a sweetened orange-drink for 8 consecutive days and then tested for their preferred sweetness level of the beverage and a sweetened yogurt (212). A significant increase in preferred sweetness level for the beverage and a trend in this direction for the yogurt were observed in the children, but not the adults. Interestingly, a similar effect was not noted for a comparable manipulation of sourness. However, this may be attributable to the short duration of exposure, as acceptance of novel sweet items is more rapid than acceptance of novel sour items (214).

Collectively, these observations suggest that repeated exposure to a taste or flavor leads to increased acceptance for foods or beverages characterized by the taste or flavor and that the desired intensity of the sensation is directly related to the concentration of the compound responsible for the sensation in dietary items. Further, the sensory property may exert a stronger influence on the preferred concentration of a taste or flavor compound in a food than the metabolic effect of consuming the relevant compound. Thus, repeated exposure to NNS would be expected to establish and maintain a preference for sweet items in the diet. To the extent that NNS are included in energy-yielding items and that the liking for sweetness contributes to intake, their use may be predicted to contribute to energy intake. Generally, there is a direct relationship between hedonic ratings for foods and intake (126). Amelioration of a learned liking for a highly sweetened diet will likely require restricting exposure to sweet foods and beverages, including those that are not significant sources of energy. Such an approach clearly conflicts with one that encourages the use of NNS to dilute the energy content of the diet while maintaining its palatability. It may be that each approach holds merit, but for different sub-sets of the population who are consuming energy from sweet items in excess of need for different reasons (e.g., reward sensitivity, economics).

Inherent liking

There is widespread agreement that sweetness is an inherently pleasant sensation (145, 215). However, there is marked individual variability in its behavioral manifestation (183, 216). This has prompted exploration of the genetic basis of sweet taste. To date, there is little evidence of a heritable component for the ability to detect or rate the intensity of sweetness and only slightly more support for individual differences in hedonics (217). There are several recent reports of a genetic basis for sugar intake (218, 219) that may be mediated by sweetener-sensing mechanisms (220, 221). There are receptors in the intestine, analogous to sweet taste receptors (TR1’s) in the oral cavity, that increase glucose transport via rapid glucose transporter type 2 (GLUT2) insertion into enterocyte cell membranes when activated by NS and NNS (220). Thus, to the extent that GLUT2 activity is associated with obesity (222), substitution of NNS for NS may offer no health advantages. Identification of a polymorphism of GLUT2 revealed individuals that were Ile carriers had higher intakes of sugars from items such as baked goods and chocolate, but not inherently sweet items such as fruit. This suggests that even if there is an inherent predisposition to ingest sweet items, it will be modulated by non-physiological factors such as food availability, health concerns and custom (223) and, possibly, other inherited traits influencing food choice [e.g., neophobia (224)].


From an evolutionary perspective, NNS are a novel dietary stimulus that has been introduced to our diets in only the last few decades. Although the safety of approved NNS has been established with respect to acute toxicity and longer-term pathologies (e.g., carcinogenesis), their influence on appetite feeding, energy balance, and body weight has not been fully characterized. Questions remain regarding effects of both properties of the compounds themselves (e.g., sweet, palatable) and the way consumers choose to use them (dietary additions rather than substitutes). Despite widespread concern about overweight and obesity and the ready availability of NNS for discretionary use and in products, only about 15% of the population ingests them. However, this number is growing so the implications of their use in addressing overweight and obesity requires more complete understanding.

Early acute feeding studies indicate that their inclusion in products that provide little or no energy is associated with heightened hunger, but subsequent work showed that when incorporated into energy-yielding products, this does not occur. Because beverages containing NNS are commonly consumed with foods, augmented hunger may not be a concern. Further, it is unclear that heightened hunger necessarily translates into increased energy intake. Longer-term feeding trials exploring the effects of substitution of NNS for NS in the diet suggest energy compensation is incomplete, resulting in 5–15% reductions of daily energy intake. However, evidence that NNS use in free-living individuals results in improved weight loss or maintenance is lacking. This void has permitted speculation that NNS ameliorate or, more commonly, exacerbate the problem of positive energy balance. A critical review of the literature, addressing the mechanisms by which NNS may promote energy intake, reveals none are substantiated by the available evidence.

There is no clear evidence that NNS augments appetite by activating cephalic phase responses, altering osmotic balance, or enhancing food palatability. Indeed, there is emerging evidence that selected NNS may stimulate the release of satiety hormones, though the link between these hormones and energy intake in free-living individuals is also open to debate. With respect to energy intake, there is no substantive evidence that inherent liking for sweetness or NNS activation of reward systems is problematic. NNS use may result in greater proportional energy contributions from fat, but work on this issue also indicates total energy intake is moderated by NNS and the latter is the dominant factor with respect to body weight. Knowledge of NNS use has been shown to result in energy compensation or even over-compensation in short-term trials, but less so with chronic use. This may be because those who compensate, and therefore fail to achieve weight goals, cease NNS use so only those less susceptible to cognitive influences remain to be evaluated. The concept that NNS use disrupts responsiveness to signals aiding energy balance has been substantiated theoretically, but there is no evidence available to assess the validity of the mechanism in humans. The question of whether drinking is promoted by the appeal and availability of NNS-containing beverages and thus stimulates eating leading to positive energy balance remains unsettled. Use of NNS likely promotes a preference for higher sweetener levels of foods and beverages, but whether this compromises efforts to reduce energy intake has not been explored. Taken together, the evidence summarized by us and others suggests that if NNS are used as substitutes for higher energy yielding sweeteners, they have the potential to aid in weight management, but whether they will be used in this way is uncertain. This will require additional information about NNS use patterns, clarification of remaining potential counter-productive mechanisms, and long-term randomized, controlled trials in free-living populations.


Both authors were involved with the conceptualization of the manuscript, review of the literature as well as drafting and editing of the document. RM and BP have no conflict of interest with respect to this manuscript. We also wish to thank Phil Bardsley and Kiyah Duffey (UNC) and Bridget Cassady, Jenny Houchins, Mary-Jon Ludy, Fiona McKiernan and Alisa Mori (Purdue) for thoughtful assistance. Also, Deborah Klinger (Purdue) and Ms. Frances Dancy are thanked for administrative assistance. No financial support was provided for this work by any grant or contract.

This work was supported by PHS grant no. 1 R01 DK 063185 and USDA HATCH grant 0172514/INDO0840-55 (RM) and (R01-HD39183, R01-HD041375, R01 HD030880). (BP)


1. Popkin BM, Nielsen SJ. The sweetening of the world’s diet. Obes Res. 2003;11:1325–32. [PubMed]
2. Saris WH. Sugars, energy metabolism, and body weight control. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;78:850S–857S. [PubMed]
3. Vartanian LR, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD. Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:667–75. [PubMed]
4. Malik VS, Schulze MB, Hu FB. Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;84:274–88. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Forshee RA, Anderson PA, Storey ML. Sugar-sweetened beverages and body mass index in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;87:1662–71. [PubMed]
6. Drewnowski A, Bellisle F. Liquid calories, sugar, and body weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85:651–61. [PubMed]
7. Hill JO, Prentice AM. Sugar and body weight regulation. Am J Clin Nutr. 1995;62:264S–273S. discussion 273S–274S. [PubMed]
8. Vermunt SH, Pasman WJ, Schaafsma G, Kardinaal AF. Effects of sugar intake on body weight: a review. Obes Rev. 2003;4:91–9. [PubMed]
9. Anderson GH, Leiter LA. Sweeteners and food intake: relevance to obesity. In: Angel A, Anderson H, Bouchard C, Lau D, Leiter LA, Mendelson R, editors. Progress in Obesity Research. John Libbey & Company, LTD; 1996.
10. WHO/FAO. Expert Consultation on Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic DiseasesReport of the joint WHO/FAO expert consultation. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003.
11. Rivera JA, Muñoz-Hernández O, Rosas-Peralta M, Aguilar-Salinas CA, Popkin BM, Willett WC. Consumo de bebidas para una vida saludable: recomendaciones para la población (Beverage consumption for a healthy life: recommendations for the Mexican population) Salud Publica Mexico. 2008;50:173–95. [PubMed]
12. Department of Food and Environmental Hygiene. Risk assessment on artificial sweeteners in beverages, risk assessment studies report No. 15. Food and Public Health Branch of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department of Hong Kong Government, 2003:23.
13. Bär A, Biermann C. Intake of intense sweeteners in Germany. Zeitschrift für Ernährungswissenschaft. 1992;31:25–39. [PubMed]
14. Leclercq C, Berardi D, Sorbillo MR, Lambe J. Intake of saccharin, aspartame, acesulfame K and cyclamate in Italian teenagers: present levels and projections. Food Addit Contam. 1999;16:99–109. [PubMed]
15. Chung M, Suh H, Yoo W, et al. Daily intake assessment of saccharin, stevioside, D-sorbitol and aspartame from various processed foods in Korea. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A. 2005;22:1087–1097. [PubMed]
16. Leth T, Jensen U, Fagt S, Andersen R. Estimated intake of intense sweeteners from non-alcoholic beverages in Denmark, 2005. Food Addit Contam. 2008;25:662–8. [PubMed]
17. Magnuson B, Burdock G, Doull J, et al. Aspartame: A safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2007;37:629–727. [PubMed]
18. Popkin BM, Haines PS, Siega-riz AM. Dietary patterns and trends in the United States: the UNC-CH approach. Appetite. 1999;32:8–14. [PubMed]
19. Heitmann BL, Lissner L, Osler M. Do we eat less fat, or just report so? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24:435–42. [PubMed]
20. Tooze JA, Schoeller DA, Subar AF, Kipnis V, Schatzkin A, Troiano RP. Total daily energy expenditure among middle-aged men and women: the OPEN Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;86:382–7. [PubMed]
21. Kipnis V, Subar AF, Midthune D, et al. Structure of dietary measurement error: results of the OPEN biomarker study. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:14–21. discussion 22–6. [PubMed]
22. Subar AF, Kipnis V, Troiano RP, et al. Using intake biomarkers to evaluate the extent of dietary misreporting in a large sample of adults: the OPEN study. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:1–13. [PubMed]
23. Rolls BJ. Effects of intense sweeteners on hunger, food intake, and body weight: a review. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991;53:872–8. [PubMed]
24. Renwick AG. Intense sweeteners, food intake, and the weight of a body of evidence. Physiol Behav. 1994;55:139–43. [PubMed]
25. Blundell JE, King NA. Overconsumption as a cause of weight gain: behavioural-physiological interactions in the control of food intake (appetite) Ciba Found Symp. 1996;201:138–54. discussion 154–8, 188–93. [PubMed]
26. Benton D. Can artificial sweeteners help control body weight and prevent obesity? Nutr Res Rev. 2005;18:63–76. [PubMed]
27. de la Hunty A, Giibson S, Ashwell M. A review of the effectiveness of aspartame in helping with weight control. British Nutrition Foundation Nutrition Bulletin. 2006;31:115–128.
28. Bellisle F, Drewnowski A. Intense sweeteners, energy intake and the control of body weight. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007;61:691–700. [PubMed]
29. Drewnowski A. Intense sweeteners and the control of appetite. Nutr Rev. 1995;53:1–7. [PubMed]
30. Rogers P, Blundell J. Evaluation of the influence of intense sweeteners on the short-term control of appetite and caloric intake: a psychobiological approach. In: Grenby T, editor. Progress in Sweetners. London and New York: Elsevier Applied Science; 1989.
31. Black RM, Leiter LA, Anderson GH. Consuming aspartame with and without taste: differential effects on appetite and food intake of young adult males. Physiol Behav. 1993;53:459–66. [PubMed]
32. Black RM, Tanaka P, Leiter LA, Anderson GH. Soft drinks with aspartame: effect on subjective hunger, food selection, and food intake of young adult males. Physiol Behav. 1991;49:803–10. [PubMed]
33. Canty DJ, Chan MM. Effects of consumption of caloric vs noncaloric sweet drinks on indices of hunger and food consumption in normal adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991;53:1159–64. [PubMed]
34. Blundell JE, Hill AJ. Paradoxical effects of an intense sweetener (aspartame) on appetite. Lancet. 1986;1:1092–3. [PubMed]
35. Rogers PJ, Carlyle JA, Hill AJ, Blundell JE. Uncoupling sweet taste and calories: comparison of the effects of glucose and three intense sweeteners on hunger and food intake. Physiol Behav. 1988;43:547–52. [PubMed]
36. Tordoff MG, Alleva AM. Oral stimulation with aspartame increases hunger. Physiol Behav. 1990;47:555–9. [PubMed]
37. Mattes RD. Interaction between the energy content and sensory properties of foods. In: Birch G, Campbell-Platt G, editors. Synergy. Andover, Hampshire UK: Intercept, Ltd; 1994. pp. 39–51.
38. Rolls BJ, Laster LJ, Summerfelt A. Hunger and food intake following consumption of low-calorie foods. Appetite. 1989;13:115–27. [PubMed]
39. Drewnowski A, Massien C, Louis-Sylvestre J, Fricker J, Chapelot D, Apfelbaum M. Comparing the effects of aspartame and sucrose on motivational ratings, taste preferences, and energy intakes in humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994;59:338–45. [PubMed]
40. Maone TR, Mattes RD, Bernbaum JC, Beauchamp GK. A new method for delivering a taste without fluids to preterm and term infants. Dev Psychobiol. 1990;23:179–91. [PubMed]
41. Lavin JH, French SJ, Read NW. Comparison of oral and gastric administration of sucrose and maltose on gastric emptying rate and appetite. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2002;26:80–6. [PubMed]
42. Rogers PJ, Pleming HC, Blundell JE. Aspartame ingested without tasting inhibits hunger and food intake. Physiol Behav. 1990;47:1239–43. [PubMed]
43. Rogers PJ, Keedwell P, Blundell JE. Further analysis of the short-term inhibition of food intake in humans by the dipeptide L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methyl ester (aspartame) Physiol Behav. 1991;49:739–43. [PubMed]
44. Rogers PJ, Burley VJ, Alikhanizadeh LA, Blundell JE. Postingestive inhibition of food intake by aspartame: importance of interval between aspartame administration and subsequent eating. Physiol Behav. 1995;57:489–93. [PubMed]
45. Blundell JE, Green SM. Effect of sucrose and sweeteners on appetite and energy intake. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1996;20 (Suppl 2):S12–7. [PubMed]
46. Duffey K, Popkin BM. High-fructose corn syrup: Is this what’s for dinner? American J Clin Nutr. In press. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
47. McKiernan F, Houchins JA, Mattes RD. Relationships between human thirst, hunger, drinking, and feeding. Physiol Behav. 2008 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
48. Louis-Sylvestre J, Tournier A, Verger P, Chabert M, Delorme B, Hossenlopp J. Learned caloric adjustment of human intake. Appetite. 1989;12:95–103. [PubMed]
49. Birch LL, Johnson SL, Andresen G, Peters JC, Schulte MC. The variability of young children’s energy intake. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:232–5. [PubMed]
50. McKiernan F, Hollis JH, Mattes RD. Short-term dietary compensation in free-living adults. Physiol Behav. 2008;93:975–83. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
51. Beaton GH, Tarasuk V, Anderson GH. Estimation of possible impact of non-caloric fat and carbohydrate substitutes on macronutrient intake in the human. Appetite. 1992;19:87–103. [PubMed]
52. Porikos KP, Hesser MF, van Itallie TB. Caloric regulation in normal-weight men maintained on a palatable diet of conventional foods. Physiol Behav. 1982;29:293–300. [PubMed]
53. Naismith DJ, Rhodes C. Adjustment in energy intake following the covert removal of sugar from the diet. J Hum Nutr Diet. 1995;8:167–175.
54. Blundell JE, Rogers PJ, Hill AJ. Artificial sweeteners and appetite in man. In: Birch G, Lindley MG, editors. Low Calorie Products. London: Elsevier Applied Science; 1988. pp. 147–70.
55. Lavin JH, French SJ, Read NW. The effect of sucrose- and aspartame-sweetened drinks on energy intake, hunger and food choice of female, moderately restrained eaters. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1997;21:37–42. [PubMed]
56. King NA, Appleton K, Rogers PJ, Blundell JE. Effects of sweetness and energy in drinks on food intake following exercise. Physiol Behav. 1999;66:375–9. [PubMed]
57. Brala PM, Hagen RL. Effects of sweetness perception and caloric value of a preload on short term intake. Physiol Behav. 1983;30:1–9. [PubMed]
58. Kanders BS, Lavin PT, Kowalchuk MB, Greenberg I, Blackburn GL. An evaluation of the effect of aspartame on weight loss. Appetite. 1988;11 (Suppl 1):73–84. [PubMed]
59. Porikos KP, Booth G, Van Itallie TB. Effect of covert nutritive dilution on the spontaneous food intake of obese individuals: a pilot study. Am J Clin Nutr. 1977;30:1638–44. [PubMed]
60. Tordoff MG, Alleva AM. Effect of drinking soda sweetened with aspartame or high-fructose corn syrup on food intake and body weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;51:963–9. [PubMed]
61. Mattes RD, Rothacker D. Beverage viscosity is inversely related to postprandial hunger in humans. Physiol Behav. 2001;74:551–7. [PubMed]
62. Raben A, Vasilaras TH, Moller AC, Astrup A. Sucrose compared with artificial sweeteners: different effects on ad libitum food intake and body weight after 10 wk of supplementation in overweight subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76:721–9. [PubMed]
63. Rogers PJ, Blundell JE. Evaluation of the influence of intense sweeteners on the short-term control of appetite and caloric intake: a psychobiological approach. In: Grenby TH, editor. Progress in Sweetners. London and New York: Elsevier Applied Science; 1989.
64. Stellman SD, Garfinkel L. Artificial sweetener use and one-year weight change among women. Prev Med. 1986;15:195–202. [PubMed]
65. Parker DR, Gonzalez S, Derby CA, Gans KM, Lasater TM, Carleton RA. Dietary factors in relation to weight change among men and women from two southeastern New England communities. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1997;21:103–9. [PubMed]
66. Lavin PT, Sanders PG, Mackey MA, Kotsonis FN. Intense sweeteners use and weight change among women: a critique of the Stellman and Garfinkel study. J Am Coll Nutr. 1994;13:102–5. [PubMed]
67. Blackburn GL. Sweeteners and weight control. World Rev Nutr Diet. 1999;85:77–87. [PubMed]
68. Serra-Majem L, Ribas L, Ingles C, Fuentes M, Lloveras G, Salleras L. Cyclamate consumption in Catalonia, Spain (1992): relationship with the body mass index. Food Addit Contam. 1996;13:695–703. [PubMed]
69. Blackburn GL, Kanders BS, Lavin PT, Keller SD, Whatley J. The effect of aspartame as part of a multidisciplinary weight-control program on short- and long-term control of body weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997;65:409–18. [PubMed]
70. Schulze MB, Manson JE, Ludwig DS, et al. Sugar-sweetened beverages, weight gain, and incidence of type 2 diabetes in young and middle-aged women. JAMA. 2004;292:927–34. [PubMed]
71. Colditz GA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, London SJ, Segal MR, Speizer FE. Patterns of weight change and their relation to diet in a cohort of healthy women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;51:1100–5. [PubMed]
72. Fowler SP, Williams K, Resendez RG, Hunt KJ, Hazuda HP, Stern MP. Fueling the Obesity Epidemic? Artificially Sweetened Beverage Use and Long-term Weight Gain. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2008 [PubMed]
73. Szmrecsanyi T, Alvarez VMP. The search for a perfect substitute: technological and economic trajectories of synthetic sweeteners, from saccharin to aspartame (c.1880-1980). Internation Economic History Congress, Session C-36; Madrid. 1998. pp. 1–23.
74. Kuntz L. Achieving flavor parity with alternative sweeteners. Food Product Design. 1995:1–10.
75. Dansinger ML, Gleason JA, Griffith JL, Selker HP, Schaefer EJ. Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2005;293:43–53. [PubMed]
76. Nordmann AJ, Nordmann A, Briel M, et al. Effects of low-carbohydrate vs low-fat diets on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:285–93. [PubMed]
77. Shai I, Schwarzfuchs D, Henkin Y, et al. Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or low-fat diet. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:229–41. [PubMed]
78. Powley TL. The ventromedial hypothalamic syndrome, satiety, and a cephalic phase hypothesis. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:89–126. [PubMed]
79. Mattes RD. Physiologic responses to sensory stimulation by food: nutritional implications. J Am Diet Assoc. 1997;97:406–13. [PubMed]
80. Zafra M, Molina F, Puerto A. The neural/cephalic phase reflexes in the physiology of nutrition. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006;30:1032–1044. [PubMed]
81. Storlien LH, Bruce DG. Mind over metabolism: the cephalic phase in relation to non-insulin-dependent diabetes and obesity. Biol Psychol. 1989;28:3–23. [PubMed]
82. Powley TL, Berthoud HR. Diet and cephalic phase insulin responses. Am J Clin Nutr. 1985;42:991–1002. [PubMed]
83. Nederkoorn C, Smulders FT, Jansen A. Cephalic phase responses, craving and food intake in normal subjects. Appetite. 2000;35:45–55. [PubMed]
84. Tordoff MG. How do non-nutritive sweeteners increase food intake? Appetite. 1988;11 (Suppl 1):5–11. [PubMed]
85. Kun E, Horvath I. The influence of oral saccharin on blood sugar. College of Physcians of Philadelphia. 1986;14:175–177. [PubMed]
86. Yamazaki M, Sakaguchi T. Effects of D-glucose anomers on sweetness taste and insulin release in man. Brain Res Bull. 1986;17:271–4. [PubMed]
87. Goldfine ID, Ryan WG, Schwartz TB. The effect of glucola, diet cola and water ingestion on blood. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1969;131:329–330. [PubMed]
88. Abdallah L, Chabert M, Louis-Sylvestre J. Cephalic phase responses to sweet taste. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997;65:737–43. [PubMed]
89. Teff KL, Mattes RD, Engelman K, Mattern J. Cephalic-phase insulin in obese and normal-weight men: relation to postprandial insulin. Metabolism. 1993;42:1600–8. [PubMed]
90. Smeets PA, de Graaf C, Stafleu A, van Osch MJ, van der Grond J. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of human hypothalamic responses to sweet taste and calories. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;82:1011–6. [PubMed]
91. Bruce DG, Storlien LH, Furler SM, Chisholm DJ. Cephalic phase metabolic responses in normal weight adults. Metabolism. 1987;36:721–5. [PubMed]
92. Teff KL, Devine J, Engelman K. Sweet taste: effect on cephalic phase insulin release in men. Physiol Behav. 1995;57:1089–95. [PubMed]
93. Chapman IM, Goble EA, Wittert GA, Morley JE, Horowitz M. Effect of intravenous glucose and euglycemic insulin infusions on short-term appetite and food intake. Am J Physiol. 1998;274:R596–603. [PubMed]
94. Kraegen EW, Chisholm DJ, McNamara ME. Timing of insulin delivery with meals. Horm Metab Res. 1981;13:365–7. [PubMed]
95. Teff K. Nutritional implications of the cephalic-phase reflexes: endocrine responses. Appetite. 2000;34:206–13. [PubMed]
96. LeBlanc J, Brondel L. Role of palatability on meal-induced thermogenesis in human subjects. Am J Physiol. 1985;248:E333–6. [PubMed]
97. LeBlanc J, Soucy J. Interactions between postprandial thermogenesis, sensory stimulation of feeding, and hunger. Am J Physiol. 1996;271:R936–40. [PubMed]
98. LeBlanc J, Cabanac M. Cephalic postprandial thermogenesis in human subjects. Physiol Behav. 1989;46:479–82. [PubMed]
99. Prat-Larquemin L, Oppert JM, Bellisle F, Guy-Grand B. Sweet taste of aspartame and sucrose: effects on diet-induced thermogenesis. Appetite. 2000;34:245–51. [PubMed]
100. Phillips RJ, Powley TL. Gastric volume rather than nutrient content inhibits food intake. Am J Physiol. 1996;271:R766–9. [PubMed]
101. Powley TL, Phillips RJ. Gastric satiation is volumetric, intestinal satiation is nutritive. Physiol Behav. 2004;82:69–74. [PubMed]
102. Houpt KA. Gastrointestinal factors in hunger and satiety. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1982;6:145–64. [PubMed]
103. Geliebter A, Westreich S, Gage D. Gastric distention by balloon and test-meal intake in obese and lean subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988;48:592–4. [PubMed]
104. Pasquali R, Besteghi L, Casimirri F, et al. Mechanisms of action of the intragastric balloon in obesity: effects on hunger and satiety. Appetite. 1990;15:3–11. [PubMed]
105. Delgado-Aros S, Cremonini F, Castillo JE, et al. Independent influences of body mass and gastric volumes on satiation in humans. Gastroenterol. 2004;126:432–40. [PubMed]
106. Feldman M, Barnett C. Relationships between the acidity and osmolality of popular beverages and reported postprandial heartburn. Gastroenterol. 1995;108:125–31. [PubMed]
107. Brener W, Hendrix TR, McHugh PR. Regulation of the gastric emptying of glucose. Gastroenterol. 1983;85:76–82. [PubMed]
108. Moran TH, Knipp S, Schwartz GJ. Gastric and duodenal features of meals mediate controls of liquid gastric emptying during fill in rhesus monkeys. Am J Physiol. 1999;277:R1282–90. [PubMed]
109. Calbet JA, MacLean DA. Role of caloric content on gastric emptying in humans. J Physiol. 1997;498 (Pt 2):553–9. [PubMed]
110. Vist GE, Maughan RJ. The effect of osmolality and carbohydrate content on the rate of gastric emptying of liquids in man. J Physiol. 1995;486 (Pt 2):523–31. [PubMed]
111. Shafer RB, Levine AS, Marlette JM, Morley JE. Do calories, osmolality, or calcium determine gastric emptying? Am J Physiol. 1985;248:R479–83. [PubMed]
112. Rao SS, Safadi R, Lu C, Schulze-Delrieu K. Manometric responses of human duodenum during infusion of HCl, hyperosmolar saline, bile and oleic acid. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 1996;8:35–43. [PubMed]
113. Gisolfi CV, Summers RW, Lambert GP, Xia T. Effect of beverage osmolality on intestinal fluid absorption during exercise. J Appl Physiol. 1998;85:1941–8. [PubMed]
114. Peters HPF, Mela DJ. The role of the gastrintestinal tract in satiation, satiety, and food intake: evidence from research in humans. In: Harris BS, Mattes RD, editors. Appetite and Food Intake: Behavioral and Physiological Considerations. Boca Raton; CRC Press: 2008. pp. 187–211.
115. Moran TH, McHugh PR. Distinctions among three sugars in their effects on gastric emptying and satiety. Am J Physiol. 1981;241:R25–30. [PubMed]
116. McHugh PR, Moran TH. Progress in Psychobiology and Psysiological Psychology. Academic Press, Inc; 1985. The stomach: a conception of its dynamic role in satiety; pp. 197–231.
117. Bergh C, Sjostedt S, Hellers G, Zandian M, Sodersten P. Meal size, satiety and cholecystokinin in gastrectomized humans. Physiol Behav. 2003;78:143–7. [PubMed]
118. Elliott RM, Morgan LM, Tredger JA, Deacon S, Wright J, Marks V. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (7–36)amide and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide secretion in response to nutrient ingestion in man: acute post-prandial and 24-h secretion patterns. J Endocrinol. 1993;138:159–66. [PubMed]
119. Qualmann C, Nauck MA, Holst JJ, Orskov C, Creutzfeldt W. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (7–36 amide) secretion in response to luminal sucrose from the upper and lower gut. A study using alpha-glucosidase inhibition (acarbose) Scand J Gastroenterol. 1995;30:892–6. [PubMed]
120. Ranganath LR, Beety J, Wright J, Morgan LM. Nutrient regulation of post-heparin lipoprotein lipase activity in obese subjects. Horm Metab Res. 2001;33:57–61. [PubMed]
121. Flint A, Raben A, Astrup A, Holst JJ. Glucagon-like peptide 1 promotes satiety and suppresses energy intake in humans. J Clin Invest. 1998;101:515–20. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
122. Gutzwiller J, Goke B, Drewe J, et al. Glucagon-like peptide-1: a potent regulator of food intake in humans. Gut. 1999;44:81–86. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
123. Jang HJ, Kokrashvili Z, Theodorakis MJ, et al. Gut-expressed gustducin and taste receptors regulate secretion of glucagon-like peptide-1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:15069–74. [PubMed]
124. Hall WL, Millward DJ, Rogers PJ, Morgan LM. Physiological mechanisms mediating aspartame-induced satiety. Physiol Behav. 2003;78:557–62. [PubMed]
125. Hill AJ, Magson LD, Blundell JE. Hunger and palatability: tracking ratings of subjective experience before, during and after the consumption of preferred and less preferred food. Appetite. 1984;5:361–71. [PubMed]
126. Sorensen LB, Moller P, Flint A, Martens M, Raben A. Effect of sensory perception of foods on appetite and food intake: a review of studies on humans. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003;27:1152–66. [PubMed]
127. Yeomans MR, Gray RW, Mitchell CJ, True S. Independent effects of palatability and within-meal pauses on intake and appetite ratings in human volunteers. Appetite. 1997;29:61–76. [PubMed]
128. Yeomans MR, Symes T. Individual differences in the use of pleasantness and palatability ratings. Appetite. 1999;32:383–94. [PubMed]
129. Warwick ZS, Hall WG, Pappas TN, Schiffman SS. Taste and smell sensations enhance the satiating effect of both a high-carbohydrate and a high-fat meal in humans. Physiol Behav. 1993;53:553–63. [PubMed]
130. De Graaf DJ, De Long LS, Lambers AC. Palatability affects satiation but not satiety. Physiol Behav. 1999;66:681–688. [PubMed]
131. Monneuse MO, Bellisle F, Louis-Sylverstre J. Responses to an intense sweetener in humans: immediate preference and delayed effects on intake. Physiol Behav. 1991;49:325–30. [PubMed]
132. Rogers PJ, Blundell JE. Umami and appetite: effects of monosodium glutamate on hunger and food intake in human subjects. Physiol Behav. 1990;48:801–4. [PubMed]
133. Zandstra EH, De Graaf C, Mela DJ, Van Staveren WA. Short- and long-term effects of changes in pleasantness on food intake. Appetite. 2000;34:253–60. [PubMed]
134. Miller WC. Diet composition, energy intake, and nutritional status in relation to obesity in men and women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1991;23:280–4. [PubMed]
135. Horton TJ, Drougas H, Brachey A, Reed GW, Peters JC, Hill JO. Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage. Am J Clin Nutr. 1995;62:19–29. [PubMed]
136. Holt SH, Sandona N, Brand-Miller JC. The effects of sugar-free vs sugar-rich beverages on feelings of fullness and subsequent food intake. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2000;51:59–71. [PubMed]
137. Gatenby SJ, Aaron JI, Jack VA, Mela DJ. Extended use of foods modified in fat and sugar content: nutritional implications in a free-living female population. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997;65:1867–73. [PubMed]
138. Wooley OW, Wooley SC, Dunham RB. Can calories be perceived and do they affect hunger in obese and nonobese humans? J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1972;80:250–8. [PubMed]
139. Cecil JE, Francis J, Read NW. Relative contributions of intestinal, gastric, oro-sensory influences and information to changes in appetite induced by the same liquid meal. Appetite. 1998;31:377–90. [PubMed]
140. Mattes R. Effects of aspartame and sucrose on hunger and energy intake in humans. Physiol Behav. 1990;47:1037–44. [PubMed]
141. Rogers PJ, Lambert TC, Alikanizadeh LA, Blundell JE. Intense sweeteners and appetite: responses of informed and uninformed subjects consuming food sweetened with aspartame or sugar. Int J Obes. 1990;14:105.
142. Reid M, Hammersley R, Hill AJ, Skidmore P. Long-term dietary compensation for added sugar: effects of supplementary sucrose drinks over a 4-week period. Br J Nutr. 2007;97:193–203. [PubMed]
143. Caputo FA, Mattes RD. Human dietary responses to perceived manipulation of fat content in a midday meal. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993;17:237–40. [PubMed]
144. Shide DJ, Rolls BJ. Information about the fat content of preloads influences energy intake in healthy women. J Am Diet Assoc. 1995;95:993–8. [PubMed]
145. Beauchamp GK. Development of sweet taste. In: Dobbing J, editor. Sweetness. London: Springer-Verlag; 1987. pp. 127–140.
146. Woods SC. Signals that influence food intake and body weight. Physiol Behav. 2005;86:709–16. [PubMed]
147. Pierce WD, Heth CD, Owczarczyk JC, Russell JC, Proctor SD. Overeating by young obesity-prone and lean rats caused by tastes associated with low energy foods. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2007;15:1969–79. [PubMed]
148. Tepper BJ, Mattes RD, Farkas BK. Learned flavor cues influence food intake in humans. J Sensory Stud. 1991;6:89–100.
149. Tepper BJ, Farkas BK. Reliability of the sensory responder classification to learned flavor cues: a test-retest study. Physiol Behav. 1994;56:819–24. [PubMed]
150. Blundell JE, Rogers PJ, Hill AJ. Uncoupling sweetness and calories: methodological aspects of laboratory studies on appetite control. Appetite. 1988;11 (Suppl 1):54–61. [PubMed]
151. Swithers SE, Davidson TL. A role for sweet taste: calorie predictive relations in energy regulation by rats. Behav Neurosci. 2008;122:161–73. [PubMed]
152. Davidson TL, Swithers SE. A Pavlovian approach to the problem of obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004;28:933–5. [PubMed]
153. Appleton KM, Blundell JE. Habitual high and low consumers of artificially-sweetened beverages: effects of sweet taste and energy on short-term appetite. Physiol Behav. 2007;92:479–86. [PubMed]
154. Strominger JL. The relation between water intake and food intake in normal rats with hypothalamic hyperphagia. Yale J Biol & Med. 1947;19:3. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
155. Engell D. Interdependency of food and water intake in humans. Appetite. 1988;10:133–41. [PubMed]
156. Tordoff MG, Friedman MI. Drinking saccharin increases food intake and preference--II. Hydrational factors Appetite. 1989;12:11–21. [PubMed]
157. Hoelzel F. Appetite and obesity. Am J Dig Dis. 1945;12:156–157.
158. Bellisle F, Le Magnen J. The structure of meals in humans: eating and drinking patterns in lean and obese subjects. Physiol Behav. 1981;27:649–58. [PubMed]
159. Kissileff HR. Food-associated drinking in the rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1969;67:284–300. [PubMed]
160. Kissileff HR. Non-homeostatic controls of drinking. In: Epstein AN, Kissileff HR, Stellar E, editors. Neuropsychology of thirst: new findings and advances in concepts. Washington DC: VH Winston; 1973. pp. 163–198.
161. Fitzsimons TJ, Le Magnen J. Eating as a regulatory control of drinking in the rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1969;67:273–83. [PubMed]
162. Kraly FS. Physiology of drinking elicited by eating. Psychol Rev. 1984;91:478–90. [PubMed]
163. McKinley MJ, Johnson AK. The physiological regulation of thirst and fluid intake. News Physiol Sci. 2004;19:1–6. [PubMed]
164. Berridge KC. Food reward: brain substrates of wanting and liking. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1996;20:1–25. [PubMed]
165. Berridge KC, Robinson TE. Parsing reward. Trends Neurosci. 2003;26:507–13. [PubMed]
166. Sclafani A. Oral and postoral determinants of food reward. Physiol Behav. 2004;81:773–9. [PubMed]
167. Berthoud HR. Homeostatic and non-homeostatic pathways involved in the control of food intake and energy balance. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2006;14 (Suppl 5):197S–200S. [PubMed]
168. Blundell JE, Finlayson G. Is susceptibility to weight gain characterized by homeostatic or hedonic risk factors for overconsumption? Physiol Behav. 2004;82:21–5. [PubMed]
169. Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Fowler JS, et al. “Nonhedonic” food motivation in humans involves dopamine in the dorsal striatum and methylphenidate amplifies this effect. Synapse. 2002;44:175–80. [PubMed]
170. Davis C, Patte K, Levitan R, Reid C, Tweed S, Curtis C. From motivation to behaviour: a model of reward sensitivity, overeating, and food preferences in the risk profile for obesity. Appetite. 2007;48:12–9. [PubMed]
171. Davis C, Fox J. Sensitivity to reward and body mass index (BMI): evidence for a nonlinear relationship. Appetite. 2008;50:43–9. [PubMed]
172. Kelley AE, Bakshi VP, Haber SN, Steininger TL, Will MJ, Zhang M. Opioid modulation of taste hedonics within the ventral striatum. Physiol Behav. 2002;76:365–77. [PubMed]
173. Levine AS, Billington CJ. Opioids as agents of reward-releated feeding: a consideration of the evidence. Physiol Behav. 2004;82:57–61. [PubMed]
174. Wang GJ, Volkow ND, Logan J, et al. Brain dopamine and obesity. Lancet. 2001;357:354–7. [PubMed]
175. Wise RA. Forebrain substrates of reward and motivation. J Comp Neurol. 2005;493:115–21. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
176. Goldfield GS, Lorello C, Doucet E. Methylphenidate reduces energy intake and dietary fat intake in adults: a mechanism of reduced reinforcing value of food? Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;86:308–15. [PubMed]
177. Bellisle F, Lucas F, Amrani R, Le Magnen J. Deprivation, palatability and the microstructure of meals in human subjects. Appetite. 1984;5:85–94. [PubMed]
178. Zandstra EH, De Graaf C, Van Trijp JCM, San Staveren WA. Laboratory hedonic ratings as predictors of consumption. Food Qual Preference. 1999;10:411–418.
179. Yeomans MR, Lee MD, Gray RW, French SJ. Effects of test-meal palatability on compensatory eating following disguised fat and carbohydrate preloads. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001;25:1215–24. [PubMed]
180. Mook DG, Votaw MC. How important is hedonism? Reasons given by college students for ending a meal. Appetite. 1992;18:69–75. [PubMed]
181. Rodin J. Effects of obesity and set point on taste responsiveness and ingestion in humans. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1975;89:1003–9. [PubMed]
182. Blundell JE, Green S, Burley V. Carbohydrates and human appetite. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994;59:728S–734S. [PubMed]
183. Looy H, Weingarten HP. Facial expressions and genetic sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil predict hedonic response to sweet. Physiol Behav. 1992;52:75–82. [PubMed]
184. Hetherington MM, Pirie LM, Nabb S. Stimulus satiation: effects of repeated exposure to foods on pleasantness and intake. Appetite. 2002;38:19–28. [PubMed]
185. Van Wymelbeke V, Beridot-Therond ME, de La Gueronniere V, Fantino M. Influence of repeated consumption of beverages containing sucrose or intense sweeteners on food intake. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004;58:154–61. [PubMed]
186. Franken IH, Muris P. Individual differences in reward sensitivity are related to food craving and relative body weight in healthy women. Appetite. 2005;45:198–201. [PubMed]
187. Mela DJ. Determinants of food choice: relationships with obesity and weight control. Obes Res. 2001;9 (Suppl 4):249S–255S. [PubMed]
188. Cox DN, Perry L, Moore PB, Vallis L, Mela DJ. Sensory and hedonic associations with macronutrient and energy intakes of lean and obese consumers. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999;23:403–10. [PubMed]
189. Del Parigi A, Chen K, Salbe AD, Reiman EM, Tataranni PA. Are we addicted to food? Obes Res. 2003;11:493–5. [PubMed]
190. Cox DN, van Galen M, Hedderley D, Perry L, Moore PB, Mela DJ. Sensory and hedonic judgments of common foods by lean consumers and consumers with obesity. Obes Res. 1998;6:438–47. [PubMed]
191. Mela DJ. Eating for pleasure or just wanting to eat? Reconsidering sensory hedonic responses as a driver of obesity. Appetite. 2006;47:10–7. [PubMed]
192. Sclafani A, Ackroff K. The relationship between food reward and satiation revisited. Physiol Behav. 2004;82:89–95. [PubMed]
193. de Araujo IE, Oliveira-Maia AJ, Sotnikova TD, et al. Food reward in the absence of taste receptor signaling. Neuron. 2008;57:930–41. [PubMed]
194. Desor JA, Greene LS, Maller O. Preferences for sweet and salty in 9- to 15-year-old and adult humans. Science. 1975;190:686–7. [PubMed]
195. Steiner JE. Facial expressions of the neonate infant indicating the hedonics of food-related chemical stimuli. In: Weiffenbach JM, editor. Taste and Development: the genesis of sweet preference. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1977. pp. 173–189.
196. Bergamasco NH, Beraldo KE. Facial expressions of neonate infants in response to gustatory stimuli. Braz J Med Biol Res. 1990;23:245–9. [PubMed]
197. Sullivan SA, Birch LL. Pass the sugar, pass the salt: experience dictates preference. Dev Psychol. 1990;26:546–551.
198. Mattes RD, Westby E, De Cabo R, Falkner B. Dietary compliance among salt-sensitive and salt-insensitive normotensive adults. Am J Med Sci. 1999;317:287–94. [PubMed]
199. Pangborn RM, Pecore SD. Taste perception of sodium chloride in relation to dietary intake of salt. Am J Clin Nutr. 1982;35:510–20. [PubMed]
200. Shepherd R, Farleigh CA, Land DG. Preference and sensitivity to salt taste as determinants of salt-intake. Appetite. 1984;5:187–97. [PubMed]
201. Bertino M, Beauchamp GK, Engelman K. Increasing dietary salt alters salt taste preference. Physiol Behav. 1986;38:203–13. [PubMed]
202. Beauchamp GK, Bertino M, Burke D, Engelman K. Experimental sodium depletion and salt taste in normal human volunteers. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;51:881–9. [PubMed]
203. Bertino M, Beauchamp GK, Engelman K. Long-term reduction in dietary sodium alters the taste of salt. Am J Clin Nutr. 1982;36:1134–44. [PubMed]
204. DiNicolantonio R, Teow BH, Morgan TO. Sodium detection threshold and preference for sodium chloride in humans on high and low sodium diets. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 1984;11:335–8. [PubMed]
205. Blais CA, Pangborn RM, Borhani NO, Ferrell MF, Prineas RJ, Laing B. Effect of dietary sodium restriction on taste responses to sodium chloride: a longitudinal study. Am J Clin Nutr. 1986;44:232–43. [PubMed]
206. Mattes RD. Fat preference and adherence to a reduced-fat diet. Am J Clin Nutr. 1993;57:373–81. [PubMed]
207. Pangborn RM, Giovanni ME. Dietary intake of sweet foods and of dairy fats and resultant gustatory responses to sugar in lemonade and to fat in milk. Appetite. 1984;5:317–27. [PubMed]
208. Beauchamp GK, Moran M. Acceptance of sweet and salty tastes in 2-year-old children. Appetite. 1984;5:291–305. [PubMed]
209. Messer E. Some like it sweet: estimating sweetness preferences and sucrose intakes from ethnographic and experimental data. Am Anthropol. 1986;88:637–647.
210. Mattes RD, Kare MR. Gustatory sequelae of alimentary disorders. Dig Dis. 1986;4:129–38. [PubMed]
211. Tepper BJ, Hartfiel LM, Schneider SH. Sweet taste and diet in type II diabetes. Physiol Behav. 1996;60:13–8. [PubMed]
212. Liem DG, de Graaf C. Sweet and sour preferences in young children and adults: role of repeated exposure. Physiol Behav. 2004;83:421–9. [PubMed]
213. Mattes RD, Mela DJ. Relationship between and among selected measures of sweet-taste preference and dietary intake. Chemical Senses. 1986;11:523–539.
214. Mattes RD. Influences on acceptance of bitter foods and beverages. Physiol Behav. 1994;56:1229–36. [PubMed]
215. Ganchrow JR, Mennella JA. The ontogeny of human flavor perception. In: Doty RL, editor. Handbook of Olfaction and Gustation. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 2003. pp. 823–846.
216. Yeomans MR, Tepper BJ, Rietzschel J, Prescott J. Human hedonic responses to sweetness: role of taste genetics and anatomy. Physiol Behav. 2007;91:264–73. [PubMed]
217. Reed DR, Tanaka T, McDaniel AH. Diverse tastes: Genetics of sweet and bitter perception. Physiol Behav. 2006;88:215–26. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
218. Collaku A, Rankinen T, Rice T, et al. A genome-wide linkage scan for dietary energy and nutrient intakes: the Health, Risk Factors, Exercise Training, and Genetics (HERITAGE) Family Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;79:881–6. [PubMed]
219. Cai G, Cole SA, Bastarrachea RA, Maccluer JW, Blangero J, Comuzzie AG. Quantitative trait locus determining dietary macronutrient intakes is located on human chromosome 2p22. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80:1410–4. [PubMed]
220. Mace OJ, Affleck J, Patel N, Kellett GL. Sweet taste receptors in rat small intestine stimulate glucose absorption through apical GLUT2. J Physiol. 2007;582:379–92. [PubMed]
221. Eny KM, Wolever TMS, Fontaine-Bisson B, El-Sohemy A. Genetic variant in the glucose transporter type 2 is associated with higher intakes of sugars in two distinct populations. Physiol Genomics. 2008;33:355–360. [PubMed]
222. Corpe CP, Basaleh MM, Affleck J, Gould G, Jess TJ, Kellett GL. The regulation of GLUT5 and GLUT2 activity in the adaptation of intestinal brush-border fructose transport in diabetes. Pflugers Arch. 1996;432:192–201. [PubMed]
223. Mela DJ. Food choice and intake: the human factor. Proc Nutr Soc. 1999;58:513–21. [PubMed]
224. Cooke LJ, Haworth CM, Wardle J. Genetic and environmental influences on children’s food neophobia. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;86:428–33. [PubMed]