• Increase Font Size
  • Decrease Font Size
  • View as PDF

NNNS: Weight (2006)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:
To review the literature regarding the effect of sweetness on appetite control as it relates to overconsumption and weight maintenance.
Inclusion Criteria:
Not described.
Exclusion Criteria:
Not described.
Description of Study Protocol:

Review of selected literature.

Data Collection Summary:
Description of Actual Data Sample:

 

 

Summary of Results:
  • Porikos et al: Found that lean and obese participants living in a metabolic ward ate fewer calories during a six- or 12-day period, when investigators covertly replaced all sucrose with aspartame in an ad libitum diet, compared with when they were fed a high-sucrose diet.
  • Tordoff and Alleva: Reported that consuming aspartame-sweetened soda significantly reduced energy intake in males (1,183kJ per day) and females (987kJ per day), eating their normal diet and significantly decreased the body weight of males over a three-week period, when compared with a no-drink condition.
  • Kanders et al: Recruited 59 obese (37kg/m2) men and women to participate in a 12-week multi-disciplinary diet program. Participants were randomly assigned to consume a balanced-deficit diet (1,000±200kcal per day) with or without aspartame. At the end of the 12-week period, women (N=46) lost slightly more weight (7.4 vs 5.8kg) when they supplemented a hypocaloric diet with aspartame-containing foods and beverages. Men (N=13)≤ however showed the opposite trend (10.4 vs. 12.2kg).
    Forty six of these subjects (11 males and 35 females) participated in the one-year follow-up evaluation. Participants selected whether to use or not use aspartame. Over the one-year follow-up, aspartame intake decreased in the aspartame group and increased in the no-aspartame group. Factors associated with maintenance of weight loss at one-year of follow-up included increased physical activity levels, increased aspartame consumption and decreased desire for sweets.
  • Blackburn et al: Conducted a randomized controlled, prospective outpatient clinical trial investigating whether the addition of aspartame to a multi-disciplinary weight program would improve weight loss and long-term control of body weight in obese women. 163 obese women were randomly assigned to consume or to abstain from aspartame-sweetened foods and beverages during 16 weeks of a 19-week weight reduction program, a one-year maintenance program and a two-year follow-up program. Women in both treatment groups lost 10% of initial body weight (10kg) during active weight loss. Among women assigned to the aspartame group, aspartame was positively correlated with percentage of weight lost (R=0.32; P<0.01). During maintenance, the aspartame group experienced a 2.6% (2.6kg) regain in initial body weight, while those in the no-aspartame group gained an average of 5.4% (5.4 kg). The aspartame group lost significantly less weight during maintenance than did the no-aspartame group (P=0.046). Percentage of weight lost during the 71-week study was postively correlated with exercise (R=0.32; P<0.001) and self-reported eating control (R=0.37; P<0.001).
Author Conclusion:
  • Low-calorie sweeteners can provide palatability and satisfy hedonic urges without adding calories, and may facilitate control of body weight in motivated individuals.
  • Results from outpatient clinical trials suggest that increased aspartame intake is associated with either decreased or unchanged ratings of hunger and desire for sweets and that participation in a multi-disciplinary weight-control program that includes aspartame may facilitate the long-term maintenance of a reduced body weight.
Funding Source:
University/Hospital: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School
Reviewer Comments:
  • This was a discussion of selected literature.
  • There was no indication that a lit search was conducted to identify the complete body of literature related to the topics presented.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
Relevance Questions
  1. Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? Yes
  1. Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? Yes
  2. Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? Yes
  2. Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? Yes
  3. Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? Yes
  3. Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? Yes
  4. Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? Yes
  4. Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? Yes
 
Validity Questions
  1. Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? Yes
  1. Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? Yes
  2. Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? No
  2. Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? No
  3. Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? No
  3. Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? No
  4. Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? No
  4. Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? No
  5. Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? No
  5. Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? No
  6. Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? Yes
  6. Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? Yes
  7. Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? No
  7. Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? No
  8. Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? Yes
  8. Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? Yes
  9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? Yes
  9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? Yes
  10. Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10. Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes