Do artificial sweeteners increase appetite or food intake?

By Dr. Priyom Bose, Ph.D.Reviewed by Lauren HardakerMar 20 2026

Do artificial sweeteners really disrupt appetite and drive overeating, or could they help curb sweet cravings without increasing intake? A new controlled study puts this long-standing debate to the test.

Study: Acute and Prolonged Effects of Sweeteners and Sweetness Enhancers on Postprandial Appetite Sensations, Palatability, and Ad Libitum Energy Intake in Humans: A SWEET Sub-Study. Image credit: Josep Suria/Shutterstock.com

A new study in Nutrients examined whether sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SEs) influence appetite regulation, testing proposed mechanisms such as sweet taste receptor activation beyond perceived sweetness.

Metabolic and appetitive effects of sweeteners

Non-caloric sweeteners (NCS) and low-caloric sweeteners (LCS) are food additives that collectively constitute sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SEs). NCS provides intense sweetness with negligible energy contribution, while LCS delivers sweetness at a substantially lower energy density (7.7 kJ/g) than sucrose (16.8 kJ/g). Both sweeteners enhance palatability without a corresponding glycemic or caloric load; however, their effects on appetite regulation and energy metabolism remain unclear.

There are contradictory institutional recommendations regarding sweeteners. The WHO conditionally advises against NCS for weight management, citing insufficient evidence of long-term adiposity reduction and potential risks to non-communicable diseases. A 2020 expert panel consensus reached the opposite conclusion, finding no adverse effects on weight or glucose regulation. The discrepancy largely stems from differences in the weighting of evidence, with the WHO prioritizing observational data while the expert panel favors RCTs.

Several mechanisms have been proposed by which S&SEs may impair appetite regulation, including activation of the sweet taste receptor, disruption of the gut microbiota, and uncoupled cephalic-phase responses. Previous research has indicated that some NCS may reach the blood-brain barrier (BBB), and it has been hypothesized that this could potentially contribute to hippocampal effects; however, supporting evidence is predominantly from animal and in vitro models, and human RCT data remain scarce and largely non-confirmatory.

Assessing acute appetitive responses to Ace-K/Cyc across weight management phases

The current sub-study was conducted at the Department of Nutrition, Exercise, and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, as part of the European Horizon 2020 SWEET project. It investigated the acute effects of an acesulfame potassium/cyclamate (Ace-K/Cyc) mixture on appetite sensations and energy intake relative to water at baseline, after a 2-month weight-loss (WL) phase, and after a 4-month weight-loss maintenance (WLM) period, with palatability assessed as a potential confounder.

Participants aged 18 to 60 years, with a body mass index (BMI) above 25.0 kg/m2, and habitual consumption of sugar-containing products were included. However, the exclusion criteria included chronic diseases or medications that were likely to affect outcomes.

The main study comprised four clinical investigation days (CIDs) at months 0, 2, 6, and 12. During WL, participants followed a low-energy diet (LED; 3347–4186 kJ/day) from the Cambridge Weight Plan, aiming for more than 5 % body weight reduction. Post-WL, participants followed a healthy diet and were randomly assigned to either consume (S&SEs group) or avoid (Sugar group) S&SE-containing foods and beverages.

The sub-study recruited 30 participants across three test days aligned with CIDs 1, 2, and 3. Each day, acute responses were assessed after a standardized breakfast, followed by an Ace-K/Cyc or water drink. Each 6-hour test day was preceded by an overnight fast of at least 10 hours, during which participants abstained from exercise, coffee, and smoking. After 15 minutes of bed rest, fasting measures were obtained, including body weight, appetite sensations, and blood samples.

Appetite sensations and palatability were measured 10 times per test day using 100 mm electronic visual analogue scales (eVAS).

S&SEs show no clinically relevant effect on appetite or dietary compensation

Of 30 recruited participants, 26, 22, and 16 completed test days 1 (month 0), 2 (month 2), and 3 (month 6), respectively. Attrition was attributed to study burden, discomfort in the ventilated hood, and personal reasons. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the S&SEs and sugar groups, and between completers and dropouts.

Fasting appetite ratings were largely comparable between groups, except for lower hunger in the S&SEs group on test day 1, an isolated finding that did not persist across subsequent test days or translate into any difference in wellbeing, indicating no sustained fasting appetite effect.

Fullness and satiety showed no significant interactions, meal effects, or netAUC differences across any time window or test day, including after taste adjustment. A significant time-meal interaction for hunger was identified across test days, without a three-way interaction.

Post-hoc analyses revealed that the S&SEs group reported significantly lower hunger than the sugar group at 130 minutes and 160 minutes post-drink. However, these differences were attenuated when taste was included as a covariate, and netAOC hunger did not differ between groups at any time period or across test days.

The standardized breakfast was rated equally by both groups. For the test drinks, the Ace-K/Cyc beverage was consistently rated as less tasty across all test days and less visually appealing at month 0, reflecting differences in palatability relative to the non-sweet water control.

Crucially, despite the inferior taste ratings of the S&SEs' drink, participants did not compensate by eating more; ad libitum energy intake remained equivalent across the intervention, suggesting no compensatory feeding in this controlled experimental setting. 

Conclusions

Compared with water, Ace-K/Cyc consistently reduced the desire to eat something sweet, both acutely and across weight loss and maintenance periods, even after accounting for taste differences, suggesting the effect extends beyond palatability.

While Ace-K/Cyc also influenced prospective consumption, this effect was partly explained by palatability differences and showed some variability across time points and analyses, suggesting a mixed, context-dependent pattern.

Importantly, ad libitum energy intake was comparable to water, indicating no adverse impact on energy balance. However, the study was not powered for appetite-related outcomes, and sample size calculations in the paper suggest substantially larger cohorts would be required to detect differences in these endpoints with adequate statistical power. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. In the future, larger trials are needed to validate these findings.

Download your PDF copy by clicking here.