Elsevier

Physiology & Behavior

Volume 208, 1 September 2019, 112500
Physiology & Behavior

Do low-calorie sweetened beverages help to control food cravings? Two experimental studies

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.03.019Get rights and content

Highlights

  • LCS beverages did not reliably protect consumers from craving-induced increases in energy intake.

  • Energy intake was lower when LCS beverages were available (vs. unavailable) in frequent consumers.

  • Frequent consumers had an attentional bias for LCS beverages compared to both sugar and water.

  • Frequent consumers felt less guilty and more in control of their eating when LCS beverages were available.

Abstract

Low-calorie sweetened (LCS) beverages may help consumers to satisfy hedonic food cravings without violating dieting goals, however this remains unexplored. The present research investigated the effect of priming hedonic eating motivations on ad libitum energy intake in frequent and non-consumers of LCS beverages. It was hypothesised that energy intake would be greater after the hedonic eating prime relative to a control prime in non-consumers, but that frequent LCS beverage consumers would be protected from this effect. In Study 1 (N = 120), frequent and non-consumers were exposed to either chocolate or neutral cues (craving vs. control condition) and then completed a beverage-related visual probe task with concurrent eye-tracking. Ad libitum energy intake from sweet and savoury snacks and beverages (including LCS) was then assessed. Study 2 followed a similar protocol, but included only frequent consumers (N = 172) and manipulated the availability of LCS beverages in the ad libitum eating context (available vs. unavailable). Measures of guilt and perceived behavioural control were also included. In Study 1, as hypothesised, non-consumers showed greater energy intake in the craving condition relative to the control condition, but frequent consumers had similar energy intake in both conditions. Frequent consumers (but not non-consumers) also demonstrated an attentional bias for LCS beverage stimuli compared to both sugar and water stimuli. In contrast, in Study 2 frequent consumers showed greater energy intake in the craving condition relative to the control condition; however, overall energy intake was significantly greater when LCS beverages were unavailable compared to when they were available. Ratings of guilt were higher and perceived control was lower in the LCS-unavailable condition relative to the LCS-available condition. Conclusions: LCS beverages did not consistently protect consumers from craving-induced increases in energy intake. However, frequent consumers consumed fewer calories overall when LCS beverages were available (relative to unavailable), as well as perceiving more control over their food intake and feeling less guilty.

Introduction

Low-calorie sweetened (LCS) beverages have emerged as a strategy to reduce total energy intake, providing sweet taste without additional calories and thereby potentially assisting in weight loss [36,38]. Despite their popularity, the influence of LCS beverages on energy intake and weight maintenance has been a contentious issue. Some argue that LCS beverages encourage a preference for hedonically pleasing food and increase the risk for weight gain and obesity [24,37,45,47], although this may be a non-causative association. Indeed, a recent systematic review found that consumption of LCS beverages, when used as a substitute for sugar, is associated with reductions in energy intake and body weight [41]. Given this controversy, understanding the motivations behind consumption of LCS beverages is of importance. However, little is known about the underlying psychological drivers behind frequent consumption of LCS beverages and how these psychological factors impact on eating behaviour.

To address this research gap, Appleton and Conner [4] previously investigated the characteristics associated with frequent consumption of LCS beverages. They found that frequent consumers of these beverages are typically overweight but also have high dietary restraint and body weight concerns relative to non-consumers of LCS beverages. Restrained eaters are motivated to control their weight by restricting their food intake; however, they are often unsuccessful in these attempts and their eating behaviour is characterised by periods of food restriction and disinhibited eating [25,32]. The goal conflict model proposes that dietary restraint is difficult because these individuals are attempting to juggle two conflicting goals; their hedonic goal of enjoyment of eating while also satisfying their long-term goal of weight maintenance [44]. This is a challenge for dieters because low-energy, “diet” foods are often less hedonically pleasing than foods with higher calorie contents [19].

Drawing on the above, it is plausible that LCS beverages may benefit some individuals because these products are able to satisfy food cravings and/or hedonic desire for sweetness while also enabling maintenance of dieting goals (thereby realigning previously conflicting goals). However systematic investigation of this has yet to be conducted and the mechanisms for how LCS beverages might influence energy intake are unclear.

One possibility is that LCS beverages may act as a “diet prime”, reminding consumers of their dieting motivations and thereby helping to regulate their eating behaviour. While this has not been investigated specifically for LCS beverages, several studies have demonstrated that exposing participants to cues linked with their longstanding diet goals can trigger goal-directed behaviour [11,12,22]. For example, restrained eaters do not overeat following pre-exposure to palatable food cues when they are reminded of their dieting goal ([40]; see also Anschutz et al. [2], for comparable findings). However, it is important that the primed goal is motivationally relevant to that individual, in that given situation ([1,17,23,39,52]). Given this link, it is plausible that exposure to LCS beverages may similarly act as a diet prime for frequent consumers of these beverages and thereby enable them to pursue their long-term weight maintenance goals even in situations in which short-term hedonic goals typically prevail. As a result, individuals may feel more in control and less guilty over their eating. Given that negative affect is often associated with increased consumption or emotional eating ([16,20,26]), determining whether consumption of LCS beverages reduces feelings of guilt and increases perceived behavioural control would also be meaningful.

In line with the goal-conflict model, another possibility is that the presence and availability of LCS beverages acts as a highly salient hedonic cue due to their association with a rewarding experience (i.e. sweet taste). According to incentive-motivational models, repeated exposure to stimuli associated with food reward results in biased attention towards these and any other relevant stimuli (see [21]). As a result of this, we would expect frequent consumers of LCS beverages to exhibit a bias in attention towards LCS beverages, and this bias may be further amplified under conditions when hedonic eating motivations are activated. Consistent with this idea, Kemps and Tiggeman [28] found that participants who were experimentally induced into a temporary state of food craving showed increased attentional bias to chocolate-related pictures, relative to the control condition (see also [43,51], for similar findings). Thus, if LCS beverages are associated with hedonic eating motivations in frequent consumers, we would expect to see an amplified attentional bias towards cues associated with LCS beverage stimuli, particularly when hedonic motivations (i.e. food cravings) are primed.

The overarching aim of the present research was to determine the psychological mechanisms underpinning the effect of LCS beverages on eating behaviour. Specifically, we investigated the effect of priming hedonic eating goals, via a chocolate craving manipulation, on ad libitum energy intake in frequent and non-consumers of LCS beverages. It is well-established that food cue exposure and craving increase food intake [9], therefore in Study 1, we hypothesised that energy intake would be greater after the craving manipulation relative to the control manipulation in non-consumers. However, we predicted that frequent consumers would be protected from this effect due to the availability of LCS beverages in the ad libitum eating context (Hypothesis 1). We also examined attentional bias towards LCS beverage-related stimuli following the craving or control manipulation. We predicted that frequent consumers, but not non-consumers, would show an attentional bias to LCS beverage stimuli and that this bias would be amplified when frequent consumers were in a state of craving (Hypothesis 2). Study 2 sought to replicate Study 1 while also directly manipulating the availability of LCS beverages and including measures of guilt and perceived behavioural control over eating.

Section snippets

Participants

One hundred and twenty university staff and students (Mean age 31.44 ± 8.54 years) were recruited to take part in a study investigating the relationship between beverage consumption and behaviour. Prior to attending the laboratory session, participants were identified and classified as frequent and non-consumers of LCS beverages according to a self-reported online Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) assessing consumption of a range of beverages (see [4]). Participants were classified as frequent

Participant characteristics

Due to technical problems with the eye-tracker, data from 5 participants were lost. Four participants had excessive missing data from the VPT (>25% reaction times missing) and were also excluded; the remainder had <5% of data missing. Nine additional participants were therefore recruited to replace the lost data. Participant characteristics of the final sample are provided in Table 1. Independent samples t-tests confirmed that frequent consumers had significantly higher BMI, restraint,

Participants

Participants (N = 172) were frequent consumers of LCS beverages, as determined using the Appleton and Conner [4] FFQ which was completed during an online pre-study screening questionnaire. In a 2 × 2 between-subjects design, participants were randomly allocated either to the craving or control condition, and the LCS available or LCS unavailable condition, generating four independent groups. We powered the study (80% power) using GPOWER 3.1 to detect a medium-large effect size (f= 0.35, on the

Participant characteristics

One-way ANOVAs revealed no differences between the experimental conditions with regard to age, BMI, restraint, emotional and external eating traits, indicating that all groups were evenly matched (ps > 0.105). Participant characteristics are provided in Table 2. A chi-square analysis confirmed that there was no difference in the number of males and females between conditions, χ2(3) = 3.81, p = .283.

Craving ratings indicated that the craving manipulation was effective in inducing craving in

Conclusion

LCS beverages did not consistently protect consumers from craving-induced increases in food intake. However, frequent consumers consumed fewer calories overall when LCS beverages were available (relative to unavailable), as well as experiencing more control over their food intake, greater meal enjoyment and less guilt. These findings provide novel insight into the psychological mechanisms underpinning frequent consumption of LCS beverages in the context of their positive effect on weight, as

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this manuscript was funded by the American Beverage Association.

References (54)

  • A. Jansen et al.

    Negative affect and cue-induced overeating in non-eating disordered obesity

    Appetite

    (2008)
  • R.G. Kuijer et al.

    Chocolate cake. Guilt or celebration? Associations with healthy eating attitudes, perceived behavioural control, intentions and weight-loss

    Appetite

    (2014)
  • M. Lindeman et al.

    Loss of pleasure, ideological food choice reasons and eating pathology

    Appetite

    (2000)
  • M. Macht

    How emotions affect eating: a five-way model

    Appetite

    (2008)
  • M. Macht et al.

    Everyday mood and emotions after eating a chocolate bar or an apple

    Appetite

    (2006)
  • M. Macht et al.

    Emotions in overweight and normal-weight women immediately after eating foods differing in energy

    Physiol. Behav.

    (2003)
  • S. Panahi et al.

    Caloric beverages consumed freely at meal-time add calories to an ad libitum meal

    Appetite

    (2013)
  • E.K. Papies et al.

    The allure of forbidden food: on the role of attention in self-regulation

    J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.

    (2008)
  • E. Smeets et al.

    Experimentally induced chocolate craving leads to an attentional bias in increased distraction but not in speeded detection

    Appetite

    (2009)
  • W. Stroebe et al.

    Why dieters fail: testing the goal conflict model of eating

    J. Exp. Psychol.

    (2008)
  • S.E. Swithers

    Artificial sweeteners produce the counterintuitive effect of inducing metabolic derangements

    Trends Endocrinol. Metabol.

    (2013)
  • S.E. Swithers et al.

    Body weight gain in rats consuming sweetened liquids. Effects of caffeine and diet composition

    Appetite

    (2010)
  • A.J. Stunkard et al.

    The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger

    J. Psychosom. Res.

    (1985)
  • L.F. van Dillen et al.

    Derailing the streetcar named desire: cognitive distractions reduce individual differences in cravings and unhealthy snacking in response to palatable food

    Appetite

    (2016)
  • G.M. van Koningsbruggen et al.

    Through the eyes of dieters: biased size perception of food following tempting food primes

    J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.

    (2011)
  • K. van den Akker et al.

    Impulsivity makes more susceptible to overeating after contextual appetitive conditioning

    Appetite

    (2013)
  • H. Aarts et al.

    Goal priming and the affective-motivational route to nonconscious goal pursuit

    Soc. Cogn.

    (2008)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text