Supplements · Sweeteners
non-nutritive sweeteners increases appetite
Part of: • non-nutritive sweeteners
📅 Last reviewed: 2026-07-15 ⓘ
Evidence ladder
How far up the ladder this claim has climbed. A high consensus on a low rung means "consistent so far," not "proven in people."
Top evidence so far: All trials, pooled (Meta-analysis)
How the studies fall
What the evidence shows
The 'sweetness without calories confuses the body and drives hunger' idea has weak human support. Controlled trials generally find that non-nutritive-sweetened drinks produce appetite, satiety and 24-hour energy intake similar to sugar or water, with unchanged leptin.
The evidence (10)
| Source | Grade | Stance | Quality | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chakravartti SP, Jann K, Veit R, Liu H, Yunker AG, Angelo B, Monterosso JR, Xiang AH, Kullmann S, Page KA 2025 · Nature metabolism | RCT | mixed | moderate | RCT n=75: sucralose raised hunger vs SUCROSE (P<.001) but NOT vs water — the vs-sucrose gap is the CALORIE difference, not appetite-stimulation; vs-water null argues AGAINST 'NNS increase appetite'. |
| Al-Dalaeen A, Hamid H, Hasan TA 2025 · PloS one | observational | supports | low | Cross-sectional, n=300 university students. Higher NNS intake frequency associated with higher food-craving scores (β=0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.34, p=0.002) independent of BMI/age/smoking. |
| Movahedian M, Golzan SA, Asbaghi O, Prabahar K, Hekmatdoost A 2024 · Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr | meta-analysis | contradicts | moderate | GRADE MA of RCTs: NNS did not raise serum leptin (appetite-regulating hormone) and reduced body weight. |
| Farhat G, Berset V, Moore L 2019 · Nutrients | RCT | contradicts | moderate | Three-arm crossover: stevia did not increase appetite or food intake vs sugar/control. |
| Rogers PJ, Hogenkamp PS, de Graaf C, Higgs S, Lluch A, Ness AR, Penfold C, Perry R, Putz P, Yeomans MR, Mela DJ 2016 · Int J Obes | meta-analysis | contradicts | moderate | SR/MA: NNS do not increase energy intake or body weight vs sugar/control — no appetite-stimulating effect at the intake level. |
| Almiron-Roig E, Navas-Carretero S, Castelnuovo G, Kjølbæk L, Romo-Hualde A, Normand M, Maloney N, Hardman CA, Hodgkins CE, Moshoyiannis H, Finlayson G, Scott C, Raats MM, Harrold JA, Raben A, Halford JCG, Martínez JA 2023 · Appetite | RCT | mixed | moderate | SWEET beverages RCT (n=60): sucralose-ace-K blend raised prospective food-intake ratings vs sucrose, but small magnitude and no difference in 24-h energy intake. |
| Tey SL, Salleh NB, Henry J, Forde CG 2017 · Int J Obes | RCT | mixed | moderate | RCT (aspartame/monk-fruit/stevia vs sucrose): NNS beverages showed incomplete energy compensation but no clear increase in appetite/intake. |
| Zhu S, Li J, Li Z, Wang Z, Wei Q, Shi F 2024 · Journal of the science of food and agriculture | animal | mixed | low | Guinea pigs, 28d feeding: sucralose (TGS) group had significantly REDUCED food consumption vs control (P<0.05); rebaudioside-A (stevia) group had significantly INCREASED food consumption vs control (P<0.05). AGRP/NPY upregulated. |
| Overduin J, Collet TH, Medic N, Henning E, Keogh JM, Forsyth F, Stephenson C, Kanning MW, Ruijschop RMAJ, Farooqi IS, van der Klaauw AA 2016 · Appetite | RCT | contradicts | low | Crossover RCT: replacing sucrose with erythritol did not change GLP-1/PYY, hunger/satiety or subsequent energy intake and sucrose preference. |
| Casperson SL, Johnson L, Roemmich JN 2017 · Appetite | RCT | contradicts | moderate | Randomised crossover, n=21 healthy-weight adults: 360 ml sucralose-sweetened vs sucrose-sweetened (31 g) beverage with a standardised meal; satiety and desire-to-eat ratings every 30 min for 4 h. 'Beverage type did not influence measures of satiety or the desire to eat foods with a specific taste' - null on appetite despite the NSB carrying ~124 kcal less. Off-object signal: sweet snacks were relatively more reinforcing than savory ones 4 h after NSB (p<0.05) - a shift in relative sweet-vs-savory motivation, not higher appetite. Abstract-only; no energy-intake outcome. |
Disagree, or know a study we missed?
We grade by evidence, not opinions. The way to weigh in is to point us to a study we haven't cited (check the evidence table above first), or to flag a problem with one we have. Every submission is reviewed; if it holds up, the grade updates and shows in Science Changes Its Mind.
Opens a short form. You'll sign in with Google so submissions are tied to a real account — we don't display your identity, and we only accept a link we can verify (PubMed, DOI, ClinicalTrials.gov).
Educational only, not medical advice. Grades and scores reflect published evidence weighted by study design and quality; see the methodology.