By reducing energy density, low-energy sweeteners (LES) might be expected to reduce energy intake (EI) and body weight (BW). To assess the totality of the evidence testing the null hypothesis that LES exposure (versus sugars or unsweetened alternatives) has no effect on EI or BW, we conducted a systematic review of relevant studies in animals and humans consuming LES withad libitumaccess to food energy. In 62 of 90 animal studies exposure to LES did not affect or decreased BW. Of 28 reporting increased BW, 19 compared LES with glucose exposure using a specific ‘learning’ paradigm. Twelve prospective cohort studies in humans reported inconsistent associations between LES use and body mass index (−0.002 kg m⁻²per year, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.009 to 0.005). Meta-analysis of short-term randomized controlled trials (129 comparisons) showed reduced total EI for LES versus sugar-sweetened food or beverage consumption before anad libitummeal (−94 kcal, 95% CI −122 to −66), with no difference versus water (−2 kcal, 95% CI −30 to 26). This was consistent with EI results from sustained intervention randomized controlled trials (10 comparisons). Meta-analysis of sustained intervention randomized controlled trials (4 weeks to 40 months) showed that consumption of LES versus sugar led to relatively reduced BW (nine comparisons; −1.35 kg, 95% CI –2.28 to −0.42), and a similar relative reduction in BW versus water (three comparisons; −1.24 kg, 95% CI –2.22 to −0.26). Most animal studies did not mimic LES consumption by humans, and reverse causation may influence the results of prospective cohort studies. The preponderance of evidence from all human randomized controlled trials indicates that LES do not increase EI or BW, whether compared with caloric or non-caloric (for example, water) control conditions. Overall, the balance of evidence indicates that use of LES in place of sugar, in children and adults, leads to reduced EI and BW, and possibly also when compared with water.

The traditional view of palatability was that it reflected some underlying nutritional deficit and was part of a homeostatically driven motivational system. However, this idea does not fit with the common observation that palatability can lead to short-term overconsumption. Here, we attempt to re-evaluate the basis of palatability, first by reviewing the role of salt-need both in the expression of liking for salty tastes, and paradoxically, in dissociating need from palatability, and second by examining the role of palatability in short-term control of appetite. Despite the clarity of this system in animals, however, most salt (NaCl) intake in man occurs in a need-free state. Similar conclusions can be drawn in relation to the palatability of food in general. Importantly, the neural systems underlying the hedonic system relating to palatability and homeostatic controls of eating are separate, involving distinct brain structures and neurochemicals. If palatability was a component of homeostatic control, reducing need-state should reduce palatability. However, this is not so, and if anything palatability exerts a stronger stimulatory effect on eating when sated, and over-consumption induced by palatability may contribute to obesity. Differential responsivity to palatability may be a component of the obese phenotype, perhaps through sensitisation of the neural structures related to hedonic aspects of eating. Together, these disparate data clearly indicate that palatability is not a simple reflection of need state, but acts to promote intake through a distinct hedonic system, which has inputs from a variety of other systems, including those regulating need. This conclusion leads to the possibility of novel therapies for obesity based on modulation of hedonic rather than homeostatic controls. Potential developments are discussed.