Background: There has been an emerging concern that non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) can increase the risk of cardiometabolic disease. Much of the attention has focused on acute metabolic and endocrine responses to NNS. To examine whether these mechanisms are operational under real-world scenarios, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of acute trials comparing the effects of non-nutritive sweetened beverages (NNS beverages) with water and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) in humans. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched through to January 15, 2022. We included acute, single-exposure, randomized, and non-randomized, clinical trials in humans, regardless of health status. Three patterns of intake were examined: (1) uncoupling interventions, where NNS beverages were consumed alone without added energy or nutrients; (2) coupling interventions, where NNS beverages were consumed together with added energy and nutrients as carbohydrates; and (3) delayed coupling interventions, where NNS beverages were consumed as a preload prior to added energy and nutrients as carbohydrates. The primary outcome was a 2 h incremental area under the curve (iAUC) for blood glucose concentration. Secondary outcomes included 2 h iAUC for insulin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), ghrelin, leptin, and glucagon concentrations. Network meta-analysis and confidence in the network meta-analysis (CINeMA) were conducted in R-studio and CINeMA, respectively. Results: Thirty-six trials involving 472 predominantly healthy participants were included. Trials examined a variety of single NNS (acesulfame potassium, aspartame, cyclamate, saccharin, stevia, and sucralose) and NNS blends (acesulfame potassium + aspartame, acesulfame potassium + sucralose, acesulfame potassium + aspartame + cyclamate, and acesulfame potassium + aspartame + sucralose), along with matched water/unsweetened controls and SSBs sweetened with various caloric sugars (glucose, sucrose, and fructose). In uncoupling interventions, NNS beverages (single or blends) had no effect on postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, GIP, PYY, ghrelin, and glucagon responses similar to water controls (generally, low to moderate confidence), whereas SSBs sweetened with caloric sugars (glucose and sucrose) increased postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, and GIP responses with no differences in postprandial ghrelin and glucagon responses (generally, low to moderate confidence). In coupling and delayed coupling interventions, NNS beverages had no postprandial glucose and endocrine effects similar to controls (generally, low to moderate confidence). Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that NNS beverages sweetened with single or blends of NNS have no acute metabolic and endocrine effects, similar to water. These findings provide support for NNS beverages as an alternative replacement strategy for SSBs in the acute postprandial setting.

(1) Background: The Portfolio Diet, a dietary pattern of cholesterol-lowering foods, is also rich in low glycemic index (GI) foods. While strong evidence supports clinically meaningful reductions in cholesterol, evidence on the relationship between the Portfolio Diet and diabetes management is lacking. (2) Objective: To evaluate the relationship between the Portfolio Diet and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as a determinant of glycemic control among adults living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). (3) Methods: Patient-level data was pooled from two randomized dietary trials of low glycemic index interventions compared to high cereal fibre control diets in adults living with T2DM where HbA1c was collected (clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT00438698, NCT00438698). Dietary exposure was assessed using weighed 7-day diet records. Adherence to the Portfolio Diet and its pillars (nuts and seeds, plant protein, viscous fibre, plant sterols, monounsaturated fatty acid [MUFA] oils) was determined using the validated clinical Portfolio Diet Score (c-PDS). Multiple linear regression was used to assess the association between change in the c-PDS and change in HbA1c over 6-months with covariate adjustments. (4) Results: A total of 267 participants, predominantly White (67%) and male (63%), were included, with a mean ± standard error age of 62 ± 0.5 years, baseline BMI of 30.2 ± 0.3 kg/m², HbA1c of 7.08 ± 0.03%, and a c-PDS of 4.1 ± 0.3 points out of 25. Change in the c-PDS was significantly associated with a change in HbA1c (β: −0.04% per point, 95% CI: −0.07, −0.02, p = 0.001). A 7.5-point (30%) increase in the c-PDS was associated with a 0.3% reduction in HbA1c. Of the individual pillars, a 1-point change in nut and seeds intake (β: −0.07%, 95% CI: −0.12, −0.02, p = 0.009) or in plant protein intake (β: −0.11%, 95% CI: −0.18, −0.03, p = 0.009) was associated with a change in HbA1c. Further analysis of plant protein intake revealed that an increase in dietary pulse intake, a particularly low-GI food, was significantly associated with a reduction in HbA1c (β: −0.24% per 1-cup points cooked pulses (226 g) or 2 c-PDS points, 95% CI: −0.45, −0.03, p = 0.028). (5) Conclusions: Among adults living with T2DM, the Portfolio Diet was associated with lower HbA1c over a 6-month period, predominantly driven by two pillars: nuts and seeds and plant protein, particularly dietary pulses. These data have implications for including the Portfolio Diet in dietary recommendations for glycemic control in T2DM. A trial demonstrating the direct causal effect of the Portfolio Diet in a diverse group is warranted.

Background: Many clinical practice guidelines recommend dietary pulses for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The impact of extracted pulse proteins remains unclear. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the effect of extracted pulse proteins on therapeutic lipid targets. Methods and Findings: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through April 2024 for trials of ≥3-weeks. The primary outcome was low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C). The secondary outcomes were other lipid targets. Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Subgroup analyses included by pulse type and the certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: Seven included trials (14 trial comparisons, n = 453) with a median of 4-weeks duration and dose of 35 g/day showed that extracted pulse proteins decreased LDL-C by −0.23 mmol/L (95% confidence interval: −0.36 to −0.10 mmol/L, p < 0.001). Similar effects were observed for non-high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and apolipoprotein B. No interactions were found by pulse type. Subgroup analyses revealed effect modification by sex, with greater proportions of females seeing greater reductions. GRADE was generally moderate. Conclusions: Extracted pulse proteins likely result in moderate reductions in LDL-C and other lipid targets. Future studies on various types of extracted pulse proteins including assessments by sex are warranted.

Background: The inability to assign a protein content claim (PCC) to plant foods may impede efforts from Canada’s Food Guide to increase consumption of plant protein. A systematic application of PCC frameworks from other regions to Canadian nutrition surveillance data would be useful to model potential effects of PCC regulations on the nutrient intake, protein quality, and corrected protein intake of diets. Methods: Plant food groups that qualified for a PCC within the Canadian Nutrient File according to regulations from Canada, the United States (US), Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), and the European Union (EU) were identified. Adults (≥19 years) (n = 11,817) from The Canadian Community Health Survey (2015) who consumed ≥1 plant food qualifying for a PCC in each region were allocated to the corresponding PCC group. The effects of Canadian PCC regulations on the protein quantity, quality (Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score, DIAAS), and nutrient intakes of Canadian diets in adults were compared to PCC groups from other regions. Results: Substantially more individuals were consumers of plant-based protein foods, using the ANZ and the EU PCC regulations, compared to the Canadian and US PCC groups. There were no differences in uncorrected protein intake across PCC groups. All DIAAS values were >0.94, and corrected protein intakes were >74–89 g/day or 16%E across PCC groups. Non-consumers of plant foods eligible for a PCC had corrected protein intakes that ranged between 68 and 78 g/d or 17%E. Generally, consumers of plant foods eligible for a PCC in the US, ANZ, and EU, or both Canada and the US/ANZ/EU, had higher intakes of positive nutrients, such as fibre, calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc (p < 0.05) and lower saturated fat. Conclusions: Less restrictive regulatory frameworks for PCC used in ANZ and the EU did not substantially affect protein intake or the protein quality of Canadian diets in adults. These results suggest that more inclusive regulatory frameworks for protein PCCs could support increased intake of food sources of plant proteins in alignment with Canada’s Food Guide.