Glucose and insulin responses to monk fruit-based sweetener formulations and their effects on appetite, liking and wanting, and energy intake (GREEN): a randomized double-blind, crossover study.
Jakkrit Aisara, Mingkwan Na Takuathung, Kantirat Yaja et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This randomized, double-blind, crossover study compared three monk fruit-based sweetener formulations (MF1–MF3) with sucrose and sucralose in 30 healthy adults. Participants consumed each sweetened beverage before a standardized meal, with glucose and insulin measured over 180 min and appetite, liking, energy intake, and adverse events assessed. Preload glucose and insulin responses were lower with MF1–MF3 and sucralose than with sucrose; postprandial responses were comparable across sweeteners, while overall glucose and insulin iAUCs were lower with MF1–MF3. Appetite and energy intake did not differ, but diarrhea occurred more often with MF1–MF3.
Key findings
- Preload glycemic and insulinemic responses were significantly lower with MF1–MF3 and sucralose than with sucrose.
- Postprandial glucose and insulin responses were comparable across all sweeteners; overall glucose and insulin iAUCs were lower with MF1–MF3.
- Appetite responses and energy intake did not differ among sweeteners, although MF1 had lower liking and wanting scores.
- Adverse events were mild, with diarrhea occurring more frequently with MF1–MF3.
Why it matters
The findings suggest that these monk fruit-based formulations can produce different acute glucose and insulin responses from sucrose without measurable differences in appetite or energy intake in healthy adults. The more frequent diarrhea and lower liking and wanting for MF1 are relevant when considering tolerability and acceptability. The study informs short-term responses, not longer-term metabolic or dietary effects.
What to keep in mind
The study assessed acute responses in 30 healthy adults; it does not establish longer-term effects or responses in other populations.