Comparing body composition between the sweet-liking phenotypes: experimental data, systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis
Authors' conclusion
The higher BMI often seen in sweet-likers may be due to a larger FFM and questions the simple model where sweet liking alone is a risk factor for obesity.
Study context
- Population
- Adults (18–34yrs) phenotyped for sweet-liking with bioelectrical impedance body composition; Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of studies with sucrose (>13.7% w/v) liking assessment and body mass index (BMI), BF%, fat-free mass (FFM) or waist-circumferenceExp 1 N = 200
- Comparison
- Extreme sweet-likers vs moderate sweet-likers vs sweet-dislikers
- Outcome
- FFM by sweet-liking phenotype
Methodological detailstwo lab-based experiments, one-stage IPD meta-analysis, controlling for sex, Systematic searches across four databases identified 5736 potential articles; 53 papers met criteria; 15 studies in IPD meta-analyses
- Two lab-based experiments
- One-stage IPD meta-analysis
- Controlling for sex
- Systematic searches across four databases identified 5736 potential articles; 53 papers met criteria; 15 studies in IPD meta-analyses
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- Experiments One and Two: significant effect of phenotype on FFM; extreme sweet-likers had significantly higher FFM than sweet-dislikers
- IPD meta-analysis (15 studies, n = 768): moderate sweet-likers and sweet-dislikers had significantly lower FFM than extreme sweet-likers
Further pooled results
BF%, Experiment One
- Sweet-dislikers had significantly higher BF% than extreme and moderate sweet-likers
BF% and waist-circumference, IPD meta-analysis
- No significant differences in BF% (n = 1836) or waist-circumference (n = 706)
- Controlling for sex
BMI, IPD meta-analysis (n = 2368)
- Moderate sweet-likers had slightly lower BMI than extreme sweet-likers, who had the highest overall BMI
Original publication
Comparing body composition between the sweet-liking phenotypes: experimental data, systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Int J Obes (Lond). Published 11 March 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →