BACKGROUND: Ingestion of sweet food is driven by central reward circuits and restrained by endocrine and neurocrine satiety signals. The specific influence of sucrose intake on central affective and reward circuitry and alterations of these mechanisms in the obese are incompletely understood. For this, we hypothesized that (i) similar brain regions are engaged by the stimulation of sweet taste receptors by sucrose and by non-nutrient sweeteners and (ii) during visual food-related cues, obese subjects show greater brain responses to sucrose compared with lean controls. METHODS: In a double-blind, crossover design, 10 obese and 10 lean healthy females received a sucrose or a non-nutrient sweetened beverage prior to viewing food or neutral images. BOLD signal was measured using a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner. KEY RESULTS: Viewing food images after ingestion of either drink was associated with engagement of similar brain regions (amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus, anterior insula). Obese differed from lean subjects in behavioral and brain responses rating both beverages as less tasteful and satisfying, yet demonstrating greater brain responses. Obese subjects also showed engagement of an additional brain network (including anterior insula, anterior cingulate, hippocampus, and amygdala) only after sucrose ingestion. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Obese subjects had a reduced behavioral hedonic response, yet a greater engagement of affective brain networks, particularly after sucrose ingestion, suggesting that in obese subjects, lingual and gut-derived signaling generate less central hedonic effects than food-related memories in response to visual cues, analogous to response patterns implicated in food addiction.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Ingestion of sweet food is driven by central reward circuits and restrained by endocrine and neurocrine satiety signals. The specific influence of sucrose intake on central affective and reward circuitry and alterations of these mechanisms in the obese are incompletely understood. For this, we hypothesized that (i) similar brain regions are engaged by the stimulation of sweet taste receptors by sucrose and by non-nutrient sweeteners and (ii) during visual food-related cues, obese subjects show greater brain responses to sucrose compared with lean controls. METHODS: In a double-blind, crossover design, 10 obese and 10 lean healthy females received a sucrose or a non-nutrient sweetened beverage prior to viewing food or neutral images. BOLD signal was measured using a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner. KEY RESULTS: Viewing food images after ingestion of either drink was associated with engagement of similar brain regions (amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus, anterior insula). Obese differed from lean subjects in behavioral and brain responses rating both beverages as less tasteful and satisfying, yet demonstrating greater brain responses. Obese subjects also showed engagement of an additional brain network (including anterior insula, anterior cingulate, hippocampus, and amygdala) only after sucrose ingestion. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Obese subjects had a reduced behavioral hedonic response, yet a greater engagement of affective brain networks, particularly after sucrose ingestion, suggesting that in obese subjects, lingual and gut-derived signaling generate less central hedonic effects than food-related memories in response to visual cues, analogous to response patterns implicated in food addiction.
Authors: Gene-Jack Wang; Nora D Volkow; Frank Telang; Millard Jayne; Jim Ma; Manlong Rao; Wei Zhu; Christopher T Wong; Naomi R Pappas; Allan Geliebter; Joanna S Fowler Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Lars Sjöström; Anna-Karin Lindroos; Markku Peltonen; Jarl Torgerson; Claude Bouchard; Björn Carlsson; Sven Dahlgren; Bo Larsson; Kristina Narbro; Carl David Sjöström; Marianne Sullivan; Hans Wedel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D V Sheehan; Y Lecrubier; K H Sheehan; P Amorim; J Janavs; E Weiller; T Hergueta; R Baker; G C Dunbar Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 1998 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Lisa A Kilpatrick; Kristen Coveleskie; Lynn Connolly; Jennifer S Labus; Bahar Ebrat; Jean Stains; Zhiguo Jiang; Brandall Y Suyenobu; Helen E Raybould; Kirsten Tillisch; Emeran A Mayer Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Johanna M Jarcho; Marian Tanofsky-Kraff; Eric E Nelson; Scott G Engel; Anna Vannucci; Sara E Field; Adrienne L Romer; Louise Hannallah; Sheila M Brady; Andrew P Demidowich; Lauren B Shomaker; Amber B Courville; Daniel S Pine; Jack A Yanovski Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-12-27 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Dean Kirson; Samantha R Spierling Bagsic; Jiayuan Murphy; Hang Chang; Roman Vlkolinsky; Sarah N Pucci; Julia Prinzi; Casey A Williams; Savannah Y Fang; Marisa Roberto; Eric P Zorrilla Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 5.273
Authors: Aditi Bhargava; Arthur P Arnold; Debra A Bangasser; Kate M Denton; Arpana Gupta; Lucinda M Hilliard Krause; Emeran A Mayer; Margaret McCarthy; Walter L Miller; Armin Raznahan; Ragini Verma Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 25.261
Authors: Arpana Gupta; Emeran A Mayer; Claudia P Sanmiguel; John D Van Horn; Davis Woodworth; Benjamin M Ellingson; Connor Fling; Aubrey Love; Kirsten Tillisch; Jennifer S Labus Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 4.881