Abstract
No abstract available.
Summary
Using a similar design as in the study by Wang et al., the objective of the study by Park et al., is to look more closely into the findings by Wang et al., and understand what factors could be at play. Park et al. found that sucralose doesn’t increase appetite or food intake in fruit flies and that the total calories consumed by the test flies (sucralose-fed) were significantly less than what was consumed by the control flies. The study concludes that the reported effects of sucralose exposure are in fact a consequence of caloric deficit (fasting) irrespective of sucralose ingestion, and the authors remark that „our results strongly support the idea that post-exposure hyperphagia is due to compensation for the caloric deficit accumulated during sucralose exposure rather than sucralose ingestion per se.“
A concern regarding the interpretation of individual studies has been raised by the authors of this new publication, which points out that conclusions drawn from individual research studies may not always represent the big picture.