Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study I-SUG-101 in-depth review
Sugar drink raises insulin quickly
Effects of aspartame-, monk fruit-, stevia- and sucrose-sweetened beverages on postprandial glucose, insulin and energy intake.
Overview
Tey SL et al.. Int J Obes (Lond) 2017 · PMID 27956737 · DOI 10.1038/ijo.2016.225
A drink with 65 g of table sugar caused large rises in blood sugar and insulin within the first hour in 30 healthy men.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Compare blood sugar and insulin after sugar-sweetened and sweetener-sweetened drinks.
- How was the study done?
Each man drank four different drinks on separate days in random order; blood was taken repeatedly.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
30 healthy men in Singapore.
- What was actually found?
The sugar drink caused large early spikes in glucose and insulin.
- How large was the observed effect?
Statistical tests on time courses; 3-h totals similar because of the later lunch.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Eating or drinking sugar makes the body release insulin; this is normal physiology.
- What are the study's limitations?
Small, men only, short-term.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts the claim that sugar does not raise insulin.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applies everywhere; physiology does not differ by country.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot say anything about long-term health effects of sweeteners.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Tey SL et al.
- Journal
- Int J Obes (Lond)
- Year
- 2017
- Identifier
- PMID 27956737 DOI 10.1038/ijo.2016.225
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 + Crossref 2026-10-26
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
Not stated in abstract record
2. Research question
Do sucrose- and non-nutritive-sweetener beverages differ in glucose, insulin and energy-intake responses?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Randomised controlled trial – Randomised crossover trial with four beverage preloads (aspartame, monk fruit, stevia, 65 g sucrose)
- Population
Healthy men
- Country
Singapore
- Period
not stated in abstract
- Sample size
30
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Healthy male volunteers; details not stated in abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Beverage sweetened with 65 g sucrose
- Comparator
Beverages sweetened with aspartame, monk fruit or stevia
- Endpoints
Blood glucose and insulin every 15-30 min for 3 h; ad libitum lunch intake; daily energy intake
- Statistical methods
Crossover comparison of AUC and time courses
5. Actual results
- Results
The sucrose-sweetened beverage led to large spikes in blood glucose and insulin within the first hour; NNS beverages produced higher responses after the test lunch, so total 3-h AUC did not differ (glucose P=0.960; insulin P=0.216). Ad libitum lunch intake was higher after NNS (P=0.010); total daily energy intake did not differ (P=0.831).
- Absolute risks
not applicable
- Authors' conclusion
NNS beverages have minimal influence on total daily energy intake, postprandial glucose and insulin compared with a sucrose-sweetened beverage.
6. Strengths
- Randomised crossover design
- Frequent blood sampling
- Direct measurement of insulin after sucrose
7. Weaknesses
- Small sample of healthy men only
- Single test day per beverage
- Abstract only reviewed
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- RoB 2
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Crossover; blinding and carry-over handling not assessable from abstract.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
The early insulin spike after 65 g sucrose is the relevant finding for C-SUG-04; equal 3-h AUC reflects the later lunch, not absence of an insulin response to sugar.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Directly contradicts the statement that eating white sugar does not raise insulin: sucrose produced a large early insulin rise in healthy adults.
11. Independent contrary findings
None found; no study shows absent insulin response to sucrose in people with functioning beta cells.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Basic physiology; transferable to all populations with functioning beta cells.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Small but direct demonstration of the normal insulin response to sucrose; consistent with I-SUG-07 and with basic physiology.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | low |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
None relevant to the claim.
15. Linked fact checks
- On the Tayyibat system, eating white sugar does not raise insulin at all. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim