The average values of food consumption, water, solutions and body weight are shown in Table 1. The FG has recorded a lower food intake compared to the other two groups. The SG has reported a lower feed intake than the CG with a statistically significant difference. These results coincide with those published by
Ahmad et al., (2018) who provided stevia to rats at different concentrations for 8 weeks and found that the higher the dose of stevia, the less food was consumed. This may suggest that the consumption of stevia does not stimulate the appetite or cause a positive energy balance that leads to an increase in body weight
(Ahmad and Ahmad, 2018). The fructose group showed a statistically significant increase in body weight (p<0.05) with respect to the stevia and control groups due to the caloric intake of fructose and its poor satiating effect
(Havel, 2001; Tappy and Le, 2010). Of the total fluid consumption, the FG showed the highest intake with respect to the rest of the groups (p<0.05), while the CG showed the highest water intake (p<0.05). In the consumption of the sweetened solutions, the FG showed the highest consumption with respect to the SG (p<0.05). This result does not coincide with those reported by
Figlewicz et al., (2009) who reported that the intake of drink sweetened with stevia produced an increase in fluid intake compared to a drink sweetened with fructose. However,
Rosales et al., (2018) reported that the age of the subjects can intervene in the amount of sweetened solution consumed. In their study, they showed that subjects with younger age (4 and 9 weeks old) showed a lower stevia consumption compared to sucralose, whereas in subjects of 15 weeks of age the result is inverted.
Fig 1 shows the results of the metabolic parameters at the end of the 13 weeks of the experiment. The FG showed the highest serum glucose levels compared to the other groups (p<0.005). In insulin levels (panel B), the group with the highest serum levels was FG, showing a statistically significant difference with respect to stevia (p=0.022). The consumption of stevia showed better ability to regulate glucose and insulin levels compared to the group that consumed fructose. This is probably due to a decrease in the hepatic expression of the enzyme phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase (PEPCK). PEPCK is a key enzyme in the secretion of insulin and gluconeogenesis that contribute to the regulation of glycaemia and insulin sensitivity
(Ahmad and Ahmad, 2018; Chen et al., 2005; Elnaga et al., 2016; Stark and Kibbey, 2014). It is important to perform additional studies to corroborate the possible molecular mechanisms that explain the effects of stevia consumption. For triglyceride levels (panel C), FC showed the highest levels compared to the CG and SG (p=0.002). The decrease in the levels of triglycerides in the SG as compared to the FG may be due to the fact that the stevia compounds (steviosides) improve the activity of the hepatic lipase that results in the catabolism of the lipids
(Ahmad et al., 2018). For cholesterol (panel D), the FG group showed higher levels than the CG (p=0.001) and the SG (p=0.000). The SG group showed lower cholesterol levels than the CG (p=0.018). This is probably due to the ability of stevia to increase the excretion of bile acids and interrupt the formation of bile acid micelles, preventing the absorption of cholesterol in the small intestine
(Ahmad et al., 2018). Later in the colon, stevia binds to bile or dietary cholesterol and increases the fecal excretion of bile acids by activating cholesterol 7α hydroxylase, thus reducing cholesterol levels. This indicates that stevia has an antihy perc hole sterolemic effect
(Brijesh and Kamath, 2016; Elnaga et al., 2016; Hossain et al., 2011).