Study Title and Description
Caffeinated coffee does not acutely affect energy intake, appetite, or inflammation but prevents serum cortisol concentrations from falling in healthy men.
Key Questions Addressed
|1||For [population], is caffeine intake above [exposure dose], compared to intakes [exposure dose] or less, associated with adverse effects on behavior*?|
Primary Publication Information
|Title||Caffeinated coffee does not acutely affect energy intake, appetite, or inflammation but prevents serum cortisol concentrations from falling in healthy men.|
|Author||A Gavrieli,M Yannakoulia,E Fragopoulou,D Margaritopoulos,JP Chamberland,P Kaisari,SA Kavouras,CS Mantzoros,|
Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.
Extraction Form: Behavior - Design Details - INCLUDED Studies
No arms have been defined in this extraction form.
|Question... Follow Up||Answer||Follow-up Answer|
|What outcome is being evaluated in this paper?||Behavior|
|What is the objective of the study (as reported by the authors)?||Our aim in this crossover study was to investigate the acute effects of caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee consumption on appetite feelings, energy intake, and appetite-, inflammation-, stress-, and glucose metabolism-related markers.|
|Provide a general description of the methods as reported by the authors. Information should be extracted based on relevance to the SR (i.e., caffeine related methods)||Sixteen apparently healthy, nonobese, young men who were habitual coffee drinkers were recruited by local advertisement to participate in this study (Table 1). Potential participants were informed that the purpose of the project was to investigate the effect of breakfast consumption on blood lipids; the true purpose of the study was not revealed to decrease participants’ response associated with preconceived cognitions regarding the effect of coffee on appetite. The experiment had a randomized crossover design. Each volunteer participated in 3 interventions on separate days, at least 1 wk apart, in a random order (using a random-number table). For the 3 d preceding the experimental days, participants were instructed to eat and drink similar foods, to abstain from caffeine and alcohol, to avoid excessive exercise, and to sleep at least 7 h. participants consumed in 5 min a breakfast snack consisting of 1 slice of white bread, 5 g butter, and 10 g white sugar, providing 594 kJ (6.5% of energy from proteins, 62.5% from carbohydrates, and 31.0% from lipids), along with 1 of the 3 interventions: 1) 200 mL of instant caffeinated coffee with 3 mg caffeine/kg body weight (CAF);9 2) 200 mL of instant decaffeinated coffee (same amount of coffee as the previous intervention) (DECAF); or 3) 200 mL of water (control). The breakfast snack was provided to imitate real-life settings in terms of time and context of coffee consumption and to supply some energy for the participants; the energy and nutrient content were, however, kept low to avoid any potential nutrient effects. Immediately after breakfast consumption, a second blood sample was obtained (0 min) and subsequently obtained at 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 min. After each blood draw, the cannula was flushed with saline (0.9% NaCl). Approximately 90 mL of blood in total was collected from each participant. Along with each blood draw, participants had to complete three 10-point visual analog scales (VAS) to record their subjective feelings of hunger, satiety, and desire to eat. Participants were not allowed to exercise or drink and eat anything for 3 h following the experiment and rested in a sitting position. Study investigators supervised them to ensure compliance. During this period, participants were interviewed about the previous day’s dietary intake using the 24-h recall method. At the end of the 3-h period, participants consumed ad libitum a buffet style lunch consisting of common Greek diet foods (pasta, tomato sauce, beef, salad, cheese, yogurt, fruit, and chocolate). They were instructed to eat until they were satiated, within 30 min. Foods were provided in excess amounts and participants had to serve themselves the quantities they wanted to eat. Food quantities were measured as well as any leftovers to estimate dietary intake in the ad libitum meal. One day after the experiment, participants were asked in a telephone interview to report their food intake for the rest of the experimental day.|
|How many outcome-specific endpoints are evaluated?||1|
|What is the (or one of the) endpoint(s) evaluated? (Each endpoint listed separately)||Appetite|
|List additional health endpoints (separately).|
|List additional health endpoints (separately)|
|Notes||Appetite included hunger, desire to eat, and satiety|
|What is the study design?||Controlled Trial|
|Randomized or Non-Randomized?||RCT|
|What were the diagnostics or methods used to measure the outcome?||Subjective|
|Optional: Name of Method or short description||Visual Analog Scales|
|What was the reference, comparison, or control group(s)? (e.g. high vs low consumption, number of cups, etc.)||Water or decaffeinated coffee vs caffeinated coffee.|
|What were the listed confounders or modifying factors as stated by the authors? (e.g. multi-variable components of models. Copy from methods)||None reported|
|Provide a general description of results (as reported by the authors).||Ad libitum energy and macronutrient intakes from the test meal and during the rest of the day or the total day did not differ among the 3 interventions (Table 2) even after adjustment for the previous day’s energy intake. Ratings in the hunger and desire to eat VAS scales decreased immediately after breakfast snack consumption compared to the prebreakfast levels and started to increase again at 30 min, reaching maximum levels at 180 min in all 3 interventions. Satiety ratings were similar. The ratings in these 3 scales over time did not differ among the 3 interventions and there was no time x intervention interaction. However, at 180 min in the CAF intervention, participants reported lower desire to eat compared to the DECAF intervention (P = 0.03) and the control (P = 0.06) (Supplemental Fig. 1). Comparison of the AUC and IAUC did not differ among the 3 interventions, except in the IAUC for the desire to eat (P = 0.05) (data not shown). Post hoc analysis revealed that the CAF tended to result in a lower IAUC compared to the control intervention (P = 0.07) (data not shown).|
|Did the authors perform a dose-response analysis (or trend/related analysis)?||No|
|What were the authors's observations re: trend analysis?|
|What were the author's conclusions?||In conclusion, the usually consumed amount of caffeinated coffee does not have short-term effects on appetite, energy intake, glucose metabolism, and inflammatory markers, but it increases circulating cortisol concentrations in healthy men|
|What were the sources of funding?||Supported by the Graduate Program of the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Harokopio University and a discretionary grant from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.|
|What conflicts of interest were reported?||Author disclosures: A. Gavrieli, M. Yannakoulia, E. Fragopoulou, D. Margaritopoulos, J. P. Chamberland, P. Kaisari, S. A. Kavouras, and C. S. Mantzoros, no conflicts of interest.|
|Does the exposure (dose) need to be standardized to the SR?||Yes|
|Provide calculations/conversions for the exposure based on the decision tree in the guide (for all endpoints/exposure levels of interest).||Assume 81.8 kg bw for adults (mean of sample population) 3 mg/kg x 81.8 kg = 245.4 mg|
|List all the endpoint(s) followed by the dose (mg) which will be used in comparison to Nawrot. Characterize value as LOAEL/NOAEL, etc. if possible.||Appetite NOAEL = 3 mg/kg bw (~245.4 mg)|
|Notes regarding selection/listing of endpoints and exposures/doses to be compared to Nawrot.||Caffeine was administered in the form of 200 mL instant caffeinated coffee which contained 3 mg caffeine/kg body weight. This study only incorporated one exposure level.|
|What is the importance of the study with respect to the adverseness of the outcome?||Low|
No baseline characteristics have been defined for this extraction form.
Results & Comparisons
No Results found.
|Arm or Total||Title||Description||Comments|
No quality dimensions were specified.
No quality rating data was found.