Study Title and Description
Beverages containing soluble fiber, caffeine, and green tea catechins suppress hunger and lead to less energy consumption at the next meal.
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||Beverages containing soluble fiber, caffeine, and green tea catechins suppress hunger and lead to less energy consumption at the next meal.|
|Author||BE Carter,A Drewnowski,|
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)?||The question investigated, was whether the soluble dextrin fiber alone, as well as in combination with caffeine and EGCG, would reduce hunger ratings or lead to lower energy intakes at lunch relative to a beverage of similar energy (0.12 MJ) or a no-beverage control condition.|
|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)||Participants A total of 77 subjects, aged 18–45 years, were enrolled into the study. Seventy-five subjects completed the trial. One of those subjects failed to follow directions and was thus excluded from the analysis. The final data set, for which results are shown, consisted of 74 adults (30 males, 44 females). Eligible participants were overweight (BMI = 25.0–35.0 kg/m2), were not following a diet to gain or lose weight, did not smoke, consumed caffeine regularly (between 100 and 400 mg daily), and consumed breakfast regularly. Persons with food allergies or food restrictions, those who disliked the beverages to be served in the study, those on prescription medications or supplements likely to affect taste, smell or appetite, athletes in training, pregnant or lactating women, and persons reporting recent weight loss or weight cycling were excluded. The Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI) (Garner, Olmstead, & Polivy, 1983) and the Eating Inventory (EI) (Stunkard & Messick, 1985) were administered to screen participants for potential eating disorders. Persons who met all eligibility criteria including a score of <8 in the EDI (excluding the body image portion) and of <10 in the cognitive restraint subscale of the EI, were invited to participate via email correspondence. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University Washington and all participants provided informed consent. All subjects completing the study were compensated for their time. Study design The study followed a within-subjects design, with each participant returning for four separate test sessions over 5 weeks. The study was double-blinded, in that all beverages were provided to study staff with code numbers by The Coca-Cola Company and condition identification was not applied until data analysis was complete. The order of presentation of the beverage conditions was counterbalanced across sessions using a Latin Square. To minimize variability, all participants were asked to report to the lab on the same day of the week, to keep evening meals and activity levels on the day before the test as similar as possible and to refrain from drinking alcohol the day before the test. Testing sessions lasted from 0800 to 1430 h and were spaced at least one week apart. Motivational ratings were obtained on arrival at 0800 h (baseline) and every 30 min thereafter. A tray lunch was served at 1400 h and a final set of ratings was collected after lunch, at 1430 h. Motivational ratings Participants used computerized, semi-anchored visual analogue scales (VAS) to rate hunger, fullness, thirst, nausea, and desire to eat at 30 min intervals. The VAS software was custom-written using the graphical programming software LabView version 6.1 (National Instruments, Austin TX) running on ten identical Apple Macintosh G3 computers (Apple, Cupertino, CA). The system has been used in previously-published work (P. Monsivais, Perrigue, & Drewnowski, 2007). Motivational scales were presented on the computer monitor, one scale per screen. For example, in response to the question ‘‘How full are you right now?’’ each participant positioned a cursor along the 100 mm bar displayed on a flat-panel LCD computer monitor using amouse. The VAS bars were anchored at each extreme with labels ‘‘not at all hungry’’ and ‘‘extremely hungry’’. Participants were asked to consume the entire beverage and solid snack within 20 min at each serving. The beverages were served chilled in 12 fl oz (355 mL, 370 g) portions, without ice, in silver soda containers with a straw. Caloric and non- caloric sweeteners were used to adjust the energy density of the beverages to match the calories delivered by the fiber. The energy density of the beverages ranged between 0.06 and 0.08 kcal/g (<0.001 MJ/g), less than half the energy density of most juices and carbonated soft drinks. Participants were not allowed to eat or drink anything other than the preloads and snacks provided during the testing session prior to lunch. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17 for Windows was used for data analysis. Because motivational ratings are normally distributed (Almiron-Roig, Flores, & Drewnowski, 2004; Monsivais, Perrigue et al., 2007; Tsuchiya et al., 2006), analyses used a nested repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) with preload condition type and time (Monsivais, Perrigue et al., 2007) as the within-subjects factors, and gender as the between subjects factor. Analyses of energy intakes, as well as the weight of foods and water consumed at lunch also used a repeated measures ANOVA with preload condition as the within subject factor and gender as between subject factor. All within subjects comparisons were subject to the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.|
|How many outcome-specific endpoints are evaluated?||1|
|What is the (or one of the) endpoint(s) evaluated? (Each endpoint listed separately)||hunger|
|List additional health endpoints (separately).|
|List additional health endpoints (separately)|
|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 analogue scale|
|What was the reference, comparison, or control group(s)? (e.g. high vs low consumption, number of cups, etc.)||Nutriose+ (Nutriose fiber, 100 mg caffeine, and green tea catechins) vs Nutriose (fiber + 46 mg caffeine) only; Equal calorie control (no caffeine); No bev, No beverage control|
|What were the listed confounders or modifying factors as stated by the authors? (e.g. multi-variable components of models. Copy from methods)||N/A|
|Provide a general description of results (as reported by the authors).||The beverage containing Nutriose, green tea catechins, and caffeine (Nutriose+) was associated with the lowest hunger and desire to snack ratings while the no beverage condition was associated with the highest hunger and desire to snack ratings (see Fig. 1). Pair-wise comparisons of the hunger ratings revealed that there was a significant difference between the no-beverage condition and the three other conditions (p < 0.05 for all conditions) with the largest difference appearing between Nutriose condition with a mean hunger VAS (± SEM) of 33.5 (± 2.1) mm and the no beverage condition with a mean hunger VAS (± SEM) of 52.1(± 2.0) mm. There was also a significant difference between the Nutriose+ condition and the equal calorie control condition as well as the Nutriose+ condition and the Nutriose only condition (p < 0.01). There was not a significant difference between the beverage condition containing equivalent calories and the Nutriose only condition (see Fig. 2).|
|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?||This study failed to show any effect on appetite or energy intake that was solely due to fiber. However, the combination of the fiber, caffeine, and green tea catechins in the Nutriose+ condition promoted satiety and decreased subsequent energy intake at an adlib lunch. These findings are consistent with other studies showing that the synergy between green tea catechins and other bioactive ingredients can reduce appetite (Reinbach et al., 2009). In addition, these results are consistent with research showing that there may be a synergistic effect of caffeine and other active ingredients in reducing appetite (Jessen et al., 2005).|
|What were the sources of funding?||Supported by a research grant from The Coca-Cola Company to the University of Washington.|
|What conflicts of interest were reported?||N/A|
|Does the exposure (dose) need to be standardized to the SR?||No|
|Provide calculations/conversions for the exposure based on the decision tree in the guide (for all endpoints/exposure levels of interest).|
|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.||hunger - NOAEL = 46 mg/day; LOAEL = 100 mg/day|
|Notes regarding selection/listing of endpoints and exposures/doses to be compared to Nawrot.||Caffeine was in the form of Nutriose which contained fiber, 100 mg caffeine, and green tea catechins|
|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.