Study Title and Description
Effect of different amounts of coffee on dietary intake and appetite of normal-weight and overweight/obese individuals.
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||Effect of different amounts of coffee on dietary intake and appetite of normal-weight and overweight/obese individuals.|
|Author||A Gavrieli,E Karfopoulou,E Kardatou,E Spyreli,E Fragopoulou,CS Mantzoros,M Yannakoulia,|
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)?||To investigate the effects of different coffee amounts on dietary intake and appetite feelings in normal-weight and overweight/obese individuals.|
|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)||Thirty-three volunteers (16 normal-weight, 17 overweight/obese) participated in three trials: they consumed a standard breakfast along with 200 ml of either coffee with 3 or 6 mg caffeine/kg body weight (Coffee 3 and Coffee 6, respectively), or water. At fasting and at standard time points for the 3 h following breakfast/drink consumption participants recorded their appetite feelings on visual analogue scales. At 180 min, participants consumed an ad libitum meal and the next day they recalled their food intake during the experimental day. The day prior each experiment volunteers had to abstain from any caffeine source, alcohol and physical exercise, to sleep at least 7 h and to come at the lab after an overnight fast of 10 h. Furthermore, for the day preceding the second and third experimental day they had to consume similar foods with the day preceding the first experimental day at about the same quantities and hours daily. Participants came to the lab at 9.00 am and they consumed a standardized breakfast snack along with one of the three experimental drinks. The breakfast snack consisted of one slice of white bread, 5 g of butter, and 10 g of white sugar, providing 142 kcal (6.5% of energy from proteins, 62.5% from carbohydrates and 31.0% from lipids). The experimental drinks were 200 ml of either (a) instant coffee with 3 mg caffeine/kg body weight (Coffee 3), (b) instant coffee with 6 mg caffeine/kg body weight (Coffee 6) or (c) water (Control). Volunteers had to consume the breakfast and the drink within 5 min. To record their appetite feelings they completed three 10-cm visual analogue scales (VAS) related to hunger, satiety and desire to eat, in the fasted state (_x0001_15 min), immediately after breakfast and drink consumption (0 min) and at the subsequent 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 min. During this 3-h period participants were interviewed about the previous day’s dietary intake using the 24-h recall method. Statistical analysis The experimental design was 3 (intervention groups) _x0004_ 2 (blocks, i.e., normal-weight vs. overweight/obese). Thus, to adequately detect an increase of 0.5 SD in appetite ratings score, a sample of eight participants per intervention group, i.e., a total of 24 participants was considered necessary to achieve 80% statistical power at 5% significance level of two-sided hypotheses. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences statistical software package version 18 (SPSS, Chicago, IL). Means for baseline characteristics were compared using the Independed-samples T test and the X2 test. Repeated measures analysis of covariance (participant code as a covariate) was used for the comparisons of the response curves of VAS ratings, by testing for an intervention effect and a time _x0004_ intervention interaction. The mean values of energy and macronutrient intake during the ad libitum meal and the total day (sum of breakfast, ad libitum and rest of the day intakes) between the three trials were compared through univariate analysis of variance and further adjustment was made for the previous day’s energy intake or habitual caffeine intake. Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to compare one intervention to another.|
|How many outcome-specific endpoints are evaluated?||2|
|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)|
|What is the study design?||Controlled Trial|
|Randomized or Non-Randomized?||RCT|
|What were the diagnostics or methods used to measure the outcome?||Both|
|Optional: Name of Method or short description||Appetite was measured by total kcal consumed; hunger was measured on a visual analogue scale|
|What was the reference, comparison, or control group(s)? (e.g. high vs low consumption, number of cups, etc.)||placebo (water) vs coffee (3 mg/kg caffeine) vs coffee (6mg/kg caffeine)|
|What were the listed confounders or modifying factors as stated by the authors? (e.g. multi-variable components of models. Copy from methods)||energy of the previous day and habitual caffeine intake|
|Provide a general description of results (as reported by the authors).||The consumption of Coffee 6 resulted in 550 kcal lower total daily intake compared to the consumption of water (P = 0.04) whereas Coffee 3 consumption presented no difference compared to water consumption. Coffee 6 induced also a 725 kcal lower total energy intake compared to the consumption of Coffee 3 (P = 0.008). The results remained unchanged when the energy of the previous day or the habitual caffeine intake were used as covariates in the analysis. No significant intervention effect or a time _x0004_ intervention interaction was found for the ratings in the three VAS scales in normal weight or overweight/obese participants (Figure 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?||In conclusion, there was no effect of coffee on dietary intake and appetite related feelings in normal-weight individuals; however, in overweight/obese coffee was found to exert an effect as consumption of a moderate amount in the morning, providing 6 mg of caffeine/kg body weight (equivalent to two to four cups), significantly reduced energy intake in the lunch, compared to a lower or no intake, and this effect was maintained during the rest of the day.|
|What were the sources of funding?||The study was supported through funding from the Graduate Program of the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Harokopio University.|
|What conflicts of interest were reported?||The authors declared no conflict of interest.|
|Does the exposure (dose) need to be standardized to the SR?||Multiple metrics|
|Provide calculations/conversions for the exposure based on the decision tree in the guide (for all endpoints/exposure levels of interest).||Healthy weight 3 mg/kg caffeine = 3 x 64 kg = 192 mg caffeine 6 mg/kg caffeine = 6 x 64 kg = 384 mg caffeine Overweight 3 mg/kg caffeine = 3 x 87.7 kg = 263 mg caffeine 6 mg/kg caffeine = 6 x 87.7 kg = 526 mg caffeine mean weights taken from study|
|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.||Healthy weight appetite - NOAEL = 384 mg caffeine/day hunger - NOAEL = 384 mg caffeine/day Overweight appetite - LOAEL = 526 mg caffeine/day hunger - NOAEL = 526 mg caffeine/day|
|Notes regarding selection/listing of endpoints and exposures/doses to be compared to Nawrot.||Effect on appetite in overweight individuals above levels seen in Nawrot|
|What is the importance of the study with respect to the adverseness of the outcome?||Important|
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.