Maxime Buyckx

The role of a pre-load beverage on gastric volume and food intake: comparison between non-caloric carbonated and non-carbonated beverage

BackgroundThere is conflicting data on the effects of carbon dioxide contained in beverages on stomach functions. We aimed to verify the effect of a pre-meal administration of a 300 ml non-caloric carbonated beverage (B+CO2) compared to water or a beverage without CO2 (B-CO2), during a solid (SM) and a liquid meal (LM) on: a) gastric volume, b) caloric intake, c) ghrelin and cholecystokinin (CCK) release in healthy subjects.MethodsAfter drinking the beverages (Water, B-CO2, B+CO2), ten healthy subjects (4 women, aged 22-30 years; BMI 23 ± 1) were asked to consume either an SM or an LM, at a constant rate (110 kcal/5 min). Total gastric volumes (TGV) were evaluated by Magnetic Resonance Imaging after drinking the beverage and at maximum satiety (MS). Total kcal intake at MS was evaluated. Ghrelin and CCK were measured by enzyme immunoassay until 120 min after the meal. Statistical calculations were carried out by paired T-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The data is expressed as mean ± SEM.ResultsTGV after B+CO2 consumption was significantly higher than after B-CO2 or water (p < 0.05), but at MS, it was no different either during the SM or the LM. Total kcal intake did not differ at MS after any of the beverages tested, with either the SM (Water: 783 ± 77 kcals; B-CO2: 837 ± 66; B+CO2: 774 ± 66) or the LM (630 ± 111; 585 ± 88; 588 ± 95). Area under curve of ghrelin was significantly (p < 0.05) lower (13.8 ± 3.3 ng/ml/min) during SM following B-CO2 compared to B+CO2 and water (26.2 ± 4.5; 27.1 ± 5.1). No significant differences were found for ghrelin during LM, and for CCK during both SM and LM after all beverages.ConclusionsThe increase in gastric volume following a 300 ml pre-meal carbonated beverage did not affect food intake whether a solid or liquid meal was given. The consistency of the meal and the carbonated beverage seemed to influence ghrelin release, but were unable, under our experimental conditions, to modify food intake in terms of quantity. Further studies are needed to verify if other food and beverage combinations are able to modify satiation.

Protecting the heart of the American Athlete: Proceedings of the American college of cardiology sports and exercise cardiology think tank October 18, 2012, Washington, DC

Yvette L. Rooks, MD, CAQ, FAAFP[1][1] G. Paul Matherne, MD, FACC[2][2] Jim Whitehead[3][3] Dan Henkel[3][3] Irfan M. Asif, MD[4][4] James C. Dreese, MD[5][5] Rory B. Weiner, MD[6][6] Barbara A. Hutchinson, MD, PhD, FACC[7][7] Linda Tavares, MS, RN, AACC[8][8] Steven Krueger, MD, FACC[9][9

Effect of Carbonation on Brain Processing of Sweet Stimuli in Humans

Little is known about how CO2 affects neural processing of taste. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate the effects of carbonation on brain processing of sweet stimuli, which has relevance to studies of food selection and satiety. The presence of carbonation produced an overall decrease in the neural processing of sweetness-related signals, especially from sucrose. CO2 reduced the neural processing of sucrose more than that of artificial sweeteners. These findings might be relevant to dietary interventions that include noncaloric beverages, whereas the combination of CO2 and sucrose might increase consumption of sucrose.

Sweetened carbonated drinks do not alter upper digestive tract physiology in healthy subjects

Abstract  Sweetened carbonated beverages are widely consumed, which has fuelled several conflicting opinions about their effects on upper digestive tract functions. We aimed to evaluate the effect of sweetened carbonated drinks, consumed with a standard meal, on gastro‐oesophageal reflux, gastric emptying and gallbladder contraction and postmeal sensations in healthy subjects. Thirteen healthy volunteers (seven women, six males; median age 22 years) were tested following the intake of 300 mL sweetened water containing increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (seven subjects), and of 300 mL sweetened commercial flavoured drink with and without carbon dioxide (six subjects). Gastro‐oesophageal reflux, gastric emptying and gallbladder contraction were studied by pH‐impedance, octanoic acid breath test and ultrasound respectively. Gastro‐oesophageal refluxes were significantly increased 1 h after meal with both water and commercial beverages; only sweetened water without carbon dioxide determined a persistently increasing number of refluxes 2 h postmeal. No differences were found for gastric emptying, gallbladder contraction or postmeal symptoms with any of the beverages tested. This study shows that 300 mL of sweetened carbonated beverage with different levels of carbonation or a commercial soft drink do not modify the physiology of the upper digestive tract.

Carbonated beverages and gastrointestinal system: Between myth and reality

A wealth of information has appeared on non-scientific publications, some suggesting a positive effect of carbonated beverages on gastrointestinal diseases or health, and others a negative one. The evaluation of the properties of carbonated beverages mainly involves the carbon dioxide with which they are charged. Scientific evidence suggests that the main interactions between carbon dioxide and the gastrointestinal system occur in the oral cavity, the esophagus and the stomach. The impact of carbonation determines modification in terms of the mouthfeel of beverages and has a minor role in tooth erosion. Some surveys showed a weak association between carbonated beverages and gastroesophageal reflux disease; however, the methodology employed was often inadequate and, on the overall, the evidence available on this topic is contradictory. Influence on stomach function appears related to both mechanical and chemical effects. Symptoms related to a gastric mechanical distress appear only when drinking more than 300 ml of a carbonated fluid. In conclusion there is now sufficient scientific evidence to understand the physiological impact of carbonated beverages on the gastrointestinal system, while providing a basis for further investigation on the related pathophysiological aspects. However, more studies are needed, particularly intervention trials, to support any claim on the possible beneficial effects of carbonated beverages on the gastrointestinal system, and clarify how they affect digestion. More epidemiological and mechanistic studies are also needed to evaluate the possible drawbacks of their consumption in terms of risk of tooth erosion and gastric distress.

Hydration and health promotion: a brief introduction.

“The largest single constituent of the human body, water, is essential for cellular homeostasis and life. It provides the solvent for biochemical reactions, is the medium for material transport, and has unique physical properties (high specific heat) to absorb metabolic heat. Water is essential to maintain vascular volume, to support the supply of nutrients to tissues, and to remove waste via the cardiovascular system and renal and hepatic clearance. Body water deficits challenge the ability of the body to maintain homeostasis during perturbations (e.g., sickness, physical exercise, or climatic stress) and can impact function and health. Total water intake includes drinking water, water in other beverages, and water (moisture) in food [2].”

Hydration Status over 24-H Is Not Affected by Ingested Beverage Composition

Objective: To investigate the 24-h hydration status of healthy, free-living, adult males when given various combinations of different beverage types. Methods: Thirty-four healthy adult males participated in a randomized, repeated-measures design in which they consumed: water only (treatment A), water+cola (treatment B), water+diet cola (treatment C), or water+cola+diet cola+orange juice (treatment D) over a sedentary 24-h period across four weeks of testing. Volumes of fluid were split evenly between beverages within each treatment, and when accounting for food moisture content and metabolic water production, total fluid intake from all sources was equal to 35 ± 1 ml/kg body mass. Urine was collected over the 24-h intervention period and analyzed for osmolality (Uosm), volume (Uvol) and specific gravity (USG). Serum osmolality (Sosm) and total body water (TBW) via bioelectrical impedance were measured after the 24-h intervention. Results: 24-h hydration status was not different between treatments A, B, C, and D when assessed via Uosm (590 ± 179; 616 ± 242; 559 ± 196; 633 ± 222 mOsm/kg, respectively) and Uvol (1549 ± 594; 1443 ± 576; 1690 ± 668; 1440 ± 566 ml) (all p > 0.05). A -difference in 24-h USG was observed between treatments A vs. D (1.016 ± 0.005 vs. 1.018 ± 0.007; p = 0.049). There were no differences between treatments at the end of the 24-h with regard to Sosm (291 ± 4; 293 ± 5; 292 ± 5; 293 ± 5 mOsm/kg, respectively) and TBW (43.9 ± 5.9; 43.8 ± 6.0; 43.7 ± 6.1; 43.8 ± 6.0 kg) (all p > 0.05). Conclusions: Regardless of the beverage combination consumed, there were no differences in providing adequate hydration over a 24-h period in free-living, healthy adult males. This confirms that beverages of varying composition are equally effective in hydrating the body.

No Change in 24-Hour Hydration Status Following a Moderate Increase in Fluid Consumption.

Purpose: To investigate changes in 24-hour hydration status when increasing fluid intake. Methods: Thirty-five healthy males (age 23.8 ± 4.7 years; mass 74.0 ± 9.4 kg) were divided into 4 treatment groups for 2 weeks of testing. Volumes of 24-hour fluid ingestion (including water from food) for weeks 1 and 2 was 35 and 40 ml/kg body mass, respectively. Each treatment group was given the same proportion of beverages in each week of testing: water only (n = 10), water + caloric cola (n = 7), water + noncaloric cola (n = 10), or water + caloric cola + noncaloric cola + orange juice (n = 8). Serum osmolality (Sosm), total body water (TBW) via bioelectrical impedance, 24-hour urine osmolality (Uosm), and volume (Uvol) were analyzed at the end of each 24-hour intervention. Results: Independent of treatment, total beverage consumption increased 22% from week 1 to 2 (1685 ± 320 to 2054 ± 363 ml; p < 0.001). Independent of beverage assignment, the increase in fluid consumption between weeks 1 and 2 did not change TBW (43.4 ± 5.2 vs 43.0 ± 4.8 kg), Sosm (292 ± 5 vs 292 ± 5 mOsm/kg), 24-hour Uosm (600 ± 224 vs 571 ± 212 mOsm/kg), or 24-hour Uvol (1569 ± 607 vs 1580 ± 554 ml; all p > 0.05). Conclusions: Regardless of fluid volume or beverage type consumed, measures of 24-hour hydration status did not differ, suggesting that standard measures of hydration status are not sensitive enough to detect a 22% increase in beverage consumption.