View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
The University of The Future
The Effect of Gum Arabic on Blood Glycemia, Blood Lipidemia, Body Composition and Gastrointestinal
Tract in UAE Adults at Risk of Metabolic Syndrome
Dr. Ayesha Al Dhaheri
Mr. Amjad Jarrar
Dr. Moath Bataineh
College of Food and Agriculture
Food, Nutrition and Health Department
The University of The Future
Ranked#1
in the UAE
Ranked#5
in the ArabWorld
TOP50
UNDER 50
QS Rankings (2018)
ESTABLISHED IN
FIRST UNIVERSITY IN THE UAE
1976
COLLEGES
9RESEARCH CENTERS& INSTITUTES
9
STUDENTS
14,000 STUDENTS FROM
64 COUNTRIES
SCIENCE &INNOVATION PARK
1
Our Campus
The Main Library
Crescent Building
The Scienceand Innovation Park
CIT Building
Hostels
Food Court
Campus Grounds
Sports & Recreation
Laboratories
OutlineIntroduction
Literature Review
Hypothesis and Objectives
Methodology
Results and Discussion
Conclusion
References
Introduction
6
Metabolic Syndrome Prevalence
Gum Arabic
JEFCA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives) (Food and Drug Administration, 2001 & Food and Drug Research Laboratories, 1972)
Literature Review
10
Effects of Gum Arabic on Lipid profile
Effects of Gum Arabic on Lipid profile
Effects of Gum Arabic on Weight Management ( satiety and food intake)
14
15
Effects of Gum Arabic on Bowel Movement:- Fecal incontinence
Effects of Gum Arabic on Blood Glucose Level
Effects of Gum Arabic on Blood pressure
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Objective
Objective:
Methodology
Advertisement
Inclusion criteria18-50 YO Females and males.
Who are at risk of developing metabolic syndrome.
Exclusion criteriaLifestyle Changes.
Permanent Medication: hypertensive, lipid.
Females: pregnancy or lactation.
Have 2 out of 5 risk factors of MetS.
Participants
RecruitmentAdvertisement in social media.
Advertisement posters in hostel & university.
Asking students & workers in the canteen.
Study Design
25
- A controlled, randomized, single blind, parallel-design study.
- For 12 weeks.
Project
Control
1 g pectin
Intervention
20 g Gum Arabic
Figure (1): Flow chart of study design including baseline and endpoint
27
Approved
This study was ethically approved by the UAEU Human Research Ethics Committee (AAMDHREC).
28
Consent Form
29
Information Sheet
Scre
enin
g M
easu
rem
ents
Anthropometric Waist circumference M: >94 cmF: >80 cm
Clinical Blood Pressure ≥130/85 mm Hg
Biochemical
Fasting Blood glucose ≥100 mg/dL
HDL cholesterolM : < 40 mg/dLF : < 50 mg/dL
Triglycerides ≥ 150 mg/dL
Anthropometric Measurements
• Body weight (Kg)
• Height (cm)
• Waist circumference
(cm)
• Body composition (In
Body 720)
Assessment of food intake
• Food records (3 Day/
period)
• ESHA food analysis
program (version
10.4) that includes
Kuwaiti Food
Composition
database
Biochemical measurements
● HemoCue: (Blood
glucose , HbA1c).
● Cobas: (Lipid
profile).
Clinical measurement
• Blood pressure
(Digital blood
pressure monitor
HEM907)
Data Collection and Analysis
Data Collection and Analysis
Questionnaires
IPAQ
Bowel motion Questionnaire
Satiety Questionnaire
33
International Physical Activity Questionnaire
34
Satiety Questionnaire
35
Bowel Motion Questionnaire
36
Food Diary
37
Food Diary
✧ G*Power 3.1.9.2 software was used for sample size calculation for repeated
measures ANOVA with parallel design. The calculation revealed the need for a
sample size of at least 54 participants to detect a medium effect size (0.25) with
significance level set at 0.05 and power as 0.95.
✧ Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 24.0, and results presented as
(Mean ± Standard Deviation). A repeated measures ANOVA was used to detect
main effects of time and group on study measures. Paired t-test and independent t-
test were employed to compare time effect and groups (Control vs. Intervention)
respectively. Results were considered statistically significant at P-value < 0.05.
Statistical Analysis
Results
Variable Mean ± SD
Age (years) 25.51 ± 9.50
Weight (kg) 94.20 ± 18.60
Height (cm) 165.90 ± 9.90
BMI (kg/m2) 33.90 ± 5.40
Waist circumference (cm) 100.90 ± 13.60
Body Fat (%) 43.10 ± 7.90
Systolic (mm Hg) 118.94 ± 16.12
Diastolic (mm Hg) 79.75 ± 9.98
Table 1: Physical characteristics of the total study population, (N=61).
Baseline Endpoint P-value
Variable Control(C)
Intervention(I) P-value Control
(C)Intervention
(I) P-value C 1 I2
Age (years) 25.85 ± 9.90 28.26 ± 11.80 0.452 - - - - -
Weight (kg) 91.74 ± 20.80 92.09 ± 17.40 0.948 93.0 ± 22.3 91.43 ± 17.00 0.778 0.37 0.116
Height (cm) 168.30 ± 11.60 164.30 ± 7.50 0.163 - - - 0.666 0.662
BMI (kg/m2) 31.92 ± 4.70 34.07 ± 5.90 0.174 32.6 ± 5.6 33.90 ± 6.00 0.43 0.288 0.465Waist circumference
(cm) 100.50 ± 16.10 101.20 ± 12.70 0.867 100.6 ± 18.9 99.07 ± 13.00 0.728 0.937 0.155
Body Fat (%) 39.72 ± 8.40 43.70 ± 7.60 0.088 40.90 ± 8.90 44.10 ± 7.80 0.198 0.206 0.094Body Fat Free Mass
(kg) 53.79 ± 14.50 50.85 ± 9.40 0.382 58.80 ± 9.70 55.38 ± 8.90 0.206 0.185 0.030*
Total body water (L) 41.05 ± 11.70 37.85 ± 8.30 0.27 40.50 ± 10.20 37.30 ± 8.20 0.229 0.712 0.401
Systolic (mm Hg) 114.80 ± 16.40 118.30 ± 17.00 0.482 117.0 ± 15 111.30 ± 19.80* 0.273 0.242 0.008*
Diastolic (mm Hg) 75.8 ± 9.90 81.1 ± 9.20 0.066 79.50 ± 9.70 76.70 ± 13.20* 0.419 0.102 0.009*
• 1 average of 3 day record ² difference in the control group between baseline and endpoint.• ³difference in the intervention group between baseline and endpoint.• *Endpoint Intervention significantly different from Baseline Intervention, (P<0.05).
Table 2: Changes in physical characteristics for study population after 12 weeks
Baseline Endpoint P-value
Variable Control(C)
Intervention(I) P-value Control
(C)Intervention
(I) P-value C ² I³
Vigorous (min/wk) 11.1 ± 26.9 14.4 ± 28.2 0.683 10.7±24.4 18.4±52.9 0.55 0.101 0.91
Moderate (min/wk) 59.4 ± 50.7 62.1 ± 78.9 0.117 71.5±146.9 59.± 90.5 0.709 0.525 0.665
Light (min/wk) 190.2±116.10 193.5±28.80 0.939 206.5±125.90 198.4±182.4 0.863 0.408 0.923
Sedentary Activity (hr/d) 9.20±3.30 10.5±3.1 0.155 10.9±3.5 10.7±3.8 0.847 0.089 0.677
Energy (kcal) 2142±551.8 2036.9±601.5 0.534 2092±486.2 1810±554.3* 0.069 0.644 0.014
Carbohydrate (g) 256±57.7 239.4±84.3 0.446 256±59.3 194.1±78.0* 0.004 0.976 0.008
Fat (g) 82.2±34.1 80.5±30.7 0.852 73.2±27.6 71.3±28.1 0.815 0.259 0.139Protein (g) 81.7±28.9 86.9±38.4 0.609 87±31.5 84.9±45.6 0.854 0.453 0.836
Dietary fiber (g) 15.0±9.8 17.1±15.2 0.648 16.1±10.9 31.9±14.6* <0.001 0.829 0.001
Table 3: Dietary¹and physical activity characteristics of the study population
• 1 average of 3 day record ² difference in the control group between baseline and endpoint.• ³difference in the intervention group between baseline and endpoint.• *Endpoint Intervention significantly different from Baseline Intervention, (P<0.05).
Baseline Endpoint P-value
Variable Control(C)
Intervention(I) P-value Control
(C)Intervention
(I) P-value C ¹ I²
HbA1c (%) 6.10±0.90 6.0±1.7 0.763 6.0±0.4 6.00±0.8 0.938 0.662 0.967
Glucose (mg/dl) 101.50±14.00 105.6±36.0 0.635 99.5±14.2 92.90±13.20* 0.101 0.489 0.046*
Triglycerides (mg/dl) 94.70±41.60 100.9±53.9 0.661 94.9±41.0 93.90±44.0 0.936 0.955 0.294
Cholesterol (mg/dl) 150.7±34.30 157.9±28.20 0.413 151.2±37.8 152.60±30.6 0.892 0.941 0.346
LDL (mmol/dl) 2.50±0.90 2.50±0.70 0.926 2.3±0.8 2.4±0.7 0.625 0.433 0.853
HDL (mg/dl) 46.3±12.1 45.1±12.1 0.747 46.2±13.2 44.8±13.9 0.736 0.951 0.857
Table 4: Biochemical measurements of study population
*Endpoint Intervention significantly different from Baseline Intervention, (P<0.05).1 Difference in the control group between Baseline and Endpoint.2 Difference in the intervention group between Baseline and Endpoint.
Response rate forEndpoint
Control (Yes, %)
Intervention(Yes, %) P-value
Improvement of bowel motion 35.0 54.8 0.172
Reduction in bloating feelings 20.0 51.6 0.024
Reduction in abdominal pain 10.0 22.6 0.259
Feeling of better digestion 25.0 41.9 0.225
Reduction in nausea 10.0 25.8 0.172
Table 5: The effect of GA on the bowel motion after 12 weeks
Figure 3: Average appetite score following 60 min of ingestion of tested foods (pectin vs. GA-AS).
41 42.4
36.833.3*
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Control Intervention
% S
core
0 min
60 min
*P<0.05
Conclusion
Research Team
❑Ousha R. Alkhaili
❑ Reem F. Albloushi
❑ Fatema A. Alnumairi
❑Fatima Al Meqbaali
❑ Usama Souka
References:
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2001. Frequency of use of cosmetic ingredients. FlX^
Database. Washington, DC: FDA.
• Bliss DZ, Jung HJ, Savik K, Lowry A, LeMoine M, Jensen L, Schaffer K. Supplementation with
dietary fiber improves fecal incontinence. Nursing Research. 2001;50:203–213. doi:
10.1097/00006199-200107000-00004.
• Sharma RD, 1985. Hypoglycaemic effect of gum acacia in healthy human subjects. Nutrition
Research, 5, 1437-1441
• Food and Drug Research Laboratories. 1972, Teratoiogic evaluation of FDA 71-75 (Gum
Arabic). NTIS Report No. PB-22i 796.
Thank you
Recommended