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