The Experts below are selected from a list of 1155 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Richard J. Bodnar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
balb c and swr inbred mice differ in post oral fructose appetition as revealed by sugar versus non Nutritive Sweetener tests
Physiology & Behavior, 2016Co-Authors: Tamar T. Kraft, Anthony Sclafani, Donald Huang, Melanie Lolier, Deena Warshaw, Sam Lamagna, Elona Natanova, Richard J. BodnarAbstract:Recent studies indicate that C57BL/6J (B6) and FVB inbred mouse strains differ in post-oral fructose conditioning. This was demonstrated by their differential flavor conditioning response to intragastric fructose and their preference for fructose versus a non-Nutritive Sweetener. The present study extended this analysis to SWR and BALB/c inbred strains which are of interest because they both show robust flavor conditioning responses to fructose. In the first experiment, ad-libitum fed mice were given a series of 2-day, two-bottle preference tests between 8% fructose and a more preferred, but non-Nutritive 0.1% sucralose +0.1% saccharin (S+S) solution (tests 1 & 4), and fructose or S+S versus water (tests 2 and 3). In test 1, SWR mice preferred S+S to fructose, and in tests 2 and 3, they preferred both Sweeteners to water. In test 4, SWR mice switched their preference and consumed more fructose than S+S. In contrast, ad-libitum fed BALB/c mice strongly preferred S+S to fructose in both tests 1 and 4, although they preferred both Sweeteners to water in tests 2 and 3. Food-restricted BALB/c mice also preferred the non-Nutritive S+S to fructose in tests 1 and 4. The experience-induced fructose preference reversal observed in SWR, but not BALB/c mice indicates that fructose has a post-oral reinforcing effect in SWR mice as in FVB mice. Because B6 and FVB mice prefer glucose to fructose based on the post-oral actions of the two sugars, the second experiment compared the preferences of SWR and BALB/c mice for 8% glucose and fructose solutions. Ad-libitum fed and food-restricted SWR mice strongly preferred glucose to fructose. In contrast, ad-libitum fed BALB/c mice were indifferent to the sugars, perhaps because of their overall low intakes. Food-restricted BALB/c mice, however, strongly preferred glucose. These findings indicate that SWR and BALB/c mice differ in their preference response to the post-oral actions of fructose.
-
BALB/c and SWR inbred mice differ in post-oral fructose appetition as revealed by sugar versus non-Nutritive Sweetener tests.
Physiology & behavior, 2015Co-Authors: Tamar T. Kraft, Anthony Sclafani, Donald Huang, Melanie Lolier, Deena Warshaw, Sam Lamagna, Elona Natanova, Richard J. BodnarAbstract:Recent studies indicate that C57BL/6J (B6) and FVB inbred mouse strains differ in post-oral fructose conditioning. This was demonstrated by their differential flavor conditioning response to intragastric fructose and their preference for fructose versus a non-Nutritive Sweetener. The present study extended this analysis to SWR and BALB/c inbred strains which are of interest because they both show robust flavor conditioning responses to fructose. In the first experiment, ad-libitum fed mice were given a series of 2-day, two-bottle preference tests between 8% fructose and a more preferred, but non-Nutritive 0.1% sucralose +0.1% saccharin (S+S) solution (tests 1 & 4), and fructose or S+S versus water (tests 2 and 3). In test 1, SWR mice preferred S+S to fructose, and in tests 2 and 3, they preferred both Sweeteners to water. In test 4, SWR mice switched their preference and consumed more fructose than S+S. In contrast, ad-libitum fed BALB/c mice strongly preferred S+S to fructose in both tests 1 and 4, although they preferred both Sweeteners to water in tests 2 and 3. Food-restricted BALB/c mice also preferred the non-Nutritive S+S to fructose in tests 1 and 4. The experience-induced fructose preference reversal observed in SWR, but not BALB/c mice indicates that fructose has a post-oral reinforcing effect in SWR mice as in FVB mice. Because B6 and FVB mice prefer glucose to fructose based on the post-oral actions of the two sugars, the second experiment compared the preferences of SWR and BALB/c mice for 8% glucose and fructose solutions. Ad-libitum fed and food-restricted SWR mice strongly preferred glucose to fructose. In contrast, ad-libitum fed BALB/c mice were indifferent to the sugars, perhaps because of their overall low intakes. Food-restricted BALB/c mice, however, strongly preferred glucose. These findings indicate that SWR and BALB/c mice differ in their preference response to the post-oral actions of fructose.
Valisa E. Hedrick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Changes in Non-Nutritive Sweetener Consumption Patterns in Response to a Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Reduction Intervention.
Nutrients, 2020Co-Authors: Darlene Acero, Jamie M. Zoellner, Brenda M. Davy, Valisa E. HedrickAbstract:Data are lacking on whether non-Nutritive Sweeteners (NNS) can be used as a strategy to support decreases in sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption. The purpose of this secondary analysis of a 6-month SSB-reduction intervention was to explore changes in NNS consumption patterns in Talking Health participants within the SIPsmartER (n = 101) intervention. Additionally, participant characteristics were compared for three SSB-NNS change groups (decrease SSB/increase NNS; decrease SSB/no increase in NNS; increase/no change in SSB/regardless of NNS). There was a significant increase in aspartame and total NNS intake for participants (mean daily mg increases of 37.2 ± 13.9 and 63.7 ± 18.5, respectively). With the exception of sex, no differences in participant characteristics were found between the three SSB-NNS change groups. Furthermore, no significant changes in weight or body mass index (BMI) were demonstrated between SSB-NNS change groups over time. Diet soda was the most commonly consumed source of NNS; however, other dietary sources of NNS also contributed to intake. At 6 months, intake of sucralose and saccharin were primarily from dietary sources other than diet sodas (94% and 100%, respectively). These findings suggest that NNS may be a feasible strategy to help reduce SSB consumption. This study supports the need to consistently quantify and identify NNS intake, beyond using diet soda intake as a proxy for NNS intake and grouping all NNS types into one variable, to more accurately address the potential health effects of NNS.
-
The Comparative Reproducibility and Validity of a Non-Nutritive Sweetener Food Frequency Questionnaire.
Nutrients, 2018Co-Authors: Emily A. Myers, Erin M. Passaro, Valisa E. HedrickAbstract:In order to better assess non-Nutritive Sweetener (NNS) consumption, measurement tools with greater utility are needed. The objective of this investigation is to determine the reproducibility and validity of a newly developed NNS food frequency questionnaire (NNS-FFQ) that measures five types of NNS (saccharin, aspartame, acesulfame potassium, sucralose and erythritol). Adult participants (n = 123, 56% female, 75% Caucasian, mean age = 36.8 ± 16.6) completed the NNS-FFQ twice and had 24-h dietary recalls three times over a two-week study period. Reproducibility between two administrations of the NNS-FFQ was assessed via Bland–Altman plots, Spearman’s correlations (rs) and paired samples t-tests. Bland–Altman plots, Cohen’s κ, Spearman’s correlations (rs), and paired samples t-tests compared NNS intake between the two methods for validity. For reproducibility analyses, Bland–Altman analyses revealed agreement levels above the 95% acceptance level for total NNS (99.2%), erythritol (99.2%), and aspartame (96.7%). Agreement levels for acesulfame potassium (94.3%), saccharin (94.3%), and sucralose (94.3%) were slightly below the acceptable level. For validity analyses, Bland–Altman analyses revealed agreement levels above the 95% acceptance level for total NNS (95.1%), sucralose (95.9%), saccharin (95.9%), and erythritol (95.1%). Agreement levels for aspartame (94.3%) and acesulfame potassium (92.7%) were slightly below the acceptable level. Although less than desirable agreement was found between the methods for aspartame and acesulfame potassium, some variance was expected due to the habitual nature of the NNS-FFQ as compared to the recent intake reported by recalls. Within the context of this constraint, the NNS-FFQ demonstrates acceptable reproducibility and validity. The NNS-FFQ is a brief questionnaire that could be administered among diverse participants at the individual and population levels to measure habitual NNS intake.
-
The Reproducibility and Comparative Validity of a Non-Nutritive Sweetener Food Frequency Questionnaire
MDPI AG, 2018Co-Authors: Emily A. Myers, Erin M. Passaro, Valisa E. HedrickAbstract:In order to better assess non-Nutritive Sweetener (NNS) consumption, measurement tools with greater utility are needed. The objective of this investigation is to determine the reproducibility and validity of a newly developed NNS food frequency questionnaire (NNS-FFQ) that measures five types of NNS (saccharin, aspartame, acesulfame potassium, sucralose and erythritol). Adult participants (n = 123, 56% female, 75% Caucasian, mean age = 36.8 ± 16.6) completed the NNS-FFQ twice and had 24-h dietary recalls three times over a two-week study period. Reproducibility between two administrations of the NNS-FFQ was assessed via Bland–Altman plots, Spearman’s correlations (rs) and paired samples t-tests. Bland–Altman plots, Cohen’s κ, Spearman’s correlations (rs), and paired samples t-tests compared NNS intake between the two methods for validity. For reproducibility analyses, Bland–Altman analyses revealed agreement levels above the 95% acceptance level for total NNS (99.2%), erythritol (99.2%), and aspartame (96.7%). Agreement levels for acesulfame potassium (94.3%), saccharin (94.3%), and sucralose (94.3%) were slightly below the acceptable level. For validity analyses, Bland–Altman analyses revealed agreement levels above the 95% acceptance level for total NNS (95.1%), sucralose (95.9%), saccharin (95.9%), and erythritol (95.1%). Agreement levels for aspartame (94.3%) and acesulfame potassium (92.7%) were slightly below the acceptable level. Although less than desirable agreement was found between the methods for aspartame and acesulfame potassium, some variance was expected due to the habitual nature of the NNS-FFQ as compared to the recent intake reported by recalls. Within the context of this constraint, the NNS-FFQ demonstrates acceptable reproducibility and validity. The NNS-FFQ is a brief questionnaire that could be administered among diverse participants at the individual and population levels to measure habitual NNS intake
-
Characterization of Non-Nutritive Sweetener Intake in Rural Southwest Virginian Adults Living in a Health-Disparate Region
Nutrients, 2017Co-Authors: Valisa E. Hedrick, Erin M. Passaro, Brenda M. Davy, Wen You, Jamie M. ZoellnerAbstract:Few data assessing non-Nutritive Sweetener (NNS) intake are available, especially within rural, health-disparate populations, where obesity and related co-morbidities are prevalent. The objective of this study is to characterize NNS intake for this population and examine the variance in demographics, cardio-metabolic outcomes, and dietary intake between NNS consumers and non-consumers. A cross-sectional sample (n = 301) of Virginian adults from a randomized controlled trial (data collected from 2012 to 2014) targeting sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake completed three 24-h dietary recalls, and demographics and cardio-metabolic measures were assessed. The frequency, types, and sources of NNS consumption were identified. Thirty-three percent of participants reported consuming NNS (n = 100). Sucralose was the largest contributor of mean daily NNS intake by weight (mg), followed by aspartame, acesulfame potassium, and saccharin. NNS in tabletop Sweeteners, diet tea, and diet soda were the top contributors to absolute NNS intake. The most frequently consumed NNS sources were diet sodas, juice drinks, and tabletop Sweeteners. Although mean body mass index (BMI) was greater for NNS consumers, they demonstrated significantly lower food, beverage, and SSB caloric intake and energy density, and higher overall dietary quality. It remains unclear whether NNS use plays a role in exacerbating weight gain. NNS consumers in this sample may have switched from drinking predominantly SSB to drinking some NNS beverages in an effort to cope with weight gain. Future studies should explore motivations for NNS use across a variety of weight and health categories.
Anthony Sclafani - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
balb c and swr inbred mice differ in post oral fructose appetition as revealed by sugar versus non Nutritive Sweetener tests
Physiology & Behavior, 2016Co-Authors: Tamar T. Kraft, Anthony Sclafani, Donald Huang, Melanie Lolier, Deena Warshaw, Sam Lamagna, Elona Natanova, Richard J. BodnarAbstract:Recent studies indicate that C57BL/6J (B6) and FVB inbred mouse strains differ in post-oral fructose conditioning. This was demonstrated by their differential flavor conditioning response to intragastric fructose and their preference for fructose versus a non-Nutritive Sweetener. The present study extended this analysis to SWR and BALB/c inbred strains which are of interest because they both show robust flavor conditioning responses to fructose. In the first experiment, ad-libitum fed mice were given a series of 2-day, two-bottle preference tests between 8% fructose and a more preferred, but non-Nutritive 0.1% sucralose +0.1% saccharin (S+S) solution (tests 1 & 4), and fructose or S+S versus water (tests 2 and 3). In test 1, SWR mice preferred S+S to fructose, and in tests 2 and 3, they preferred both Sweeteners to water. In test 4, SWR mice switched their preference and consumed more fructose than S+S. In contrast, ad-libitum fed BALB/c mice strongly preferred S+S to fructose in both tests 1 and 4, although they preferred both Sweeteners to water in tests 2 and 3. Food-restricted BALB/c mice also preferred the non-Nutritive S+S to fructose in tests 1 and 4. The experience-induced fructose preference reversal observed in SWR, but not BALB/c mice indicates that fructose has a post-oral reinforcing effect in SWR mice as in FVB mice. Because B6 and FVB mice prefer glucose to fructose based on the post-oral actions of the two sugars, the second experiment compared the preferences of SWR and BALB/c mice for 8% glucose and fructose solutions. Ad-libitum fed and food-restricted SWR mice strongly preferred glucose to fructose. In contrast, ad-libitum fed BALB/c mice were indifferent to the sugars, perhaps because of their overall low intakes. Food-restricted BALB/c mice, however, strongly preferred glucose. These findings indicate that SWR and BALB/c mice differ in their preference response to the post-oral actions of fructose.
-
BALB/c and SWR inbred mice differ in post-oral fructose appetition as revealed by sugar versus non-Nutritive Sweetener tests.
Physiology & behavior, 2015Co-Authors: Tamar T. Kraft, Anthony Sclafani, Donald Huang, Melanie Lolier, Deena Warshaw, Sam Lamagna, Elona Natanova, Richard J. BodnarAbstract:Recent studies indicate that C57BL/6J (B6) and FVB inbred mouse strains differ in post-oral fructose conditioning. This was demonstrated by their differential flavor conditioning response to intragastric fructose and their preference for fructose versus a non-Nutritive Sweetener. The present study extended this analysis to SWR and BALB/c inbred strains which are of interest because they both show robust flavor conditioning responses to fructose. In the first experiment, ad-libitum fed mice were given a series of 2-day, two-bottle preference tests between 8% fructose and a more preferred, but non-Nutritive 0.1% sucralose +0.1% saccharin (S+S) solution (tests 1 & 4), and fructose or S+S versus water (tests 2 and 3). In test 1, SWR mice preferred S+S to fructose, and in tests 2 and 3, they preferred both Sweeteners to water. In test 4, SWR mice switched their preference and consumed more fructose than S+S. In contrast, ad-libitum fed BALB/c mice strongly preferred S+S to fructose in both tests 1 and 4, although they preferred both Sweeteners to water in tests 2 and 3. Food-restricted BALB/c mice also preferred the non-Nutritive S+S to fructose in tests 1 and 4. The experience-induced fructose preference reversal observed in SWR, but not BALB/c mice indicates that fructose has a post-oral reinforcing effect in SWR mice as in FVB mice. Because B6 and FVB mice prefer glucose to fructose based on the post-oral actions of the two sugars, the second experiment compared the preferences of SWR and BALB/c mice for 8% glucose and fructose solutions. Ad-libitum fed and food-restricted SWR mice strongly preferred glucose to fructose. In contrast, ad-libitum fed BALB/c mice were indifferent to the sugars, perhaps because of their overall low intakes. Food-restricted BALB/c mice, however, strongly preferred glucose. These findings indicate that SWR and BALB/c mice differ in their preference response to the post-oral actions of fructose.
-
female rats show a bimodal preference response to the artificial Sweetener sucralose
Chemical Senses, 2004Co-Authors: Anthony Sclafani, Richard A ClareAbstract:The preference of female Sprague–Dawley rats for sucralose, a non-Nutritive Sweetener derived from sucrose, was evaluated in 23 h two-bottle tests with water or saccharin. Overall, the rats displayed weak or no preferences for sucralose (0.25–4 g/l) over water but strong preferences for saccharin (0.5–8 g/l) over water and saccharin (1 g/l) over sucralose (0.5 g/l). The rats also preferred a saccharin + sucrose mixture to sucrose, but sucrose to a sucralose + sucrose mixture. There were marked individual differences in sucralose preferences: about half the rats preferred sucralose to water at some concentrations while most remaining rats avoided sucralose. Both subgroups preferred saccharin to sucralose. Sucralose appears to have an aversive offtaste that reduces its palatability to rats.
John I. Akowe - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Physico-chemical and sensory properties of formulated syrup from black plum (Vitex doniana) fruit
Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 1996Co-Authors: Matthew K. Egbekun, John I. AkoweAbstract:The fresh ripe fruit pulp and syrup, produced using the open pan evaporator, of Vitex doniana were analysed physico-chemically. Results show that the edible pulp of the ripe fruit is fairly rich in vitamin C (18.1 mg/100 ml) but acidic (pH 4.38) and poor in protein (0.82%) and oil (0.56%). The syrup yielded a DE value of 52, total dissolved solids content of 67° Brix and a refractive index of 1.4762 at 20°C. The syrup was moderately visous (2.1 Poiseuille), acid (pH 4.45) but relatively poor in vitamin C (2.8 mg/100 ml) and protein (0.3%). Sensory evaluation showed no significant difference ( p ⩽0.05) in taste, flavor and overall acceptability between V. doniana syrup and honey. Both physico-chemical and sensory results indicate that the syrup was highly desirable and can substitute for other syrups as a Nutritive Sweetener.
-
Physico-chemical and sensory properties of formulated syrup from black plum (Vitex doniana) fruit
Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 1996Co-Authors: Matthew K. Egbekun, John I. Akowe, Ruth J. EdeAbstract:The fresh ripe fruit pulp and syrup, produced using the open pan evaporator, of Vitex doniana were analysed physico-chemically. Results show that the edible pulp of the ripe fruit is fairly rich in vitamin C (18.1 mg/100 ml) but acidic (pH 4.38) and poor in protein (0.82%) and oil (0.56%). The syrup yielded a DE value of 52, total dissolved solids content of 67° Brix and a refractive index of 1.4762 at 20°C. The syrup was moderately visous (2.1 Poiseuille), acid (pH 4.45) but relatively poor in vitamin C (2.8 mg/100 ml) and protein (0.3%). Sensory evaluation showed no significant difference ( p ⩽0.05) in taste, flavor and overall acceptability between V. doniana syrup and honey. Both physico-chemical and sensory results indicate that the syrup was highly desirable and can substitute for other syrups as a Nutritive Sweetener.
Tamar T. Kraft - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
balb c and swr inbred mice differ in post oral fructose appetition as revealed by sugar versus non Nutritive Sweetener tests
Physiology & Behavior, 2016Co-Authors: Tamar T. Kraft, Anthony Sclafani, Donald Huang, Melanie Lolier, Deena Warshaw, Sam Lamagna, Elona Natanova, Richard J. BodnarAbstract:Recent studies indicate that C57BL/6J (B6) and FVB inbred mouse strains differ in post-oral fructose conditioning. This was demonstrated by their differential flavor conditioning response to intragastric fructose and their preference for fructose versus a non-Nutritive Sweetener. The present study extended this analysis to SWR and BALB/c inbred strains which are of interest because they both show robust flavor conditioning responses to fructose. In the first experiment, ad-libitum fed mice were given a series of 2-day, two-bottle preference tests between 8% fructose and a more preferred, but non-Nutritive 0.1% sucralose +0.1% saccharin (S+S) solution (tests 1 & 4), and fructose or S+S versus water (tests 2 and 3). In test 1, SWR mice preferred S+S to fructose, and in tests 2 and 3, they preferred both Sweeteners to water. In test 4, SWR mice switched their preference and consumed more fructose than S+S. In contrast, ad-libitum fed BALB/c mice strongly preferred S+S to fructose in both tests 1 and 4, although they preferred both Sweeteners to water in tests 2 and 3. Food-restricted BALB/c mice also preferred the non-Nutritive S+S to fructose in tests 1 and 4. The experience-induced fructose preference reversal observed in SWR, but not BALB/c mice indicates that fructose has a post-oral reinforcing effect in SWR mice as in FVB mice. Because B6 and FVB mice prefer glucose to fructose based on the post-oral actions of the two sugars, the second experiment compared the preferences of SWR and BALB/c mice for 8% glucose and fructose solutions. Ad-libitum fed and food-restricted SWR mice strongly preferred glucose to fructose. In contrast, ad-libitum fed BALB/c mice were indifferent to the sugars, perhaps because of their overall low intakes. Food-restricted BALB/c mice, however, strongly preferred glucose. These findings indicate that SWR and BALB/c mice differ in their preference response to the post-oral actions of fructose.
-
BALB/c and SWR inbred mice differ in post-oral fructose appetition as revealed by sugar versus non-Nutritive Sweetener tests.
Physiology & behavior, 2015Co-Authors: Tamar T. Kraft, Anthony Sclafani, Donald Huang, Melanie Lolier, Deena Warshaw, Sam Lamagna, Elona Natanova, Richard J. BodnarAbstract:Recent studies indicate that C57BL/6J (B6) and FVB inbred mouse strains differ in post-oral fructose conditioning. This was demonstrated by their differential flavor conditioning response to intragastric fructose and their preference for fructose versus a non-Nutritive Sweetener. The present study extended this analysis to SWR and BALB/c inbred strains which are of interest because they both show robust flavor conditioning responses to fructose. In the first experiment, ad-libitum fed mice were given a series of 2-day, two-bottle preference tests between 8% fructose and a more preferred, but non-Nutritive 0.1% sucralose +0.1% saccharin (S+S) solution (tests 1 & 4), and fructose or S+S versus water (tests 2 and 3). In test 1, SWR mice preferred S+S to fructose, and in tests 2 and 3, they preferred both Sweeteners to water. In test 4, SWR mice switched their preference and consumed more fructose than S+S. In contrast, ad-libitum fed BALB/c mice strongly preferred S+S to fructose in both tests 1 and 4, although they preferred both Sweeteners to water in tests 2 and 3. Food-restricted BALB/c mice also preferred the non-Nutritive S+S to fructose in tests 1 and 4. The experience-induced fructose preference reversal observed in SWR, but not BALB/c mice indicates that fructose has a post-oral reinforcing effect in SWR mice as in FVB mice. Because B6 and FVB mice prefer glucose to fructose based on the post-oral actions of the two sugars, the second experiment compared the preferences of SWR and BALB/c mice for 8% glucose and fructose solutions. Ad-libitum fed and food-restricted SWR mice strongly preferred glucose to fructose. In contrast, ad-libitum fed BALB/c mice were indifferent to the sugars, perhaps because of their overall low intakes. Food-restricted BALB/c mice, however, strongly preferred glucose. These findings indicate that SWR and BALB/c mice differ in their preference response to the post-oral actions of fructose.