| Literature DB >> 25165578 |
Geórgia Craveiro Holanda Malveira Maia1, Mozer da Silva Campos2, Janice Barros-Monteiro3, Juan Eduardo Lucas Castillo1, Murilo Soares Faleiros1, Rejane Souza de Aquino Sales1, Denise Moraes Lopes Galeno1, Edson Lira4, Francisca das Chagas do Amaral Souza5, Carmen Ortiz6, Luisa Morales7, Rosany Piccolotto Carvalho1.
Abstract
An in vivo study was conducted to assess the effects of the consumption of Astrocaryum aculeatum Amazon Meyer (tucumã) in the treatment of diet-induced dyslipidemia in sedentary and exercised Wistar rats. With an average weight of 350 grams, 40 male rats were divided into 4 subgroups of 10. The sedentary control group (SCG) was fed with commercial feed, while the sedentary treatment group (STG) was fed with a ration of tucumã. In addition to the sedentary groups, two exercise groups were formed. The Exercised control group (ECG) was fed with commercial food and the exercised treatment group (ETG) was fed with a ration of tucumã. Body weight gain and food intake were monitored during the experiment. Plasma was analyzed for cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL-C, LDL-C, VLDL, total protein, glucose, insulin, and leptin concentrations. Our results show that the ECG group tended to consume more food, while the groups that were fed with tucumã pulp (STG and ETG) presented a greater tendency to gain body mass. ECG group showed a tendency towards a higher concentration of cholesterol in plasma, while STG and ETG presented higher absolute values for triglycerides and VLDL. No hypolipiemic effect was observed related to tucuma ingestion.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25165578 PMCID: PMC4137598 DOI: 10.1155/2014/202367
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nutr Metab ISSN: 2090-0724
Proximate composition of the tucumã fruit in natura.
| Determination | Aguiar et al. (1980) [ | Leitão (2008) [ | Ferreira et al. (2008) [ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Humidity (%) | 38.5 | 50.25 ± 11.49* | 44.90 ± 0.30* |
| Protein (g) | 5.5 | 3.39 ± 1.08* | 3.54 ± 0.07* |
| Fat (g) | 47.2 | 25.19 ± 10.91* | 40.49 ± 0.54* |
| Crude fiber (g) | 19.2 | 28.71 ± 1.86* | 10.93 ± 0.10* |
| Ash (g) | 2.0 | 1.23 ± 0.27* | 2.53 ± 0.05* |
| Total carbohydrates (g) | 6.8 | 19.25 ± 1.69* | 8.54 ± 0.61* |
| Energy (Kcal/100 g) | 474.0 | 320.0 ± 98.75* | 412.73 ± 2.12* |
*Mean ± SD.
Figure 1Fruit processing and ration preparation.
Physicochemical characterization of the dry food portion based on tucumã pulp concentration.
| Tucumã pulp (%) | Humidity (%) | Ash (%) | Protein (%) | Lipids (%) | Carbohydrates (%) | Fibers (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20% | 7.97 ± 0.15* | 7.41 ± 0.04* | 19.39 ± 1.14* | 4.71 ± 0.85* | 60.52 ± 0.92* | 2.23 ± 0.09* |
| 30% | 7.53 ± 0.58* | 7.08 ± 0.11* | 21.67 ± 0.19* | 6.31 ± 0.51* | 58.41 ± 1.14* | 2.33 ± 0.08* |
| 60% | 8.47 ± 0.07* | 5.27 ± 0.07* | 27.10 ± 0.65* | 14.71 ± 0.94* | 44.45 ± 0.61* | 2.49 ± 0.19* |
Asterisks (∗) denote the difference with the control group.
Values are presented as average values ± S.E., where P ≤ 0.05. Note: S.E.: standard error.
Figure 2Average values of food intake (g) among the studied groups throughout the experimental period. Note: SCG: sedentary control group; ECG: exercised control group; STG: sedentary tucumã group; ETG: exercised tucumã group. P value < 0.001 for all groups.
Figure 3Average body mass gain values (g) of the groups evaluated at days 0, 30, and 90. Different letters in superscript denote significant difference for P < 0.05. Note: SCG: sedentary control group; ECG: exercised control group; STG: sedentary tucumã group; ETG: exercised tucumã group.
Lipid profile of the groups under study at different time points (days 0, 30, and 90).
| GROUPS | Day 0 | Day 30 | Day 90 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chol. | TG | VLDL | Chol. | TG | VLDL | Chol. | TG | VLDL | |
| SCG | 56.72 ± 4.47a
| 52.40 ± 3.96a
| 10.08 ± 0.81a
| 82.09 ± 12.70a
| 72.02 ± 13.94a
| 18.62 ± 4.67a
| 186.61 ± 13.17a
| 174.90 ± 17.31a
| 24.31 ± 2.70a
|
|
| |||||||||
| ECG | 70.87 ± 4.60a
| 83.35 ± 13.98a,b
| 16.67 ± 2.80a,b
| 122.26 ± 12.55a
| 96.85 ± 15.74a
| 19.37 ± 3.15a
| 219.44 ± 16.91a
| 80.18 ± 14.31b
| 16.04 ± 2.86a,b
|
|
| |||||||||
| STG | 71.77 ± 2.95a
| 75.78 ± 12.17a,b
| 16.74 ± 2.69a,b
| 101.84 ± 8.50a
| 114.14 ± 24.25a
| 26.77 ± 5.86a,b
| 260.79 ± 22.93a
| 106.74 ± 18.82b
| 24.04 ± 4.31a,b
|
|
| |||||||||
| ETG | 56.72 ± 4.47a
| 52.40 ± 3.96a
| 10.08 ± 0.81a
| 82.09 ± 12.70a
| 72.02 ± 13.94a
| 18.62 ± 4.67a
| 186.61 ± 13.17a
| 174.90 ± 17.31a
| 24.31 ± 2.70a
|
|
| |||||||||
|
| 70.87 ± 4.60a
| 83.35 ±13.98a,b
| 16.67 ± 2.80a,b
| 122.26 ± 12.55a
| 96.85 ± 15.74a
| 19.37 ± 3.15a
| 219.44 ± 16.91a
| 80.18 ± 14.31b
| 16.04 ± 2.86a,b
|
Values shown represent the average ± S.E. expressed in mg/dL. a,bValues followed by different letters in superscript present significant differences among the different time points for P < 0.05. Note: SCG: sedentary control group; ECG: exercise control group; STG: sedentary tucumã group; ETG: exercise tucumã group; S.E.: standard error; n: number of animals evaluated per group.
Total protein, glucose, insulin, and leptin concentrations of the different groups on day 90.
| Groups | SCG | ECG | STG | ETG |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protein (g/dL) | 6.35 ± 0.45a
| 6.83 ± 0.37a
| 6.15 ± 0.36a
| 5.98 ± 0.46a
| <0.500 |
|
| |||||
| Insulin (ng/dL) | 3.17 ± 0.39a
| 2.30 ± 0.26a
| 2.43 ± 0.53a
| 2.47 ± 0.55a
| <0.516 |
|
| |||||
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 171.91 ± 1.91a
| 162.36 ± 3.27b
| 170.46 ± 1.39a,b
| 165.58 ± 3.51a,b
| <0.040 |
|
| |||||
| Leptin (ng/dL) | 7.70 ± 0.94a,b
| 5.15 ± 0.44a
| 9.86 ± 1.11b
| 8.43 ± 1.19a,b
| <0.007 |
a,bValues (average ± S.E.) followed by different letters in superscript present significant differences for P < 0.05. Note: SCG: sedentary control group; ECG: exercise control group; STG: sedentary tucumã group; ETG: exercise tucumã group; S.E.: standard error; n: number of animals evaluated per group.