| Literature DB >> 26280945 |
Mudi H Alharbi1, Daniel J Lamport2, Georgina F Dodd3, Caroline Saunders4, Laura Harkness4, Laurie T Butler3, Jeremy P E Spencer1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Epidemiological evidence suggests that chronic consumption of fruit-based flavonoids is associated with cognitive benefits; however, the acute effects of flavonoid-rich (FR) drinks on cognitive function in the immediate postprandial period require examination. The objective was to investigate whether consumption of FR orange juice is associated with acute cognitive benefits over 6 h in healthy middle-aged adults.Entities:
Keywords: Cognition; Cognitive function; Flavanones; Flavonoids; Orange juice
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26280945 PMCID: PMC5009163 DOI: 10.1007/s00394-015-1016-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nutr ISSN: 1436-6207 Impact factor: 5.614
Nutritional composition of the high-flavonoid and placebo drinks per 240 ml serving
| Flavonoid rich | Placebo | |
|---|---|---|
| Energy (kcal) | 92.8 | 87.7 |
| Glucose (g) | 5.1 | 5.36 |
| Fructose (g) | 6.12 | 6.38 |
| Sucrose (g) | 11.99 | 10.2 |
| Fiber (g) | 5.50 | – |
| Vitamin C (mg) | 80.17 | – |
| Folate (mg) | 65.28 | – |
| Total B-carotenes (mg) | 0.26 | – |
| Hesperidin (mg) | 220.46 | – |
| Narirutin (mg) | 34.54 | – |
| Other flavonoidsa (mg) | 17.14 | – |
| Total flavonoids (mg) | 272.14 | – |
aIncludes didymin, sinensetin, nobiletin, tetramethylscutellarein and tangeretin
Raw scores per drink condition for each cognitive test and PANAS mood outcomes at all time points (means and SE)
| Outcomes measure | Time point | Placebo | Flavonoid-rich orange juice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digit Symbol Substitution Test (seconds) | Baseline | 61.1 (2.3) | 62.2 (2.4) |
| 2 h | 61.7 (1.3) | 62.9 (2.3) | |
| 6 h | 61.6 (2.2) | 62.6 (2.2) | |
| Serial Sevens (number correct) | Baseline | 39.7 (4.4) | 40.9 (4.1) |
| 2 h | 40.1 (4.3) | 42 (4.3) | |
| 6 h | 40.5 (4.5) | 43.5 (4.5) | |
| Immediate Verbal Recall (words) | Baseline | 11.1 (.5) | 11 (.4) |
| 2 h | 10.2 (.3) | 10.2 (.5) | |
| 6 h | 10.2 (.4) | 10.4 (.5) | |
| Delayed Verbal Recall (words) | Baseline | 11 (.7) | 11.3 (.6) |
| 2 h | 9.6 (.7) | 8.8 (.7) | |
| 6 h | 9.5 (.8) | 9.4 (.8) | |
| Continuous Performance Task (errors)a,* | Baseline | 8.2 (1.3) | 9.2 (1.6) |
| 2 h | 6.4 (1.2) | 7.9 (1.5) | |
| 6 h | 8.8 (1.4) | 7.6 (1.5) | |
| Simple Finger Tapping* (correct responses) | Baseline | 62.1 (1.7) | 60.1 (1.8) |
| 2 h | 61.1 (1.7) | 61.9 (1.7) | |
| 6 h | 61 (1.6) | 60.8 (1.7) | |
| Complex Finger Tapping (correct responses) | Baseline | 35 (3) | 35.7 (3.5) |
| 2 h | 36.1 (2.8) | 38 (3.9) | |
| 6 h | 33.6 (2) | 37.6 (3.9) | |
| Contrast Sensitivitya (Michelson Contrast) | Baseline | 3 (.2) | 3 (.2) |
| 2 h | 3 (.1) | 3.1 (.2) | |
| 6 h | 3 (.2) | 3 (.2) | |
| Positive Affect (mood) (PANAS scoring) | Baseline | 34.1 (1.7) | 33.5 (1.7) |
| 2 h | 33.3 (1.6) | 33.6 (1.6) | |
| 6 h | 31.7 (1.6) | 32.5 (1.9) | |
| Negative Affect (mood) (PANAS scoring) | Baseline | 11.2 (.4) | 12 (.8) |
| 2 h | 10.7 (.3) | 10.5 (.3) | |
| 6 h | 10.7 (.3) | 11.1 (.4) |
aHigher score indicates worse performance
* A significant main effect of drink was observed for Simple Finger Tapping following a 2 × 2 repeated-measures ANOVA with the change from baseline data, such that performance was following the FR drink relative to the placebo (p < 0.05). A Drink × Time interaction was observed for CPT accuracy such that change from baseline was significantly different between the two drinks at 6 h (p < 0.05)
Fig. 1Simple Finger Tapping performance was significantly better following the FR drink relative to the placebo as indicated by a main effect of drink (F[1, 20] = 8.32, p < 0.01). The change from baseline was significantly higher following the FR drink relative to the placebo at 2 h post consumption and 6 h post consumption. There was no significant difference in baseline performance between the drinks
Fig. 2Considering all tests combined, the main effect of drink approached significance (F[1,21] = 2.98, p = 0.09). At 6 h post consumption, the change from baseline was positive following the FR drink (indicating improvement in global performance), whereas the change from baseline was negative following the placebo (indicating a decline in global performance). The planned contrasts were not performed in light of the nonsignificant ANOVA model. There was no significant difference in baseline performance between the drinks
Fig. 3Ratings of subjective alertness using the PANAS were significantly higher following the FR drink relative to the placebo as indicated by a main effect of drink (F[1,21] = 4.1, p = 0.05). The change from baseline was significantly higher following the FR drink relative to the placebo when averaged across the time points