| Literature DB >> 26408319 |
Sun-Young Kim1,2, Mi-Ra Oh3, Min-Gul Kim4, Han-Jeoung Chae5, Soo-Wan Chae6,7,8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity is a major health problem. A food field research that has recently aroused considerable interest is the potential of natural products to counteract obesity. Yerba Mate may be helpful in reducing body weight and fat. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of Yerba Mate supplementation in Korean subjects with obesity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26408319 PMCID: PMC4583719 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-015-0859-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Fig. 1CONSORT diagram showing participant flow through the 12 weeks intervention. ITT, intention-to-treat population
Demographic characteristics of the study subjects
| Yerba Mate ( | Placebo ( | Total ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year) | 41.5 ± 11.6 | 44.9 ± 9.6 | 43.2 ± 10.6 | 0.379 |
| Height (cm) | 160.93 ± 6.95 | 158.40 ± 7.59 | 159.67 ± 7.27 | 0.349 |
| Weight (kg) | 74.50 ± 9.83 | 68.61 ± 9.89 | 71.56 ± 10.14 | 0.113 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 28.65 ± 2.09 | 27.31 ± 3.10 | 27.98 ± 2.68 | 0.174 |
| Sex | ||||
| Male2) | 2 (13.3) | 2 (13.3) | 4 (13.3) | |
| Female | 13 (86.7) | 13 (86.7) | 26 (86.7) | >0.9993) |
| Drinker | ||||
| Yes | 8 (53.3) | 6 (40) | 14 (46.7) | |
| No | 7 (46.7) | 9 (60) | 16 (53.3) | 0.464 |
| Smoker | ||||
| Yes | 0 (0.0) | 2 (13.3) | 2 (6.7) | |
| No | 15 (100) | 13 (86.7) | 28 (93.3) | 0.483 |
Values are presented as the mean ± S.D
1) Analyzed by independent t test
2) N (%)
3) Analyzed by chi-square tests
Fig. 2Effects on body fat composition. a Change in BMI during the study period. b Change in body fat mass during the study period. The Yerba Mate group was different when compared to placebo group (P = 0.036). c Change in percent body fat during the study period. The Yerba Mate group was different compared to placebo group (P = 0.030). Values are presented mean ± S.D for 15 subjects. Analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA and the P value represents the comparison to the placebo group (P < 0.05)
Abdominal fat area of the Yerba Mate and placebo groups measured at 0 and 12 weeks
| Yerba Mate ( | Placebo ( |
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 weeks | 12 weeks |
| 0 weeks | 12 weeks |
| ||
| Visceral fat (cm3) | 1106.8 ± 387.5 | 1001.9 ± 338.4 | 0.145 | 947.0 ± 256.8 | 957.8 ± 353.7 | 0.695 | 0.181 |
| Subcutaneous fat (cm3) | 3123.5 ± 736.2 | 3101.2 ± 590.4 | 0.259 | 2984.0 ± 1040.7 | 3103.3 ± 1282.3 | 0.333 | 0.899 |
| Visceral subcutaneous ratio | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.140 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 0.861 | 0.175 |
Values are presented as the mean ± S.D
1) Analyzed by paired t test
2) Analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA
Lipid profile changes of the Yerba Mate and placebo groups at 0, 6 and 12 weeks
| Yerba Mate ( | Placebo ( |
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 weeks | 6 weeks | 12 weeks |
| 0 weeks | 6 weeks | 12 weeks |
| ||
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | 193.6 ± 24.8 | 197.9 ± 33.2 | 204.4 ± 36.0 | 0.384 | 176.7 ± 28.8 | 172.3 ± 33.9 | 174.0 ± 28.4 | 0.977 | 0.722 |
| HDL-cholesterol (mg/dL) | 45.4 ± 7.7 | 48.0 ± 10.3 | 48.2 ± 10.1 | 0.424 | 52.3 ± 12.0 | 50.4 ± 8.3 | 48.0 ± 8.3 | 0.369 | 0.223 |
| LDL-cholesterol (mg/dL) | 120.9 ± 27.5 | 117.8 ± 28.8 | 121.7 ± 34.6 | 0.755 | 101.7 ± 25.6 | 97.2 ± 27.5 | 96.7 ± 30.8 | 0.944 | 0.862 |
| Triglyceride (mg/dL) | 141.5 ± 79.9 | 130.6 ± 96.3 | 154.2 ± 96.6 | 0.325 | 123.1 ± 65.8 | 107.2 ± 53.8 | 127.5 ± 95.1 | 0.548 | 0.969 |
| Free Fatty Acid (μEq/L) | 516.6 ± 163.6 | 412.2 ± 128.8 | 443.5 ± 169.7 | 0.234 | 541.5 ± 337.3 | 541.5 ± 225.6 | 575.3 ± 220.1 | 0.286 | 0.224 |
Values are presented as the mean ± S.D
1) Analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA
Anthropometric parameters of the Yerba Mate and placebo groups at 0, 6 and 12 weeks
| Yerba Mate ( | Placebo ( |
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 weeks | 6 weeks | 12 weeks |
| 0 weeks | 6 weeks | 12 weeks |
| ||
| Height (cm) | 160.9 ± 7.0 | 160.6 ± 7.1 | 160.6 ± 7.1 | - | 158.4 ± 7.6 | 158.5 ± 8.2 | 159.3 ± 8.0 | - | - |
| Weight (kg) | 74.5 ± 9.8 | 73.5 ± 9.2 | 73.8 ± 9.0 | 0.742 | 68.6 ± 9.9 | 70.8 ± 10.1 | 71.4 ± 9.5 | 0.472 | 0.387 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 92.9 ± 6.2 | 90.8 ± 4.9 | 91.3 ± 5.1 | 0.170 | 90.1 ± 7.3 | 91.1 ± 7.8 | 91.9 ± 8.0 | 0.529 | 0.113 |
| Hip circumference (cm) | 100.1 ± 4.4 | 100.2 ± 4.0 | 100.9 ± 4.4 | 0.086 | 97.8 ± 5.0 | 98.5 ± 5.1 | 99.0 ± 5.3 | 0.971 | 0.478 |
| Waist-hip ratio | 0.93 ± 0.05 | 0.91 ± 0.04† | 0.91 ± 0.04‡ | 0.003 | 0.92 ± 0.04 | 0.92 ± 0.04 | 0.93 ± 0.04 | 0.511 | 0.005 |
| Arm circumference (cm) | 33.4 ± 2.4 | 33.0 ± 2.3 | 33.0 ± 2.0 | 0.394 | 31.8 ± 2.4 | 32.3 ± 3.2 | 32.5 ± 2.6 | 0.869 | 0.489 |
| Thigh circumference (cm) | 53.8 ± 4.2 | 53.5 ± 4.5 | 53.5 ± 4.5 | 0.900 | 51.2 ± 3.8 | 52.0 ± 3.9 | 52.3 ± 3.9 | 0.535 | 0.495 |
Values are presented as the mean ± S.D
1) Analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA. Statistically significant compared to the placebo group
† 0 vs. 6 weeks: waist-hip ratio, P = 0.004
‡ 0 vs. 12 weeks: waist-hip ratio, P = 0.002