Qingyuan Deng1, Jillian J Haszard1, Tamlin S Conner2, Charlene Rapsey3, Mei Peng4, Bernard J Venn5. 1. Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 3. Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 4. Department of Food Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 5. Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. bernard.venn@otago.ac.nz.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: The relationship between postprandial glycaemic responses and cognitive performance, mood and satiety are inconsistent. The objective of this study is to compare the effects of different glycaemic responses, induced by beverages with different glycaemic index (GI) (sucrose and isomaltulose), and a non-glycaemic control (sucralose), on cognition, mood and satiety. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: In this double-blinded, randomised crossover trial, healthy adults (n = 55) received sucrose (GI 65), isomaltulose (GI 32) and sucralose (non-caloric negative control) drinks on separate occasions. The Complex Figure test, the Word Recall test, Trail Making Test Part B and the Stroop test were administered 60 min after beverages ingestion. Mood and satiety were tested along with cognitive performance. RESULTS: Comparing between isomaltulose and sucrose, there were no significant differences in the mean (95% CI) for the following: Complex Figure: immediate recall -0.6 (-1.7, 0.5), delayed recall -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3); Word recall: immediate recall 0.2 (-0.7, 1.1), delayed recall 0.5 (-0.4, 1.4); Trail Making: completing time -2.4 (-7.5, 2.7) s; Stroop: time used for correct congruent responses -9 (-31, 14) ms and correct incongruent responses -18 (-42, 6) ms. No differences among beverages were found in the mood and satiety scores with exception that participants felt more energetic 60 min after isomaltulose ingestion (p = 0.028 for difference with sucrose) and hungrier 30 min after isomaltulose ingestion (p = 0.036 for difference with sucrose; p = 0.022 for difference with sucralose). CONCLUSION: Under these study conditions there is no convincing evidence for an effect of glycaemic response on cognitive performance, mood or satiety.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: The relationship between postprandial glycaemic responses and cognitive performance, mood and satiety are inconsistent. The objective of this study is to compare the effects of different glycaemic responses, induced by beverages with different glycaemic index (GI) (sucrose and isomaltulose), and a non-glycaemic control (sucralose), on cognition, mood and satiety. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: In this double-blinded, randomised crossover trial, healthy adults (n = 55) received sucrose (GI 65), isomaltulose (GI 32) and sucralose (non-caloric negative control) drinks on separate occasions. The Complex Figure test, the Word Recall test, Trail Making Test Part B and the Stroop test were administered 60 min after beverages ingestion. Mood and satiety were tested along with cognitive performance. RESULTS: Comparing between isomaltulose and sucrose, there were no significant differences in the mean (95% CI) for the following: Complex Figure: immediate recall -0.6 (-1.7, 0.5), delayed recall -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3); Word recall: immediate recall 0.2 (-0.7, 1.1), delayed recall 0.5 (-0.4, 1.4); Trail Making: completing time -2.4 (-7.5, 2.7) s; Stroop: time used for correct congruent responses -9 (-31, 14) ms and correct incongruent responses -18 (-42, 6) ms. No differences among beverages were found in the mood and satiety scores with exception that participants felt more energetic 60 min after isomaltulose ingestion (p = 0.028 for difference with sucrose) and hungrier 30 min after isomaltulose ingestion (p = 0.036 for difference with sucrose; p = 0.022 for difference with sucralose). CONCLUSION: Under these study conditions there is no convincing evidence for an effect of glycaemic response on cognitive performance, mood or satiety.
Authors: F Orzi; G Lucignani; D Dow-Edwards; H Namba; A Nehlig; C S Patlak; K Pettigrew; F Schuier; L Sokoloff Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 1988-06 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: N Joan Abbott; Adjanie A K Patabendige; Diana E M Dolman; Siti R Yusof; David J Begley Journal: Neurobiol Dis Date: 2009-08-05 Impact factor: 5.996
Authors: F Schneider; R E Gur; L H Mozley; R J Smith; P D Mozley; D M Censits; A Alavi; R C Gur Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 1995-11-10 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Anum Khan; Huma Ali; Ubaid Ur Rehman; Ali Osman Belduz; Amna Bibi; Mujib Abdulkadir Abdurahman; Aamer Ali Shah; Malik Badshah; Fariha Hasan; Ali Osman Kilic; Asad Ullah; Sarwat Jahan; Muhammad Maqsood Ur Rehman; Rashid Mansoor; Samiullah Khan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 3.752