| Literature DB >> 34476568 |
Minju Sim1, Sehwa Hong1, Sungwoong Jung2, Jin-Soo Kim3, Young-Tae Goo3, Woo Young Chun4, Dong-Mi Shin5,6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate the link of vitamin C status with vitality and psychological functions in a cross-sectional study, and examine their causal relationship through a randomized controlled trial (RCT).Entities:
Keywords: Ascorbic acid; Attention; Mental vitality; Stroop test; Vitamin C supplementation; Work engagement
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34476568 PMCID: PMC8783887 DOI: 10.1007/s00394-021-02656-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nutr ISSN: 1436-6207 Impact factor: 5.614
Characteristics of participants included in the cross-sectional study
| Characteristics | Total ( | Men ( | Women ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 26.2 ± 3.9 | 26.4 ± 3.8 | 26.1 ± 3.9 |
| Height, cm | 167.0 ± 7.5 | 174.1 ± 5.3 | 162.4 ± 4.6 |
| Weight, kg | 62.5 ± 13.0 | 73.9 ± 11.5 | 55.1 ± 7.5 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 22.2 ± 3.3 | 24.3 ± 3.3 | 20.9 ± 2.4 |
| Current smoker, | 14 (6.5) | 9 (10.7) | 5 (3.8) |
| Physical activity level | |||
| Low, | 106 (49.5) | 31 (36.9) | 75 (57.7) |
| High, | 108 (50.5) | 53 (63.1) | 55 (42.3) |
| Alcohol user, | 176 (82.2) | 74 (88.1) | 102 (78.5) |
| Vitamin C supplement users, | 60 (28.0) | 29 (34.5) | 39 (30.0) |
| Serum vitamin C concentration, μmol/L | 56.0 ± 17.6 | 51.4 ± 19.1 | 58.9 ± 15.9 |
| Vitality | |||
| Fatigue | 8.9 ± 2.2 | 8.7 ± 2.1 | 9.1 ± 2.2 |
| Attention | 7.8 ± 2.0 | 8.0 ± 2.0 | 7.7 ± 2.0 |
| Mood | |||
| Stress | 40.6 ± 26.7 | 33.1 ± 23.3 | 45.4 ± 27.7 |
| Depression | 7.6 ± 6.5 | 5.4 ± 5.0 | 9.0 ± 6.9 |
| Positive affect | 18.8 ± 7.6 | 20.5 ± 7.5 | 17.8 ± 7.5 |
| Negative affect | 9.7 ± 6.7 | 8.5 ± 6.2 | 10.5 ± 6.9 |
Values are mean ± SD or categorical total
Multiple linear regression analysis for the association between serum vitamin C concentration and subjective vitality in the cross-sectional population (n = 214)
| Independent variables | Fatigue | Attention | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standardized | Standardized | |||||
| Serum vitamin C concentration (μmol/L) | − 0.01 (0.01) | − 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.02 (0.01) | 0.21 | 0.003 |
| Women vs. men | 0.36 (0.36) | 0.08 | 0.31 | − 0.42 (0.33) | − 0.10 | 0.21 |
| Age (years) | 0.12 (0.04) | 0.21 | 0.003 | − 0.08 (0.04) | − 0.15 | 0.03 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | − 0.08 (0.05) | − 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.02 (0.05) | 0.04 | 0.64 |
| Smokers vs. non-smokers | 1.15 (0.60) | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.25 (0.56) | 0.03 | 0.65 |
| High physical activity vs. lowa | − 0.08 (0.31) | − 0.02 | 0.81 | 0.09 (0.29) | 0.02 | 0.74 |
| Alcohol users vs. non-users | 0.05 (0.39) | 0.01 | 0.90 | 0.24 (0.36) | 0.05 | 0.51 |
R2 value for fatigue and attention was 0.79 and 0.07, respectively
aPhysical activities were categorized as low (< median) and high (≥ median)
Fig. 1Flowchart of participation throughout the course of the intervention trial
Participants’ general characteristics of the intervention study (n = 46)
| Vitamin C | Placebo | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Men | Women | Total | Men | Women | ||
| No. of subjects | 24 | 14 | 10 | 22 | 12 | 10 | 0.79 |
| Age (year) | 24.6 ± 3.5 | 24.9 ± 3.6 | 24.1 ± 3.5 | 23.7 ± 1.9 | 24.0 ± 2.0 | 23.3 ± 1.8 | 0.27 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.6 ± 3.0 | 24.2 ± 2.6 | 20.3 ± 1.9 | 22.3 ± 3.3 | 23.5 ± 2.0 | 20.8 ± 4.1 | 0.74 |
| Occupation | 0.89 | ||||||
| Undergraduate student ( | 17 | 10 | 7 | 17 | 9 | 8 | |
| Graduate student ( | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| Employee ( | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| Current smoker ( | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0.60 |
| Dietary supplement user ( | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | > 0.99 |
| Protein | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| Vitamin D | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| Physical activity (MET-min/week) | 2057 ± 1369 | 2219 ± 1205 | 1831 ± 1612 | 1889 ± 1379 | 2022 ± 1354 | 1730 ± 1465 | 0.68 |
| Serum vitamin C concentration (μmol/L) | 42.5 ± 11.7 | 41.5 ± 12.7 | 43.9 ± 10.6 | 40.2 ± 17.2 | 35.0 ± 10.8 | 46.4 ± 21.6 | 0.59 |
| Daily vitamin C intake (mg/day) | 41.3 ± 43.8 | 53.2 ± 14.0 | 24.7 ± 17.0 | 52.5 ± 57.8 | 48.1 ± 43.6 | 57.8 ± 73.6 | 0.46 |
Values are mean ± SD or categorical total
P values were obtained by comparing the vitamin C group (n = 24) with the placebo group (n = 22) using an unpaired t test, a Pearson’s Chi-square test, or a Fisher’s exact test
Fig. 2Effect of vitamin C supplementation on serum concentrations of vitamin C. P values were obtained using a paired t test
Effect of vitamin C supplementation on subjective vitality
| Vitamin C ( | Placebo ( | Vitamin C vs. placebo | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Endpoint | Changea | Baseline | Endpoint | Change | Difference in change (95% CI) | ||
| Fatigue | 9.3 ± 2.4 | 7.8 ± 2.7 | − 1.5 ± 2.5** | 8.9 ± 2.1 | 8.9 ± 1.9 | − 0.05 ± 2.6 | − 1.5 (− 3.0, 0.1) | 0.06 |
| Attention | 7.1 ± 1.8 | 9.0 ± 2.4 | 1.9 ± 2.7** | 7.7 ± 2.1 | 8.0 ± 2.0 | 0.3 ± 2.5 | 1.6 (0.1, 3.2) | 0.03 |
| Work engagement | 68.7 ± 14.9 | 74.4 ± 16.1 | 5.8 ± 10.2 | 74.3 ± 13.9 | 74.7 ± 14.1 | 0.4 ± 9.7 | 5.3 (− 0.6, 11.3) | 0.07 |
| Vigor | 23.2 ± 5.7 | 25.8 ± 6.0 | 2.5 ± 4.2 | 25.4 ± 5.4 | 27.0 ± 5.7 | 1.5 ± 4.0 | 1.0 (− 1.4, 3.4) | 0.41 |
| Dedication | 23.0 ± 6.8 | 24.1 ± 6.6 | 1.0 ± 4.0 | 24.5 ± 5.3 | 23.9 ± 5.4 | − 0.6 ± 4.1 | 1.7 (− 0.7, 4.1) | 0.16 |
| Absorption | 22.4 ± 4.9 | 24.6 ± 5.5 | 2.2 ± 4.0 | 24.3 ± 5.1 | 23.8 ± 5.9 | − 0.5 ± 4.1 | 2.7 (0.3, 5.1) | 0.03 |
| Self-control resources | 16.5 ± 4.3 | 18.5 ± 5.3 | 2.0 ± 4.7 | 16.1 ± 4.1 | 17.5 ± 4.4 | 1.4 ± 4.8 | 0.5 (− 2.3, 3.3) | 0.72 |
Values are presented as mean ± SD
There were no significant differences between the vitamin C group and the placebo group for all variables measured at the baseline (all p > 0.05; unpaired t test)
aBaseline and endpoint (week 4) measures differed significantly within the vitamin C group (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; paired t test)
bA repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction was used to determine the time-by-group interaction with time as the within-subject factor and treatment (vitamin C versus placebo) as the between-subject factor
Fig. 3Performance difference in the Stroop color–word test between the vitamin C group (n = 24) and the placebo group (n = 22). Reaction time was calculated as the sum of the time taken to report the correct answers out of the 128 items. A There was a significant difference in the reaction time between the vitamin C and the placebo groups (p = 0.04; unpaired t test). B There was a clear tendency to significance in a correlation between the endpoint serum concentration of vitamin C and the reaction time (r = − 0.28, p = 0.05; Pearson’s correlation analysis). The correlation plot is shown with a regression line and 95% confidence interval