Objective: This review aims to summarize the clinical evidence regarding the use of chia seed for a wide variety of health conditions.
Data Sources: A number of databases, including PubMed and Embase, were searched systematically.
Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials that assessed the clinical effects of chia seed consumption in human participants were included. The quality of trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
Data Extraction: Data on study design, blinding status, characteristics of participants, chia seed intervention, comparator, clinical assessment, duration of intake, interval of assessment, and study funding status were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed.
Results: Twelve trials were included. Participants included healthy persons, athletes, diabetic patients, and individuals with metabolic syndrome. Pooling of results showed no significant differences except for the following findings of subgroup analysis at higher doses of chia seed: (1) lower postprandial blood glucose level (mean difference [MD] of -33.95 incremental area under the curve [iAUC] [mmol/L × 2 h] [95%CI, -61.85, -6.05] and -51.60 iAUC [mmol/L × 2 h] [95%CI, -79.64, -23.56] at medium doses and high doses, respectively); (2) lower high-density lipoprotein in serum (MD of -0.10 mmol/L [95%CI, -0.20, -0.01]); and (3) lower diastolic blood pressure (MD of -7.14 mmHg [95%CI, -11.08, -3.19]). The quality of all evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was low or very low. All trials employed only surrogate markers as outcomes.
Conclusions: Future trials with improved methodological quality, well-described clinical events, and validated surrogate markers as outcomes are needed to support the potential health benefits of chia seed consumption.
Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42015029990.
METHODS: Twenty healthy subjects were enrolled in a randomized, 3-way, blinded cross-over trial. The study was registered under ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier no. NCT00123456. At each test day, the subjects received one of three meals comprising 30 g of starch with 5 g of LD or UP or an energy-adjusted control meal containing pea protein. Fasting and postprandial blood glucose, insulin, C-peptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) concentrations were measured. Subjective appetite sensations were scored using visual analogue scales (VAS).
RESULTS: Linear mixed model (LMM) analysis showed a lower blood glucose, insulin and C-peptide response following the intake of LD and UP, after correction for body weight. Participants weighing ≤ 63 kg had a reduced glucose response compared to control meal between 40 and 90 min both following LD and UP meals. Furthermore, LMM analysis for C-peptide showed a significantly lower response after intake of LD. Compared to the control meal, GLP-1 response was higher after the LD meal, both before and after the body weight adjustment. The VAS scores showed a decreased appetite sensation after intake of the seaweeds. Ad-libitum food intake was not different three hours after the seaweed meals compared to control.
CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant ingestion of brown seaweeds may help improving postprandial glycaemic and appetite control in healthy and normal weight adults, depending on the dose per body weight.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov (ID# NCT02608372).
RESULTS: The GI of the calamansi drink tested was calculated as 37, a value within the range of low GI foods. Trial registration Clinical Trials identifier NCT04462016; Retrospectively registered on July 1, 2020.
AIMS: To compare the efficacy of Gaviscon Advance (Reckitt Benckiser, UK) and a non-alginate antacid in post-supper suppression of the acid pocket and post-prandial reflux among obese participants.
METHODS: Participants underwent 48 h wireless and probe-based pH-metry recording of the acid pocket and lower oesophagus, respectively, and were randomised to single post-supper (10 pm) dose of either Gaviscon Advance or a non-alginate antacid on the second night. Primary outcomes were suppression of median pH of acid pocket and lower oesophagus, measured every 10-minutes post-supper for 1 h. Secondary outcomes were suppression of % time pH
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the effects of high-protein Malaysian diets prepared with palm olein, coconut oil (CO), or virgin olive oil on plasma homocysteine and selected markers of inflammation and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in healthy adults.
DESIGN: A randomized-crossover intervention with 3 dietary sequences of 5 wk each was conducted in 45 healthy subjects. The 3 test fats, namely palmitic acid (16:0)-rich palm olein (PO), lauric and myristic acid (12:0 + 14:0)-rich CO, and oleic acid (18:1)-rich virgin olive oil (OO), were incorporated at two-thirds of 30% fat calories into high-protein Malaysian diets.
RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the effects of the 3 diets on plasma total homocysteine (tHcy) and the inflammatory markers TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and interferon-γ. Diets prepared with PO and OO had comparable nonhypercholesterolemic effects; the postprandial total cholesterol for both diets and all fasting lipid indexes for the OO diet were significantly lower (P < 0.05) than for the CO diet. Unlike the PO and OO diets, the CO diet was shown to decrease postprandial lipoprotein(a).
CONCLUSION: Diets that were rich in saturated fatty acids prepared with either PO or CO, and an OO diet that was high in oleic acid, did not alter postprandial or fasting plasma concentrations of tHcy and selected inflammatory markers. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00941837.