4.4 Article

Effect of Soda Consumption on Urinary Stone Risk Parameters

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY
卷 23, 期 3, 页码 347-350

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC
DOI: 10.1089/end.2008.0225

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK062284-07, R01 DK062284] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose: Fluid consumption has been demonstrated to influence kidney stone formation. Studies have shown that consumption of cola may be a risk factor for stone disease, while fluids containing citric acid may attenuate stone activity. Diet was not always controlled in these investigations, however. We undertook a study to determine the impact of three different fluids on urinary stone risk factors. Subjects and Methods: Six healthy nonstone-forming adults were placed on a standardized metabolic diet and consumed three different types of fluid during three 5-day periods. There was a 2-day washout between each sequence. The three fluids administered during these periods were Le Bleu (R) water, caffeine-free Diet Coke,(R) and Fresca (R) (citrate containing). These two soda preparations were chosen to prevent the known increase in calcium excretion promoted by carbohydrates and caffeine. Twenty-four hour urine specimens were collected on days 4 and 5 of each sequence. The following urinary parameters were measured: Volume, calcium, oxalate, creatinine, uric acid, citrate, sodium, magnesium, phosphorus, sulfate, urea nitrogen, pH, and supersaturation indices. A paired t test was used for statistical analysis. Results: Urinary volumes were significantly higher and supersaturation of calcium oxalate significantly lower compared with a self-selected dietary regimen. A decrease in uric acid was also seen in the Fresca cohort. There were no statistically significant differences for any of the urinary parameters. Conclusion: There is no increased risk or benefit to consuming Fresca or caffeine-free Diet Coke compared with Le Bleu bottled water with respect to stone formation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据