4.7 Article

Metabolic Effects and Safety Aspects of Acute D-allulose and Erythritol Administration in Healthy Subjects

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu15020458

关键词

D-allulose; erythritol; sweeteners; glycemic control; ghrelin; blood lipids; uric acid; hsCRP; healthy subjects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the metabolic effects and safety aspects of acute D-allulose and erythritol. The results showed that D-allulose could lower blood glucose and insulin concentrations, while erythritol could reduce ghrelin concentrations. Both sweeteners have potential in reducing sugar intake.
The rapid increase in sugar consumption is associated with various negative metabolic and inflammatory effects; therefore, alternative sweeteners become of interest. The aim of this study was to investigate the metabolic effects and safety aspects of acute D-allulose and erythritol on glucose, insulin, ghrelin, blood lipids, uric acid, and high-sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP). In three study visits, 18 healthy subjects received an intragastric administration of 25 g D-allulose or 50 g erythritol, or 300 mL tap water (placebo) in a randomized, double-blind and crossover order. To measure the aforementioned parameters, blood samples were drawn at fixed time intervals. Glucose and insulin concentrations were lower after D-allulose compared to tap water (p = 0.001, d(z) = 0.91 and p = 0.005, d(z) = 0.58, respectively); however, Bayesian models show no difference for insulin in response to D-allulose compared to tap water, and there was no effect after erythritol. An exploratory analysis showed that ghrelin concentrations were reduced after erythritol compared to tap water (p = 0.026, d(z) = 0.59), with no effect after D-allulose; in addition, both sweeteners had no effect on blood lipids, uric acid and hsCRP. This combination of properties identifies both sweeteners as excellent candidates for effective and safe sugar alternatives.

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

4.7
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