4.4 Article

Comparative effect of Camellia sinensis teas on object recognition test deficit and metabolic changes induced by cafeteria diet

期刊

NUTRITIONAL NEUROSCIENCE
卷 22, 期 8, 页码 531-540

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/1028415X.2017.1418726

关键词

Camellia sinensis; Cafeteria diet; Memory deficits; White tea; Green tea; Red tea; Black tea; Oxidative stress

资金

  1. CAPES
  2. FAPERGS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Consumption of high-fat and high-sugar diets in Western countries has increased significantly causing major global health problems including metabolic syndrome and obesity. In addition, studies have suggested that obesity can lead to learning and memory deficits. In this context, the use of natural compounds with low costs, minor side effects and increased antioxidant activity, such as teas, could reduce the damages induced by obesity. We investigated the effect of white, green, red, and black teas (Camellia sinensis) and their possible neuroprotective mechanisms in an experimental obesity model induced by a cafeteria diet (CD). Methods: Female Swiss mice (20-30 g) were used; they received a normal diet or a hypercaloric diet (CD) during 8 weeks. Concomitantly, some mice received orally white, green, red, or black teas (1% dose) or water. Results: The mice subjected to CD showed weight gain, body fat accumulation, increased glucose, cholesterol, and triglycerides, associated to recognition memory deficits and increased reactive species (RS) levels and acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity in the hippocampus. All teas significantly reduced AChE activity and partially reduced fat accumulation. Green and red teas reduced memory deficit. White, green, and black teas reduced RS levels, while only green and black tea reduced plasma triglyceride levels. Discussion: According to the results obtained it is possible to conclude that green tea was better than other teas in reducing effects of the CD model, being able to protect a greater number of parameters.

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