Evidence Hub

Acute Ingestion of a Mixed Flavonoid and Caffeine Supplement Increases Energy Expenditure and Fat Oxidation in Adult Women: A Randomized, Crossover Clinical Trial

D. Nieman, Andrew J Simonson, C. Sakaguchi, W. Sha, Tondra Blevins, Jaina Hattabaugh, M. Kohlmeier

Nutrients, 2019

19 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

This randomized, double-blinded, crossover study measured the acute effect of ingesting a mixed flavonoid-caffeine (MFC) supplement compared to placebo (PL) on energy expenditure (EE) and fat oxidation (FATox) in a metabolic chamber with premenopausal women (n = 19, mean ± SD, age 30.7 ± 8.0 year, BMI 25.7 ± 3.4 kg/m2). The MFC supplement (658 mg flavonoids, split dose 8:30, 13:00) contained quercetin, green tea catechins, and anthocyanins from bilberry extract, and 214 mg caffeine. Participants were measured twice in a metabolic chamber for a day, four weeks apart, with outcomes including 22 h EE (8:30–6:30), substrate utilization from the respiratory quotient (RQ), plasma caffeine levels (16:00), and genotyping for the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs762551. Areas under the curve (AUC) for metabolic data from the MFC and PL trials were calculated using the trapezoid rule, with a mixed linear model (GLM) used to evaluate the overall treatment effect. The 22 h oxygen consumption and EE were significantly higher with MFC than PL (1582 ± 143, 1535 ± 154 kcal/day, respectively, p = 0.003, trial difference of 46.4 ± 57.8 kcal/day). FATox trended higher for MFC when evaluated using GLM (99.2 ± 14.0, 92.4 ± 14.4 g/22 h, p = 0.054). Plasma caffeine levels were significantly higher in the MFC versus PL trial (5031 ± 289, 276 ± 323 ng/mL, respectively, p < 0.001). Trial differences for 22 h EE and plasma caffeine were unrelated after controlling for age and body mass (r =…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 19 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free