4.7 Article

A dark brown roast coffee blend is less effective at stimulating gastric acid secretion in healthy volunteers compared to a medium roast market blend

期刊

MOLECULAR NUTRITION & FOOD RESEARCH
卷 58, 期 6, 页码 1370-1373

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mnfr.201300890

关键词

Chlorogenic acids; Coffee; N-beta-alkanoyl-5-hydroxytryptamides; N-methylpyridinium; Telemetric gastric pH measurement

资金

  1. FEI (Forschungskreis der Ernahrungsindustrie e.V., Bonn, Germany) the AiF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft industrieller Forschung)
  2. German Ministry of Economics [14042 N]
  3. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coffee consumption sometimes is associated with symptoms of stomach discomfort. This work aimed to elucidate whether two coffee beverages, containing similar amounts of caffeine, but differing in their concentrations of N-beta-alkanoyl-5-hydroxytryptamides (C5HTs), chlorogenic acids (CGAs), trigonelline, and N-methylpyridinium (N-MP) have different effects on gastric acid secretion in healthy volunteers. The intragastric pH after administration of bicarbonate with/without 200 mL of a coffee beverage prepared from a market blend or dark roast blend was analyzed in nine healthy volunteers. Coffee beverages were analyzed for their contents of C5HT, N-MP, trigonelline, CGAs, and caffeine using HPLC-DAD and HPLC-MS/MS. Chemical analysis revealed higher concentrations of N-MP for the dark brown blend (87 mg/L) compared to the market blend coffee (29 mg/L), whereas concentrations of C5HT (0.012 versus 0.343 mg/L), CGAs (323 versus 1126 mg/L), and trigonelline (119 versus 343 mg/L) were lower, and caffeine concentrations were similar (607 versus 674 mg/mL). Gastric acid secretion was less effectively stimulated after administration of the dark roast blend coffee compared to the market blend. Future studies are warranted to verify whether a high ratio of N-MP to C5HT and CGAs is beneficial for reducing coffee-associated gastric acid secretion.

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