Background: Physical exercise has been reported to increase the bioavailability of citrus flavanones.Objective: We investigated the bioavailability o

With the increasing global nutritional bar market, developing and formulating innovative high-energy and protein bars to compensate for nutrients using date fruits is beneficial for health-conscious individuals. The current research was undertaken to study the composition and physicochemical characteristics of innovative high-energy and high-protein bars using two combinations of Sukkari dates or fruit mixtures as a base. Fifty percent of either Sukkari date paste or dried fruit mixture (25% raisin, 12.5% fig, and 12.5% apricot) combined with other different ingredients was used to produce a date-based bar (DBB) or fruit-based bar (FBB). Proximate composition, sugar content, amino and fatty acid profiles, minerals and vitamins, phytochemicals, antioxidant activity, and visual color parameters of the DBB and the FBB were determined and statistically compared. Proximate analysis revealed higher moisture and fat content in the FBB than the DBB, while ash and crude fiber were higher in the DBB than the FBB. The protein content in the DBB and the FBB was not statistically different. Both prepared bars exuded around 376–378 kcal 100 g⁻¹ fresh weight. Sugar profile analysis of the DBB and the FBB showed dependable changes based on date or fruit content. Fructose, glucose, and maltose contents were higher in the FBB than in the DBB, while sucrose content was higher in the DBB than in the FBB. The DBB showed significantly higher content in Ca, Cu, Fe, Zn, Mn, and Se and significantly lower content in Mg, K, and Na than the FBB, with no variation in phosphorus content. The DBB and the FBB contained both essential (EAA) and non-essential (NEAA) amino acids. The DBB scored higher Lysine, Methionine, Histidine, Threonine, Phenylalanine, Isoleucine, and Cystine contents than the FBB, while the FBB scored only higher Leucine and Valine contents than the DBB. Seventeen saturated fatty acids were identified in the DBB and the FBB, with Palmitic acid (C16:0) as the predominant fatty acid. Oleic acid (C18:1n9c) was predominant among seven determined monounsaturated fatty acids. Linoleic fatty acid (C18:2n6c) was predominant among eight identified polyunsaturated fatty acids. In addition, α-Linolenic (C18:3n3) was detected in a considerable amount. However, in both the DBB and the FBB, the content and distribution of fatty acids were not remarkably changed. Regarding phytochemicals and bioactive compounds, the FBB was significantly higher in total phenolic content (TPC), total flavonoids (TF), and total flavonols (TFL) contents and scavenging activity against DPPH and ABTS free radicals than the DBB. The DBB and the FBB showed positive a* values, indicating a reddish color. The b* values were 27.81 and 28.54 for the DBB and the FBB, respectively. The DBB is affected by the lower L* value and higher browning index (BI) to make its color brownish. Sensory evaluation data showed that panelists significantly preferred the DBB over the FBB. In conclusion, processing and comparing these bars indicated that using Sukkari dates is a nutrient-dense, convenient, economical, and better sugar alternative that helps combat the calorie content. Thus, scaling up the use of dates instead of fruits in producing high-energy and protein bars commercially is highly recommended.

Estimation of RMR using prediction equations is the basis for calculating energy requirements. In the present study, RMR was predicted by Harris–Benedict, Schofield, Henry, Mifflin–St Jeor and Owen equations and measured by indirect calorimetry in 125 healthy adult women of varying BMI (17–44 kg/m²). Agreement between methods was assessed by Bland–Altman analyses and each equation was assessed for accuracy by calculating the percentage of individuals predicted within ± 10 % of measured RMR. Slopes and intercepts of bias as a function of average RMR (mean of predicted and measured RMR) were calculated by regression analyses. Predictors of equation bias were investigated using univariate and multivariate linear regression. At group level, bias (the difference between predicted and measured RMR) was not different from zero only for Mifflin–St Jeor (0 (sd153) kcal/d (0 (sd640) kJ/d)) and Henry (8 (sd163) kcal/d (33 (sd682) kJ/d)) equations. Mifflin–St Jeor and Henry equations were most accurate at the individual level and predicted RMR within 10 % of measured RMR in 71 and 66 % of participants, respectively. For all equations, limits of agreement were wide, slopes of bias were negative, and intercepts of bias were positive and significantly (P< 0⋅05) different from zero. Increasing age, height and BMI were associated with underestimation of RMR, but collectively these variables explained only 15 % of the variance in estimation bias. Overall accuracy of equations for prediction of RMR is low at the individual level, particularly in women with low and high RMR. The Mifflin–St Jeor equation was the most accurate for this dataset, but prediction errors were still observed in about one-third of participants.