Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) has proven to be particularly useful due to its inexpensive and rapid assessment of total body water and body density. However, recent fluid intake may confound BIA results since equilibration of fluid between intra- and extracellular spaces may take several hours and furthermore, ingested fluids may not be fully absorbed. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the impact of different fluid compositions on the BIA. A total of eighteen healthy individuals (10 females, mean ± SD age of 23.1 ± 1.8 years) performed a baseline measurement of body composition before they consumed isotonic 0.9% sodium-chloride (ISO), 5% glucose (GLU) or Ringer (RIN) solutions. During the visit of the control arm (CON), no fluid was consumed. Further impedance analyses were conducted every 10 min after the fluid consumption for 120 min. We found statistically significant interactions between the effects of solution ingestion and time for intra- (ICW, p < 0.01) and extracellular water (ECW, p < 0.0001), skeletal muscle mass (SMM, p < 0.001) and body fat mass (FM, p < 0.01), respectively. Simple main effects analysis showed that time had a statistically significant effect on changes in ICW (p < 0.01), ECW (p < 0.01), SMM (p < 0.01) and FM (p < 0.01), while fluid intake did not have a significant effect. Our results highlight the importance of a standardized pre-measurement nutrition, with particular attention to hydration status when using a BIA for the evaluation of body composition.

Over the last decade, studies suggested that dietary behavior modification, including fasting, can improve metabolic and cardiovascular markers as well as body composition. Given the increasing prevalence of people with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the increasing obesity (also in combination with diabetes), nutritional therapies are gaining importance, besides pharmaceutical interventions. Fasting has demonstrated beneficial effects for both healthy individuals and those with metabolic diseases, leading to increased research interest in its impact on glycemia and associated short- and long-term complications. Therefore, this review aimed to investigate whether fasting can be used safely and effectively in addition to medications to support the therapy in T1DM and T2DM. A literature search on fasting and its interaction with diabetes was conducted via PubMed in September 2022. Fasting has the potential to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia in T1DM, lower glycaemic variability, and improve fat metabolism in T1DM and T2DM. It also increases insulin sensitivity, reduces endogenous glucose production in diabetes, lowers body weight, and improves body composition. To conclude, fasting is efficient for therapy management for both people with T1DM and T2DM and can be safely performed, when necessary, with the support of health care professionals.

The effects of intermittent fasting (IF) on health promotion in the healthy population remain controversial. Therefore, our study aimed to analyse the efficacy and feasibility of different IF protocols and evaluated the effects within a cohort with a controlled-run in phase on the body mass index (BMI) as the primary outcome, the body composition, and metabolic and haematological markers in healthy participants. A total of 25 individuals were randomised into three fasting groups: 16/8 fasting (n = 11), 20/4 fasting (n = 6), and alternate-day fasting (ADF, n = 8). Assessments were conducted at baseline (visit 1), after a four-week controlled-run in phase (visit 2), and after eight weeks of fasting (visit 3). Both the BMI (p = 0.01) and bodyweight (p = 0.01) were significantly reduced in the ADF group, which was not seen in the 16/8 and 20/4 groups (p > 0.05). Adherence was different but not statistically among the groups (16/8: 84.5 ± 23.0%; 20/4: 92.7 ± 9.5%; and ADF: 78.1 ± 33.5%, p = 0.57). Based on our obtained results, the data suggest that some fasting interventions might be promising for metabolic health. However, adherence to the specific fasting protocols remains challenging even for the healthy population.

The impact of a fasting intervention on electrocardiographic (ECG) time intervals and heart rate variability (HRV) is a focus that is scarcely analyzed. The main focus of these secondary outcome data was to describe the impact of a different fasting intervention on ECG and HRV analyses. Twenty-seven healthy individuals participated in this study (11 females, aged 26.3 ± 3.8 years, BMI 24.7 ± 3.4 kg/m²), including a pre-intervention controlled run-in period. Participants were randomized to one of the three fasting cohorts: (I) alternate day fasting (ADF, n = 8), (II) 16/8 fasting (16/8 h of fasting/feasting, n = 11) and (III) 20/4 fasting (20/4 h of fasting/feasting, n = 8). An analysis of baseline ECG parameters and HRV parameters following different fasting interventions demonstrated the safety of these interventions without impacting on heart rate variability parameters during Schellong-1 testing, and revealed comparable preserved autonomic cardiac modulation (ACM) independently of the fasting intervention. In conclusion, different short-term fasting interventions demonstrated no safety ECG-based concerns and showed comparable ACM based on ECG and HRV assessments. Finally, our research topic might strengthen the scientific knowledge of intermittent fasting strategies and indicate potential clinically preventive approaches with respect to occurring metabolic disease and obesity in healthy young subjects.

The impact of glucose and fructose supplementation on acute cardiac effects during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a topic that is rarely investigated. The aim of the presented secondary outcome analysis of a double-blind, randomized crossover-controlled trial was to investigate the impact of glucose (Glu), fructose (Fru), glucose and fructose (GluFru), and sucralose on electrocardiogram (ECG), heart rate variability (HRV), premature ventricular complexes (PVCs), and heart rate turn points (HRTP) during CPET. Fourteen healthy individuals (age 25.4 ± 2.5 years, body mass index (BMI) 23.7 ± 1.7 kg/m², body mass (BM) of 76.3 ± 12.3 kg) participated in this study, of which 12 were included for analysis. Participants received 1 g/kg BM of Glu, 1 g/kg BM of Fru, 0.5 g/kg BM of GluFru (each), and 0.2 g sucralose dissolved in 300 mL 30 min prior to each exercise session. No relevant clinical pathology or significant inter-individual differences between our participants could be revealed for baseline ECG parameters, such as heart rate (HR) (mean HR 70 ± 16 bpm), PQ interval (146 ± 20 ms), QRS interval (87 ± 16 ms) and the QT (405 ± 39 ms), and QTc interval (431 ± 15 ms). We found preserved cardiac autonomic function by analyzing the acute effects of different Glu, Fru, GluFru, or sucralose supplementation on cardiac autonomic function by Schellong-1 testing. SDNN and RMSSD revealed normal sympathetic and parasympathetic activities displaying a balanced system of cardiac autonomic regulation across our participating subjects with no impact on the metabolism. During CPET performance analyses, HRV values did not indicate significant changes between the ingested drinks within the different time points. Comparing the HRTP of the CPET with endurance testing by variable metabolic conditions, no significant differences were found between the HRTP of the CPET data (170 ± 12 bpm), Glu (171 ± 10 bpm), Fru (171 ± 9 bpm), GluFru (172 ± 9 bpm), and sucralose (170 ± 8 bpm) (p = 0.83). Additionally, the obtained time to reach HRTP did not significantly differ between Glu (202 ± 75 s), Fru (190 ± 88 s), GluFru (210 ± 89 s), and sucralose (190 ± 34 s) (p = 0.59). The significance of this study lies in evaluating the varying metabolic conditions on cardiac autonomic modulation in young healthy individuals. In contrast, our participants showed comparable cardiac autonomic responses determined by ECG and CPET.

Background: The effects of glucose, fructose and a combination of these on physical performance have been subject of investigation, resulting in diverse findings. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate how an individualized amount of glucose, fructose, and a combination of these compared to placebo (sucralose) alter endurance performance on a cycle ergometer, lower and upper body resistance exercise performance at individualized thresholds in healthy young individuals. Methods: A total of 16 healthy adults (9 females) with an age of 23.8 ± 1.6 years and a BMI of 22.6 ± 1.8 kg/m² (body mass (BM) 70.9 ± 10.8 kg, height 1.76 ± 0.08 m) participated in this study. During the screening visit, the lactate turn point 2 (LTP2) was defined and the weights for chest-press and leg-press were determined. Furthermore, 30 min prior to each exercise session, participants received either 1 g/kg BM of glucose (Glu), 1 g/kg BM of fructose (Fru), 0.5 g/kg BM of glucose/fructose (GluFru) (each), or 0.2 g sucralose (placebo), respectively, which were dissolved in 300 mL of water. All exercises were performed until volitional exhaustion. Time until exhaustion (TTE) and cardio-pulmonary variables were determined for all cycling visits; during resistance exercise, repetitions until muscular failure were counted and time was measured. During all visits, capillary blood glucose and blood lactate concentrations as well as venous insulin levels were measured. Results: TTE in cycling was 449 ± 163 s (s) (Glu), 443 ± 156 s (Fru), 429 ± 160 s (GluFru) and 466 ± 162 s (Pla) (p = 0.48). TTE during chest-press sessions was 180 ± 95 s (Glu), 180 ± 92 s (Fru), 172 ± 78 s (GluFru) and 162 ± 66 s (Pla) (p = 0.25), respectively. Conclusions: Pre-exercise supplementation of Glu, Fru and a combination of these did not have an ergogenic effect on high-intensity anaerobic endurance performance and on upper and lower body moderate resistance exercise in comparison to placebo.