Beneficial effects of dietary phospholipids (PLs) have been mentioned since the early 1900's in relation to different illnesses and symptoms, e.g. coronary heart disease, inflammation or cancer. This article gives a summary of the most common therapeutic uses of dietary PLs to provide an overview of their approved and proposed benefits; and to identify further investigational needs.From the majority of the studies it became evident that dietary PLs have a positive impact in several diseases, apparently without severe side effects. Furthermore, they were shown to reduce side effects of some drugs. Both effects can partially be explained by the fact that PL are highly effective in delivering their fatty acid (FA) residues for incorporation into the membranes of cells involved in different diseases, e.g. immune or cancer cells. The altered membrane composition is assumed to have effects on the activity of membrane proteins (e.g. receptors) by affecting the microstructure of membranes and, therefore, the characteristics of the cellular membrane, e.g. of lipid rafts, or by influencing the biosynthesis of FA derived lipid second messengers. However, since the FAs originally bound to the applied PLs are increased in the cellular membrane after their consumption or supplementation, the FA composition of the PL and thus the type of PL is crucial for its effect. Here, we have reviewed the effects of PL from soy, egg yolk, milk and marine sources. Most studies have been performedin vitroor in animals and only limited evidence is available for the benefit of PL supplementation in humans. More research is needed to understand the impact of PL supplementation and confirm its health benefits.

Objective To assess the association between intake of non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) and important health outcomes in generally healthy or overweight/obese adults and children. Design Systematic review following standard Cochrane review methodology. Data sources Medline (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinicaltrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant publications. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies including generally healthy adults or children with or without overweight or obesity were eligible. Included study designs allowed for a direct comparison of no intake or lower intake of NSS with higher NSS intake. NSSs had to be clearly named, the dose had to be within the acceptable daily intake, and the intervention duration had to be at least seven days. Main outcome measures Body weight or body mass index, glycaemic control, oral health, eating behaviour, preference for sweet taste, cancer, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, mood, behaviour, neurocognition, and adverse effects. Results The search resulted in 13 941 unique records. Of 56 individual studies that provided data for this review, 35 were observational studies. In adults, evidence of very low and low certainty from a limited number of small studies indicated a small beneficial effect of NSSs on body mass index (mean difference −0.6, 95% confidence interval −1.19 to −0.01; two studies, n=174) and fasting blood glucose (−0.16 mmol/L, −0.26 to −0.06; two, n=52). Lower doses of NSSs were associated with lower weight gain (−0.09 kg, −0.13 to −0.05; one, n=17 934) compared with higher doses of NSSs (very low certainty of evidence). For all other outcomes, no differences were detected between the use and non-use of NSSs, or between different doses of NSSs. No evidence of any effect of NSSs was seen on overweight or obese adults or children actively trying to lose weight (very low to moderate certainty). In children, a smaller increase in body mass index z score was observed with NSS intake compared with sugar intake (−0.15, −0.17 to −0.12; two, n=528, moderate certainty of evidence), but no significant differences were observed in body weight (−0.60 kg, −1.33 to 0.14; two, n=467, low certainty of evidence), or between different doses of NSSs (very low to moderate certainty). Conclusions Most health outcomes did not seem to have differences between the NSS exposed and unexposed groups. Of the few studies identified for each outcome, most had few participants, were of short duration, and their methodological and reporting quality was limited; therefore, confidence in the reported results is limited. Future studies should assess the effects of NSSs with an appropriate intervention duration. Detailed descriptions of interventions, comparators, and outcomes should be included in all reports. Systematic review registration Prospero CRD42017047668.

Various epidemiological studies suggest a positive association between exposure to cow's milk A1 β-casein protein and risk for noncommunicable chronic diseases. The consumption of A2 cow's milk is increasing, likely because A2 milk is postulated to have positive effects on digestive health. A systematic review was conducted to investigate associations between A1 β-casein and health-related outcomes in humans. Five electronic databases, 3 clinical trial registries, and the internet were searched systematically. Using predefined inclusion criteria, 2 authors independently selected studies investigating the effect of A1 β-casein or β-casomorphin-7 intake/exposure on any health-related outcome in humans. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The certainty of evidence per outcome was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Fifteen randomized controlled trials, 2 case-control studies, and 8 ecological studies were included. Most randomized controlled studies and case-control studies investigating a potential effect on various outcomes were based on intermediate markers and found no significant difference between the 2 milk types. In contrast, most ecological studies reported that population-level A1 β-casein exposure is associated with adverse health outcomes. The certainty of the evidence for the included outcomes, as assessed by the GRADE approach, was rated as moderate for digestive symptoms and as low to very low for all other outcomes. Human-based evidence from clinical trials and epidemiological studies published prior to October 2017 provides moderate certainty for adverse digestive health effects of A1 β-casein compared with A2 β-casein but low or very low certainty for other health effects. These conclusions may change in the future, given the emergent nature of this topic and the ongoing research in this area. PROSPERO registration number CRD42016043795.

Like many other cancer patients, most pancreatic carcinoma patients suffer from severe weight loss. As shown in numerous studies with fish oil (FO) supplementation, a minimum daily intake of 1.5 g n-3-fatty acids (n-3-FA) contributes to weight stabilization and improvement of quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients. Given n-3-FA not as triglycerides (FO), but mainly bound to marine phospholipids (MPL), weight stabilization and improvement of QoL has already been seen at much lower doses of n-3-FA (0,3 g), and MPL were much better tolerated. The objective of this double-blind randomized controlled trial was to compare low dose MPL and FO formulations, which had the same n-3-FA amount and composition, on weight and appetite stabilization, global health enhancement (QoL), and plasma FA-profiles in patients suffering from pancreatic cancer. Sixty pancreatic cancer patients were included into the study and randomized to take either FO- or MPL supplementation. Patients were treated with 0.3 g of n-3-fatty acids per day over six weeks. Since the n-3-FA content of FO is usually higher than that of MPL, FO was diluted with 40% of medium chain triglycerides (MCT) to achieve the same capsule size in both intervention groups and therefore assure blinding. Routine blood parameters, lipid profiles, body weight, and appetite were measured before and after intervention. Patient compliance was assessed through a patient diary. Quality of life and nutritional habits were assessed with validated questionnaires (EORTC-QLQ-C30, PAN26). Thirty one patients finalized the study protocol and were analyzed (per-protocol-analysis). Intervention with low dose n-3-FAs, either as FO or MPL supplementation, resulted in similar and promising weight and appetite stabilization in pancreatic cancer patients. MPL capsules were slightly better tolerated and showed fewer side effects, when compared to FO supplementation. The similar effects between both interventions were unexpected but reliable, since the MPL and FO formulations caused identical increases of n-3-FAs in plasma lipids of included patients after supplementation. The effects of FO with very low n-3-FA content might be explained by the addition of MCT. The results of this study suggest the need for further investigations of marine phospholipids for the improvement of QoL of cancer patients, optionally in combination with MCT.

Purpose: Food-derived bioactive peptides may influence important physiological functions. An important example is beta-casomorphins, which are opioid peptides derived from A1 beta-casein in bovine milk and have been associated to be risk factors for non-communicable diseases in humans. A1 and A2 beta-casein are different with respect to the release of bioactive peptides, in particular BCM-7. However, evidence from human studies is limited and could be complemented with evidence derived from animal studies. We conducted a scoping review to identify animal studies investigating the effects of A1 beta-casein or BCM-7 compared to A2 beta-casein or any other intervention on health-related outcomes. Methods: We systematically searched for relevant studies in two electronic databases (Medline, Embase; last search performed March 2020). Two reviewers independently undertook study selection and data extraction of included references. Results were summarized tabularly and narratively. Results: We included 42 studies investigating various animal models, including rats, mice, rabbits, and dogs. Six studies investigated health-related outcomes of A1- vs. A2 milk, while most studies (n = 36) reported on physiological properties (e.g., analgesic effect) of BCM-7 as an opioid peptide. Included studies were extremely heterogeneous in terms of the study population, type of intervention and dose, and type of outcome measures. Conclusions: Only a few studies comparing the effects of A1- and A2 milk were identified. More studies addressing this research question in animal models are needed to provide essential information to inform research gaps. Results from future studies could eventually complement research for humans, particularly when the body of evidence remains uncertain as is the case in the A1- and A2 milk debate.