Browsing by Author "Erickson, Jacob L."
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Adverse Events Reported to the United States Food and Drug Administration Related to Caffeine-Containing Products(2020) Jagim, Andrew R.; Harty, Patrick S. (TTU); Fischer, Karen M.; Kerksick, Chad M.; Erickson, Jacob L.Objective: To examine differences in the frequency and severity of federally reported adverse events between caffeine-containing and non–caffeine-containing products while also identifying the category of caffeine-containing products associated with the highest frequency and severity of adverse events. Patients and Methods: All adverse event reports that met specified eligibility criteria and were submitted to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Adverse Event Reporting System between January 1, 2014, and June 29, 2018, were extracted. In this retrospective observational study, the most severe adverse event experienced, an ordinal variable, was categorized into death, life-threatening, hospitalization/disability, and emergency department visit. A nonproportional odds model was used to compare the odds of caffeine-containing products being associated with more severe adverse events relative to a noncaffeine group. The analysis is of data only from those reporting adverse events and may or may not be representative of the entire population exposed to these products, which is not known from the examined data. Results: Energy and preworkout products saw a significant increase in the odds of the adverse event experienced being death rather than the other less severe outcomes relative to the noncaffeinated group. Those products, along with weight loss products, had greater odds of the adverse event being death or life-threatening vs the less severe outcomes relative to the noncaffeinated group. Conclusion: Caffeine-containing products have a greater association with severe adverse events compared with non–caffeine-containing products. Exposure to preworkout and weight loss products had greater odds of being associated with a more serious adverse event relative to noncaffeinated products. Health care practitioners should use these outcomes to better inform and educate patients about the many factors related to caffeine intake and adverse outcomes.Item Prevalence and Amounts of Common Ingredients Found in Energy Drinks and Shots(2022) Jagim, Andrew R.; Harty, Patrick S. (TTU); Barakat, Abdelrahman R.; Erickson, Jacob L.; Carvalho, Victoria; Khurelbaatar, Chinguun; Camic, Clayton L.; Kerksick, Chad M.Background: Energy drinks are one of the most popular packaged beverage products consumed within the United States (US). Energy drinks are considered a functional beverage, a category that also includes sports drinks and nutraceutical beverages. Purpose: The focus of the current study was to examine the nutrition fact panels of the top selling commercially available energy drink and energy shot products within the US to characterize common ingredient profiles to help establish a standard definition and ingredient profile of energy drinks and energy shots for consumers, health care practitioners, and researchers. Methods: The top 75 commercially available energy drinks and shots were identified and compiled from multiple commercial retail websites as of September 2021. For the purpose of this study, an energy drink must have met the following criteria: (A) marketed as an energy drink; (B) purported to improve energy, focus, or alertness; (C) not sold as a dietary supplement (no supplement fact panels); (D) manufactured as a pre-packaged and ready-to-drink beverage; and (E) contains at least three of (1) caffeine, (2) B-vitamins, (3) sugar, (4) taurine, (5) creatine, (6) quercetin, (7) guarana, (8) ginseng, (9) coenzyme Q10, or (10) branched chain amino acids. Energy shots must have met similar criteria to be included: (A) marketed as an energy shot; (B) purported to improve energy, focus, or alertness; (C) sold as a dietary supplement; (D) manufactured as a pre-packaged beverage with a small volume (<3.5 mL); and (E) contains at least three of the ingredients stated above. Results: Twenty energy shots and fifty-five energy drinks were included in this analysis. The number of ingredients per product (mean ± SD) was 18.2 ± 5.7, with 15 products containing proprietary blends with undisclosed ingredient amounts. The relative prevalence and average amounts of the top ingredients were as follows: caffeine (100%; 174.4 ± 81.1 mg), vitamin B6 (72%; 366.9 ± 648.1 percent daily value (%DV)), vitamin B3 (67%; 121.44 ± 69.9% DV), vitamin B12 (67%; 5244.5 ± 10,474.6% DV), vitamin B5 (37.3%; 113.6 ± 76.6% DV), and taurine (37.3%; amounts undisclosed). Conclusions: Our findings suggest a high prevalence of caffeine and B-vitamins in these energy products, with many of the formulations containing well above the recommended daily value of B-vitamins.Item Prevalence of adulteration in dietary supplements and recommendations for safe supplement practices in sport(2023) Jagim, Andrew R.; Harty, Patrick S.; Erickson, Jacob L.; Tinsley, Grant M. (TTU); Garner, Dan; Galpin, Andrew J.The prevalence of dietary supplement use among athletes continues to rise with 60–80% of athletes often reporting current or previous use of dietary supplements. While select dietary ingredients have been shown to improve acute performance and enhance training adaptations over time, it is important to still consider the risk vs. reward for athletes before opting to consume a dietary supplement. Previous work has indicated that certain dietary supplements may pose risks for inadvertent doping, may be susceptible to mislabelling, could be banned by certain governing bodies of sport, or pose health risks for certain populations. The purpose of the current narrative review is to summarize the prevalence of adulteration in dietary sport supplement products, outline the risks of inadvertent doping for athletes, and highlight best practices regarding safe supplementation strategies. Analytical studies have found anywhere from 14 to 50% of samples analyzed from dietary supplement products have tested positive for anabolic agents or other prohibited substances. It is important for the consumer to adhere to safe supplementation strategies, which include following serving size recommendations, cross-referencing ingredient profiles with the list of prohibited substances, choosing quality products that have been verified by a third-party certification program, and being cognizant of consuming multiple dietary supplement products with overlapping ingredient profiles. Once these practices have been considered, it is reasonable for an athlete to utilize dietary supplements as a strategy to optimize performance and health, with a low risk of failing a drug test (adverse analytical finding) and experiencing adverse events.Item Validation of skinfold equations and alternative methods for the determination of fat-free mass in young athletes(2023) Jagim, Andrew R.; Tinsley, Grant M. (TTU); Merfeld, Brandon R.; Ambrosius, Abby; Khurelbaatar, Chinguun; Dodge, Christopher; Carpenter, Makenna; Luedke, Joel; Erickson, Jacob L.; Fields, Jennifer B.; Jones, Margaret T.Intoduction: To cross-validate skinfold (SKF) equations, impedance devices, and air-displacement plethysmography (ADP) for the determination of fat-free mass (FFM). Methods: Male and female youth athletes were evaluated (n = 91[mean ± SD] age: 18.19 ± 2.37 year; height: 172.1 ± 9.8 cm; body mass: 68.9 ± 14.5 kg; BMI: 23.15 ± 3.2 kg m−2; body fat: 19.59 ± 6.9%) using underwater weighing (UWW), ADP, and SKF assessments. A 3-compartment (3C) model (i.e., UWW and total body water) served as the criterion, and alternate body density (Db) estimates from ADP and multiple SKF equations were obtained. Validity metrics were examined to establish each method's performance. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS), and the SKF equations of Devrim-Lanpir, Durnin and Womersley, Jackson and Pollock (7-site), Katch, Loftin, Lohman, Slaughter, and Thorland differed from criterion. Results: For females, Pearson's correlations between the 3C model and alternate methods ranged from 0.51 to 0.92, the Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) ranged from 0.41 to 0.89, with standard error of the estimate (SEE) ranges of 1.9–4.6 kg. For SKF, the Evans 7-site and J&P 3 Site equations performed best with CCC and SEE values of 0.82, 2.01 kg and 0.78, 2.21 kg, respectively. For males, Pearson's correlations between the 3C model and alternate methods ranged from 0.50 to 0.95, CCC ranges of 0.46–0.94, and SEE ranges of 3.3–7.6 kg. For SKF, the Evans 3-site equation performed best with a mean difference of 1.8 (3.56) kg and a CCC of 0.93. Discussion: The Evans 7-site and 3-site SKF equations performed best for female and male athletes, respectively. The field 3C model can provide an alternative measure of FFM when necessary.