Jeffery Oliver

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to examine the growth and tolerance of infants fed infant formulas with a caloric density closer to human milk (HM) supplemented with human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs) and to study uptake of the HMOs. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled, growth and tolerance study was conducted in healthy, singleton infants (birth weight ≥2490 g), who were enrolled by day of life (DOL) 5. Formula-fed infants were randomized to 1 of 3 formulas with a caloric density of 64.3 kcal/dL. Each formula contained galactooligosaccharides, and the 2 experimental formulas contained varying levels (0.2 and 1.0 g/L) of the HMO 2'-fucosyllactose (2'FL). The 3 formula groups were compared with an HM-fed reference group. Infants were exclusively fed either formula (n = 189) or HM (n = 65) from enrollment to 119 DOL. 2'FL was measured in the blood and urine collected from a subset of infants at DOL 42 and 119, and in HM collected from breast-feeding mothers at DOL 42. RESULTS: There were no significant differences among any groups for weight, length, or head circumference growth during the 4-month study period. All of the formulas were well tolerated and comparable for average stool consistency, number of stools per day, and percent of feedings associated with spitting up or vomit. 2'FL was present in the plasma and urine of infants fed 2'FL, and there were no significant differences in 2'FL uptake relative to the concentration fed. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of infants fed 2'FL-fortified formulas with a caloric density similar to HM. Growth and 2'FL uptake were similar to those of HM-fed infants.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests CaHMB may impact muscle mass and/or strength in older adults, yet no long-term studies have compared its effectiveness in sedentary and resistance training conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of 24 weeks of CaHMB supplementation and resistance training (3 d wk(-1)) or CaHMB supplementation only in ≥65 yr old adults. METHODS: This double-blinded, placebo-controlled, trial occurred in two phases under ad libitum conditions. Phase I consisted of two non-exercise groups: (a) placebo and (b) 3 g CaHMB consumed twice daily. Phase II consisted of two resistance exercise groups: (a) placebo and resistance exercise and (b) 3 g CaHMB consumed twice daily and resistance exercise (RE). Strength and functionality were assessed in both phases with isokinetic leg extension and flexion at 60°·s(-1) and 180°·s(-1) (LE60, LF60, LE180, LF180), hand grip strength (HG) and get-up-and-go (GUG). Dual X-Ray Absorptiometry (DXA) was used to measure arm, leg, and total body lean mass (LM) as well as total fat mass (FM). Muscle Quality was measured for arm (MQ(HG)=HG/arm LM) and Leg (MQ60=LE60/leg LM) (MQ180=LE180/leg LM). RESULTS: At 24 weeks of Phase I, change in LE60 (+8.8%) and MQ180 (+20.8%) for CaHMB was significantly (p<0.05) greater than that for placebo group. Additionally, only CaHMB showed significant (p<0.05) improvements in total LM (2.2%), leg LM (2.1%), and LE180 (+17.3%), though no treatment effect was observed. Phase II demonstrated that RE significantly improved total LM (4.3%), LE60 (22.8%), LE180 (21.4%), HG (9.8%), and GUG (10.2%) with no difference between treatment groups. At week 24, only CaHMB group significantly improved FM (-3.8%) and MQHG (7.3%); however there was no treatment main effect for these variables. CONCLUSION: CaHMB improved strength and MQ without RE. Further, RE is an effective intervention for improving all measures of body composition and functionality.