Variations in nutritional profile of honey produced by various species of genus Apis / Variações no perfil nutricional do mel produzido por várias espécies do gênero Apis

The medicinal attributes of honey appears to overshadow its importance as a functional food. Consequently, several literatures are rife with ancient uses of honey as complementary and alternative medicine, with relevance to modern day health care, supported by evidence-based clinical data, with little attention given to honey’s nutritional functions. The moisture contents of honey extracted from University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore honey bee farm was 12.19% while that of natural source was 9.03 ± 1.63%. Similarly, ash and protein contents of farmed honey recorded were 0.37% and 5.22%, respectively. Whereas ash and protein contents of natural honey were 1.70 ± 1.98% and 6.10 ± 0.79%. Likewise fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of farmed source documented were 0.14%, 1.99% and 62.26% respectively. Although fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of honey taken from natural resource were 0.54 ± 0.28%, 2.76 ± 1.07% and 55.32 ± 2.91% respectively. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Similarly, sucrose and maltose contents of farmed honey were 2.5% and 12% while in natural honey were 1.35 ± 0.49% and 8.00 ± 1.41% respectively. The present study indicates that such as moisture, carbohydrates, sucrose and maltose contents were higher farmed honey as compared to the natural honey. In our recommendation natural honey is better than farmed honey.

Os atributos medicinais do mel parecem ofuscar sua importância como alimento funcional. Consequentemente, várias literaturas estão repletas de usos antigos do mel como medicina complementar e alternativa, com relevância para os cuidados de saúde modernos, apoiados por dados clínicos baseados em evidências, com pouca atenção dada às funções nutricionais do mel. O teor de umidade do mel extraído da Universidade de Veterinária e Ciências Animais, fazenda de abelhas de Lahore, foi de 12,19%, enquanto o de fonte natural foi de 9,03 ± 1,63%. Da mesma forma, os teores de cinzas e proteínas do mel cultivado foram de 0,37% e 5,22%, respectivamente. Já os teores de cinzas e proteínas do mel natural foram de 1,70 ± 1,98% e 6,10 ± 0,79%. Da mesma forma, os teores de gordura, fibra dietética e carboidratos de origem cultivada documentados foram de 0,14%, 1,99% e 62,26%, respectivamente. Embora os teores de gordura, fibra alimentar e carboidratos do mel retirado dos recursos naturais fossem de 0,54 ± 0,28%, 2,76 ± 1,07% e 55,32 ± 2,91%, respectivamente. Os conteúdos de glicose e frutose do mel retirado da fazenda de abelhas foram de 27% e 34%, mas a fonte natural foi de 22,50 ± 2,12% e 28,50 ± 3,54%. Os conteúdos de glicose e frutose do mel retirado da fazenda de abelhas foram de 27% e 34%, mas a fonte natural foi de 22,50 ± 2,12% e 28,50 ± 3,54%. Da mesma forma, os teores de sacarose e maltose no mel cultivado foram de 2,5% e 12%, enquanto no mel natural foram de 1,35 ± 0,49% e 8,00 ± 1,41%, respectivamente. O presente estudo indica que os teores de umidade, carboidratos, sacarose e maltose foram maiores no mel cultivado em comparação ao mel natural. Em nossa recomendação, o mel natural é melhor que o mel de cultivo.

Variations in nutritional profile of honey produced by various species of genus Apis

Abstract The medicinal attributes of honey appears to overshadow its importance as a functional food. Consequently, several literatures are rife with ancient uses of honey as complementary and alternative medicine, with relevance to modern day health care, supported by evidence-based clinical data, with little attention given to honeys nutritional functions. The moisture contents of honey extracted from University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore honey bee farm was 12.19% while that of natural source was 9.03 ± 1.63%. Similarly, ash and protein contents of farmed honey recorded were 0.37% and 5.22%, respectively. Whereas ash and protein contents of natural honey were 1.70 ± 1.98% and 6.10 ± 0.79%. Likewise fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of farmed source documented were 0.14%, 1.99% and 62.26% respectively. Although fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of honey taken from natural resource were 0.54 ± 0.28%, 2.76 ± 1.07% and 55.32 ± 2.91% respectively. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Similarly, sucrose and maltose contents of farmed honey were 2.5% and 12% while in natural honey were 1.35 ± 0.49% and 8.00 ± 1.41% respectively. The present study indicates that such as moisture, carbohydrates, sucrose and maltose contents were higher farmed honey as compared to the natural honey. In our recommendation natural honey is better than farmed honey.

Resumo Os atributos medicinais do mel parecem ofuscar sua importância como alimento funcional. Consequentemente, várias literaturas estão repletas de usos antigos do mel como medicina complementar e alternativa, com relevância para os cuidados de saúde modernos, apoiados por dados clínicos baseados em evidências, com pouca atenção dada às funções nutricionais do mel. O teor de umidade do mel extraído da Universidade de Veterinária e Ciências Animais, fazenda de abelhas de Lahore, foi de 12,19%, enquanto o de fonte natural foi de 9,03 ± 1,63%. Da mesma forma, os teores de cinzas e proteínas do mel cultivado foram de 0,37% e 5,22%, respectivamente. Já os teores de cinzas e proteínas do mel natural foram de 1,70 ± 1,98% e 6,10 ± 0,79%. Da mesma forma, os teores de gordura, fibra dietética e carboidratos de origem cultivada documentados foram de 0,14%, 1,99% e 62,26%, respectivamente. Embora os teores de gordura, fibra alimentar e carboidratos do mel retirado dos recursos naturais fossem de 0,54 ± 0,28%, 2,76 ± 1,07% e 55,32 ± 2,91%, respectivamente. Os conteúdos de glicose e frutose do mel retirado da fazenda de abelhas foram de 27% e 34%, mas a fonte natural foi de 22,50 ± 2,12% e 28,50 ± 3,54%. Os conteúdos de glicose e frutose do mel retirado da fazenda de abelhas foram de 27% e 34%, mas a fonte natural foi de 22,50 ± 2,12% e 28,50 ± 3,54%. Da mesma forma, os teores de sacarose e maltose no mel cultivado foram de 2,5% e 12%, enquanto no mel natural foram de 1,35 ± 0,49% e 8,00 ± 1,41%, respectivamente. O presente estudo indica que os teores de umidade, carboidratos, sacarose e maltose foram maiores no mel cultivado em comparação ao mel natural. Em nossa recomendação, o mel natural é melhor que o mel de cultivo.

Variations in nutritional profile of honey produced by various species of genus Apis / Variações no perfil nutricional do mel produzido por várias espécies do gênero Apis

Abstract The medicinal attributes of honey appears to overshadow its importance as a functional food. Consequently, several literatures are rife with ancient uses of honey as complementary and alternative medicine, with relevance to modern day health care, supported by evidence-based clinical data, with little attention given to honey's nutritional functions. The moisture contents of honey extracted from University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore honey bee farm was 12.19% while that of natural source was 9.03 ± 1.63%. Similarly, ash and protein contents of farmed honey recorded were 0.37% and 5.22%, respectively. Whereas ash and protein contents of natural honey were 1.70 ± 1.98% and 6.10 ± 0.79%. Likewise fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of farmed source documented were 0.14%, 1.99% and 62.26% respectively. Although fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of honey taken from natural resource were 0.54 ± 0.28%, 2.76 ± 1.07% and 55.32 ± 2.91% respectively. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Similarly, sucrose and maltose contents of farmed honey were 2.5% and 12% while in natural honey were 1.35 ± 0.49% and 8.00 ± 1.41% respectively. The present study indicates that such as moisture, carbohydrates, sucrose and maltose contents were higher farmed honey as compared to the natural honey. In our recommendation natural honey is better than farmed honey.

Resumo Os atributos medicinais do mel parecem ofuscar sua importância como alimento funcional. Consequentemente, várias literaturas estão repletas de usos antigos do mel como medicina complementar e alternativa, com relevância para os cuidados de saúde modernos, apoiados por dados clínicos baseados em evidências, com pouca atenção dada às funções nutricionais do mel. O teor de umidade do mel extraído da Universidade de Veterinária e Ciências Animais, fazenda de abelhas de Lahore, foi de 12,19%, enquanto o de fonte natural foi de 9,03 ± 1,63%. Da mesma forma, os teores de cinzas e proteínas do mel cultivado foram de 0,37% e 5,22%, respectivamente. Já os teores de cinzas e proteínas do mel natural foram de 1,70 ± 1,98% e 6,10 ± 0,79%. Da mesma forma, os teores de gordura, fibra dietética e carboidratos de origem cultivada documentados foram de 0,14%, 1,99% e 62,26%, respectivamente. Embora os teores de gordura, fibra alimentar e carboidratos do mel retirado dos recursos naturais fossem de 0,54 ± 0,28%, 2,76 ± 1,07% e 55,32 ± 2,91%, respectivamente. Os conteúdos de glicose e frutose do mel retirado da fazenda de abelhas foram de 27% e 34%, mas a fonte natural foi de 22,50 ± 2,12% e 28,50 ± 3,54%. Os conteúdos de glicose e frutose do mel retirado da fazenda de abelhas foram de 27% e 34%, mas a fonte natural foi de 22,50 ± 2,12% e 28,50 ± 3,54%. Da mesma forma, os teores de sacarose e maltose no mel cultivado foram de 2,5% e 12%, enquanto no mel natural foram de 1,35 ± 0,49% e 8,00 ± 1,41%, respectivamente. O presente estudo indica que os teores de umidade, carboidratos, sacarose e maltose foram maiores no mel cultivado em comparação ao mel natural. Em nossa recomendação, o mel natural é melhor que o mel de cultivo.

The impact of preoperative oral nutrition supplementation on outcomes in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery for cancer in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Malnutrition is an independent predictor for postoperative complications in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We systematically reviewed evidence on the impact of preoperative oral nutrition supplementation (ONS) on patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery in LMICs. We searched EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, WHO Global Index Medicus, SciELO, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) databases from inception to March 21, 2022 for randomised controlled trials evaluating preoperative ONS in gastrointestinal cancer within LMICs. We evaluated the impact of ONS on all postoperative outcomes using random-effects meta-analysis. Seven studies reported on 891 patients (446 ONS group, 445 control group) undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. Preoperative ONS reduced all cause postoperative surgical complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.46-0.60, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%, n = 891), infection (0.52, 0.40-0.67, P = 0.008, I2 = 0%, n = 570) and all-cause mortality (0.35, 0.26-0.47, P = 0.014, I2 = 0%, n = 588). Despite heterogeneous populations and baseline rates, absolute risk ratio (ARR) was reduced for all cause (pooled effect -0.14, -0.22 to -0.06, P = 0.006; number needed to treat (NNT) 7) and infectious complications (-0.13, -0.22 to -0.06, P < 0.001; NNT 8). Preoperative nutrition in patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery in LMICs demonstrated consistently strong and robust treatment effects across measured outcomes. However additional higher quality research, with particular focus within African populations, are urgently required.

Variations in nutritional profile of honey produced by various species of genus Apis.

The medicinal attributes of honey appears to overshadow its importance as a functional food. Consequently, several literatures are rife with ancient uses of honey as complementary and alternative medicine, with relevance to modern day health care, supported by evidence-based clinical data, with little attention given to honey's nutritional functions. The moisture contents of honey extracted from University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore honey bee farm was 12.19% while that of natural source was 9.03 ± 1.63%. Similarly, ash and protein contents of farmed honey recorded were 0.37% and 5.22%, respectively. Whereas ash and protein contents of natural honey were 1.70 ± 1.98% and 6.10 ± 0.79%. Likewise fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of farmed source documented were 0.14%, 1.99% and 62.26% respectively. Although fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of honey taken from natural resource were 0.54 ± 0.28%, 2.76 ± 1.07% and 55.32 ± 2.91% respectively. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Similarly, sucrose and maltose contents of farmed honey were 2.5% and 12% while in natural honey were 1.35 ± 0.49% and 8.00 ± 1.41% respectively. The present study indicates that such as moisture, carbohydrates, sucrose and maltose contents were higher farmed honey as compared to the natural honey. In our recommendation natural honey is better than farmed honey.

Endocrine and metabolic indices during progestin (quingestanol) therapy.

Quingestanol at 300 y/day was well tolerated during 1 to 12 months of therapy of pre-menopausal and menopausal women with minimal changes, if any, in a battery of routine endocrine and metabolic indices. Serum inorganic phosphorus levels were slightly above the pre-therapy range but still within normal limits during the 12 months of treatment and the mean relative blood volume or hematocrit during the latter 6 months was slightly above the starting value.