↓ Skip to main content

Methylxanthines enhance the effects of cocoa flavanols on cardiovascular function: randomized, double-masked controlled studies 1

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Methylxanthines enhance the effects of cocoa flavanols on cardiovascular function: randomized, double-masked controlled studies 1
Published in
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, December 2016
DOI 10.3945/ajcn.116.140046
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Cocoa flavanol intake, especially that of (-)-epicatechin, has been linked to beneficial effects on human cardiovascular function. However, cocoa also contains the methylxanthines theobromine and caffeine, which may also affect vascular function. We sought to determine whether an interaction between cocoa flavanols and methylxanthines exists that influences cocoa flavanol-dependent vascular effects. Test drinks that contained various amounts of cocoa flavanols (0-820 mg) and methylxanthines (0-220 mg), either together or individually, were consumed by healthy volunteers (n = 47) in 4 different clinical studies-3 with a randomized, double-masked crossover design and 1 with 4 parallel crossover studies. Vascular status was assessed by measuring flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD), brachial pulse wave velocity (bPWV), circulating angiogenic cells (CACs), and blood pressure before and 2 h after the ingestion of test drinks. Although cocoa flavanol intake increased FMD 2 h after intake, the consumption of cocoa flavanols with methylxanthines resulted in a greater enhancement of FMD. Methylxanthine intake alone did not result in statistically significant changes in FMD. Cocoa flavanol ingestion alone decreased bPWV and diastolic blood pressure and increased CACs. Each of these changes was more pronounced when cocoa flavanols and methylxanthines were ingested together. It is important to note that the area under the curve of the plasma concentration of (-)-epicatechin metabolites over time was higher after the co-ingestion of cocoa flavanols and methylxanthines than after the intake of cocoa flavanols alone. Similar results were obtained when pure (-)-epicatechin and the methylxanthines theobromine and caffeine were consumed together. A substantial interaction between cocoa flavanols and methylxanthines exists at the level of absorption, in which the methylxanthines mediate an increased plasma concentration of (-)-epicatechin metabolites that coincides with enhanced vascular effects commonly ascribed to cocoa flavanol intake. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02149238.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 155 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Student > Master 17 11%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 6%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 62 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Chemistry 7 5%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 71 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 December 2025.
All research outputs
#4,540,983
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#5,919
of 15,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,645
of 460,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#47
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,377 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 460,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.