Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-30T21:11:35.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Betaine supplementation fails to improve body composition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2021

Damoon Ashtary-Larky
Affiliation:
Nutrition and Metabolic Diseases Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
Reza Bagheri*
Affiliation:
Department of Exercise Physiology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Grant M. Tinsley
Affiliation:
Department of Kinesiology & Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX79409, USA
Omid Asbaghi
Affiliation:
Cancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Sara Salehpour
Affiliation:
Department of Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Islamic Azad University, Shahreza Branch, Shahreza, Iran
Sara Kashkooli
Affiliation:
Student Research Committee, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad, Iran
Wesam Kooti
Affiliation:
Lung Diseases & Allergy Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran
Alexei Wong
Affiliation:
Department of Health and Human Performance, Marymount University, Arlington, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Reza Bagheri, email will.fivb@yahoo.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous studies evaluating the effects of betaine supplementation on body composition offer contradictory findings. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effects of betaine supplementation on body composition indices (body mass (BM), BMI, body fat percentage (BFP), fat mass (FM), fat-free mass (FFM)), and dietary intakes. Studies examining the effects of betaine supplementation on body composition and dietary intakes published up to August 2021 were identified through PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, SCOPUS and Ovid databases. Betaine supplementation failed to significantly affect BM ((weighted mean difference (WMD): −0·40 kg, 95 % CI −1·46, 0·64), P = 0·447), BMI ((WMD: −0·05 kg/m2, 95 % CI −0·36, 0·25), P = 0·719), BFP ((WMD: 0·26 %, 95 % CI −0·82, 1·36), P = 0·663), FM ((WMD: −0·57 kg, 95 % CI −2·14, 0·99), P = 0·473) and FFM ((WMD: 0·61 kg, 95 % CI −1·27, 2·49), P = 0·527). Subgroup analyses based on participant’s age (< 40 and > 40 years), sex, BMI, trial duration (< 8 and ≥ 8 weeks), betaine supplementation dosage (< 4 and ≥ 4 g) and health status (healthy or unhealthy) demonstrated similar results. Other than a potential negligible increase in protein intake (WMD: 3·56 g, 95 % CI 0·24, 6·88, P = 0·035), no changes in dietary intakes were observed following betaine supplementation compared with control. The present systematic review and meta-analysis does not show any beneficial effects of betaine supplementation on body composition indices (BM, BMI, FM and FFM).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

Betaine is a non-toxic and chemically stable compound that is extensively distributed in nature(Reference Zhao, He and Wu1). It was initially identified in the juice of sugar beets (B. Vulgaris) and has subsequently been observed in other organisms(Reference Lee, An and Nguyen2). Foods containing betaine include wheat products, spinach, beets and liver, among others(Reference Zeisel, Mar and Howe3). However, the precise amount of dietary betaine depends both on the food source and cooking method(Reference Zeisel, Mar and Howe3). Dietary betaine intake influences betaine content in kidneys, liver and brain which seem to be the primary destinations of ingested betaine(Reference Craig4). Intakes of 9–15 g of betaine appear to be safe in humans(Reference Craig4). Besides dietary intake, betaine can be made from choline in the human body(Reference Ashtary-Larky, Bagheri and Ghanavati5). Previous studies indicate that betaine supplementation may improve cardiovascular risk and inflammatory status(Reference Ashtary-Larky, Bagheri and Ghanavati5,Reference Wu, He and Bu6) .

While ‘betaine’ technically refers to a class of related molecules, the term is most commonly used to describe a glycine molecule with three additional methyl groups, termed trimethylglycine(Reference Craig4). Reports have shown that both choline and betaine supplements can combat obesity in animals, including rats(Reference Ge, Yu and Xu7), pigs(Reference Daily, Hongu and Mynatt8,Reference Virtanen and Campbell9) and chickens(Reference Simon10). Moreover, human studies have reported that higher betaine concentration is related to lower BMI, body fat percentage (BFP) and waist circumference(Reference Lever, George and Atkinson11Reference Chen, Liu and Liu13). Recently, a meta-analysis of six randomised controlled trials (RCT) by Gao et al. has shown that betaine supplementation significantly reduced fat mass (FM) and BFP without affecting body mass (BM) and BMI(Reference Gao, Zhang and Guo14). However, the previous meta-analysis(Reference Gao, Zhang and Guo14) failed to include two RCT that did not show any significant changes in FM and/or BFP following betaine supplementation(Reference Del Favero, Roschel and Artioli15,Reference Rajdl, Racek and Trefil16) . Moreover, a recently published study failed to show any beneficial effects of betaine supplementation on BFP(Reference Moro, Badiali and Fabbri17). Therefore, the previous meta-analytic findings did not fully reflect the documented effects of betaine supplementation on body composition. As a result, there is no clear consensus regarding the overall utility of betaine supplementation for body composition changes.

Dietary changes have typically been considered the primary component for improving body composition in obesity management(Reference Ashtary-Larky, Ghanavati and Lamuchi-Deli18). Numerous studies have shown that alteration in dietary intake (carbohydrate, protein, fat and total energy) can result in body composition alterations(Reference Ashtary Larky, Bagheri and Abbasnezhad19Reference Layman, Evans and Erickson22). Since the existing literature offers contradictory findings of the effects of betaine supplementation on body composition, it seems necessary to evaluate whether differences in dietary intake concurrent with betaine supplementation could have influenced these findings. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the pooled data from RCT in adult humans to compare the efficacy of betaine supplementation for altering body composition indices (BM, BMI, FM, BFP and fat-free mass (FFM)) and influencing dietary intake (carbohydrate, protein, fat and total energy).

Experimental methods

The present systematic review and meta-analysis is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement guidelines(Reference Moher, Liberati and Tetzlaff23).

Data sources and search strategies

A comprehensive literature search of five databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase and SCOPUS, was performed using the related terms ‘betaine’, ‘betaine supplementation’ and ‘trimethylglycine’, in combination with the keywords ‘body composition’, ‘anthropometry’, ‘weight’, ‘body mass’, ‘fat mass’, ‘body fat percentage’, ‘waist circumference’, ‘hip circumference’, ‘fat-free mass’, ‘lean body mass’, ‘lean mass’, ‘body mass index’, ‘BMI’, ‘weight loss’, ‘fat loss’, dietary intake’, ‘intake’, ‘diet’, ‘carbohydrate’, ‘fat’, ‘protein’, ‘calorie’, ‘energy’, to identify studies published until 18 December 2020. The process of the search strategy is shown in the flow diagram (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the literature search.

Study selection and eligibility criteria

Two investigators (DAL and SK) selected eligible studies separately by reading the full-text versions of them. All human RCT, either parallel or crossover designs, which reported the effect of betaine supplementation on body composition indices including BM, BMI, FM, BFP, FFM and dietary intake (carbohydrate, protein, fat and total energy) on adults (> 18 years) and published in the English language were considered. The following studies were excluded: (1) RCT with follow-up period < 10 d, (2) studies without a control/placebo arm. When resolution could not be obtained, a third author (RB) was involved by consensus. The participants, intervention, comparators, outcomes and study design criteria are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Participants, intervention, comparators, outcomes, study design (PICOS) criteria for inclusion of studies

RCT, randomised controlled trials.

Data extraction

The following data were extracted from the full-text versions of eligible studies using a pre-designed abstraction form: first author, year of publication, country, number of participants, study design, the dose of interventions and study duration. In cases of lack of relevant data, the authors were contacted via email to obtain additional information. Two investigators (DAL and SS) carried out the process of data extraction from the original publications independently in order to minimise potential errors. When resolution could not be obtained, a third author (RB) was involved by consensus.

Quality assessment of studies

The quality of studies for assessing the risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool as previously described(Reference Higgins, Altman and Gøtzsche24). Briefly, nine items were scored, and these items were divided into six domains of bias with three rating categories available for each item: (1) low risk of bias; (2) unclear risk of bias and (3) high risk of bias. The quality of each selected article was assessed by two authors (DAL and WK). When resolution could not be obtained, a third author (OA) was involved by consensus (Table 2).

Table 2. Quality assessment (method: Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias)

L, low; U, unclear; H, high.

Meta-analysis of data

To analyse the effect size for BM, BMI, FM, BFP, FFM, dietary carbohydrate, protein, fat and total energy, the mean change and its sd were extracted for intervention and control groups, the latter of which served as the comparison group. To calculate the effect size of each study, we used the mean change and sd of the outcome measures from baseline to the end of the intervention in the control and intervention groups(Reference Higgins, Thomas and Chandler25). When the outcome measure was reported as mean and 95 % CI or mean and sem, values were estimated using Review Manager 5·3 software. If the outcome measures were reported in median, range, or 25th–75th percentiles, mean and sd values were estimated using the following formula:

$$SD = \sqrt {\matrix{ {({{(SD\;pretreatment)}^2} + {{(SD\;posttreatment)}^2}} \hfill \cr { - (2R \times SD\;pretreatment \times SD\;posttreatment))} \hfill \cr } } $$

published by Wan et al., where R = 0.8 was assumed as a correlation coefficient(Reference Wan, Wang and Liu26). If the outcome measures were only reported in figures, we used software (GetData Graph Digitizer) to estimate the value. When an sem or se was reported instead of sd, the sd was calculated based on the following formula: sd = sem × √n (n = sample size in each group).

A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95 %CI. Between-study heterogeneity was tested by Cochran’s Q test and quantified by I2 statistics. A subgroup analysis based on BMI ((18·5; 24·9 kg/m2), (25; 29·9 kg/m2), or ≥ 30 kg/m2), duration of the study (< 8 or ≥ 8 weeks), the intervention dose (> 4 g or ≤ 4 g/d) and health status (healthy or unhealthy) was conducted to detect potential sources of heterogeneity. Participants with any chronic disease such as diabetes and prediabetes, fatty liver disease, and obesity were considered as unhealthy in health status subgroup(Reference Ashtary-Larky, Kashkooli and Bagheri27,Reference Upadhyay, Farr and Perakakis28) . Moreover, studies which stated their participants as healthy and/or excluded the participants with any diseases were considered as healthy in the subgroup. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by removing each study one by one and recalculating the pooled evaluations. Egger’s regression asymmetry test and visual inspection of funnel plots were performed to detect potential publication bias. Statistical analysis was conducted using STATA, version 11·2 (Stata Corp). The statistically significant value was set at P < 0·05.

Results

Selection and identification of studies

Out of the initial 2575 potentially relevant reports that were obtained by searching the databases, 774 were immediately excluded due to duplication. In addition, we further excluded 1781 studies since they were unrelated to the present meta-analysis (according to our inclusion criteria). From these, 1265 studies did not use betaine supplementation, 482 were conducted on animals, and 34 were review studies. After full-text analysis of the remaining twenty articles, nine studies(Reference Bloomer, Farney and Trepanowski29Reference Armstrong, Casa and Roti37) were excluded, since they did not evaluate body composition and/or dietary intake following betaine supplementation. Furthermore, one investigation was detected via manual search(Reference Tiihonen, Saarinen and Alhoniemi38) (by searching the references of relevant studies). In total, twelve studies were included in the final analysis(Reference Del Favero, Roschel and Artioli15Reference Moro, Badiali and Fabbri17,Reference Tiihonen, Saarinen and Alhoniemi38Reference Grizales, Patti and Lin46) .

Characteristics of studies

According to Cochrane scores, eleven from twelve included studies were classified as high-quality studies (score ≥ 3), and one was classified as low quality (score < 3). The result of the quality assessment is reported in Table 2. Overall, 12 RCT with 13 treatment and 13 control arms were included in the analysis, with a total sample size of 369 participants, out of which 199 participants were in the betaine group/condition and 195 belonged to the control group/condition. The discrepancy between total participants and participants in each group/condition is due to the inclusion of two crossover studies(Reference Lee, Maresh and Kraemer41,Reference Trepanowski, Farney and Mccarthy43) . The mean age of participants in these studies ranged from 21 to 59 years. These studies were published between the years 2002 and 2020. The studies were conducted in Finland(Reference Schwab, Törrönen and Toppinen39,Reference Schwab, Alfthan and Aro42) , USA(Reference Abdelmalek, Sanderson and Angulo40,Reference Lee, Maresh and Kraemer41,Reference Trepanowski, Farney and Mccarthy43Reference Grizales, Patti and Lin46) , Brazil(Reference Del Favero, Roschel and Artioli15), Japan(Reference Tiihonen, Saarinen and Alhoniemi38), Czech Republic(Reference Rajdl, Racek and Trefil16) and Italy(Reference Moro, Badiali and Fabbri17). A daily dose of betaine ranged from 1·5 to 20 g/d. The trial duration also varied from 2 to 52 weeks. Study participants included patients with prediabetes(Reference Grizales, Patti and Lin46), fatty liver disease(Reference Tiihonen, Saarinen and Alhoniemi38,Reference Abdelmalek, Sanderson and Angulo40) , obesity(Reference Schwab, Törrönen and Toppinen39) and healthy individuals(Reference Del Favero, Roschel and Artioli15Reference Moro, Badiali and Fabbri17,Reference Lee, Maresh and Kraemer41Reference Cholewa, Hudson and Cicholski45) . The characteristics of twelve studies eligible for inclusion in the present meta-analysis are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. The characteristics of the included trials

BM, body mass; BFP, body fat percentage; FM, fat mass; FFM, fat-free mass; ND, non-defined; ↔, unchanged, ↓, decreased; ↑, increased.

Meta-analysis of data

Effects of betaine supplementation on body mass and BMI

Pooled analysis of nine and five effect sizes indicated that the participants assigned to betaine supplementation did not change BM (WMD: −0·40 kg, 95 % CI −1·46, 0·64, I2 = 0·0 %, P = 0·447) or BMI (WMD: −0·05 kg/m2, 95 % CI −0·36, 0·25, I2 = 0·0 %, P = 0·719) in comparison with placebo (Fig. 2(a): BM and Fig. 2(b): BMI). Subgroup analysis showed that betaine supplementation in different doses (≥ 4 or < 4 g), participant’s age (< 40 and ≥ 40 years), sex (male, female and both sexes) and trial duration (≥ 8 or < 8 weeks) did not have significant effects on BM or BMI (Table 4).

Fig. 2. Forest plot of the random effects meta-analysis of the effect of betaine supplementation on (a) BM and (b) BMI. BM, body mass. WMD, weighted mean difference.

Table 4. Subgroup analysis of betaine supplementation on body composition

WMD, weighted mean differences; BM, body mass; BFP, body fat percentage; FM, fat mass; FFM, fat-free mass.

Effects of betaine supplementation on body fat percentage and fat mass

Overall, seven arms indicated the effects of betaine supplementation on BFP. Our results showed that betaine supplementation did not affect BFP (WMD: 0·26 %, 95 % CI −0·82, 1·36, I2 = 0·0 %, P = 0·633) in comparison with control (Fig. 3(a)). Moreover, from five arm assessed, betaine supplementation failed to change FM (WMD: −0·57 kg, 95 % CI −2·14, 0·99, I2 = 0·0 %, P = 0·473) (Fig. 3(b)). Subgroup analysis showed that betaine supplementation in different doses (≥ 4 or < 4 g), participant’s age (< 40 and ≥ 40 years), sex (male, female and both sexes), trial duration (≥ 8 or < 8 weeks) and health status (healthy or unhealthy) did not have significant effects on BFP or FM (Table 4).

Fig. 3. Forest plot of the random effects meta-analysis of the effect of betaine supplementation on (a) BFP and (b) FM. BFP, body fat percentage; FM, fat mass. WMD, weighted mean difference.

Effects of betaine supplementation on fat-free mass

In total, five studies evaluated the effects of betaine supplementation on FMM. Forest plots summarising the efficacy of betaine supplementation on FFM are shown in Fig. 4. The individuals supplemented with betaine were shown insignificant changes of FFM ((WMD: 0·61 kg, 95 % CI −1·27, 2·49, I2 = 0·0 %, P = 0·527), Fig. 4)). Subgroup analysis showed that betaine supplementation in different doses (≥ 4 or < 4 g), participant’s age (< 40 and ≥ 40 years), sex (male, female and both sexes), trial duration (≥ 8 or < 8 weeks) and health status (healthy or unhealthy) did not significantly affect FFM (Table 4).

Fig. 4. Forest plot detailing weighted mean difference and 95 % CI for the effect of betaine supplementation on FFM. FFM, fat-free mass. WMD, weighted mean difference.

Effects of betaine supplementation on dietary intakes

In total, six studies evaluated dietary intakes following betaine supplementation. There was no significant difference in energy intake between the groups (WMD: 107·61 kJ, 95 % CI –72·12, 123·57, I2 = 2·9 %, P = 0·606) (Fig. 5(d)). Moreover, pooled analysis of six effect sizes demonstrated that dietary protein intake may have marginally increased with betaine supplementation as compared with control ((WMD: 3·56 g, 95 % CI 0·24, 6·88, I2 = 6·5 %, P = 0·035), Fig. 5(c))) without differences for dietary carbohydrate ((WMD: –1·85 g, 95 % CI –9·45, 5·75, I2 = 0·0 %, P = 0·633), Fig. 5(a))) and fat intake ((WMD: 2·71 g, 95 % CI –0·24, 5·66, I2 = 30·5 %, P = 0·072), Fig. 5(b))).

Fig. 5. Forest plot of the random effects meta-analysis of the effect of betaine supplementation on (a) dietary carbohydrate intake, (b) dietary fat intake, (c) dietary protein intake and (d) dietary energy intake. WMD, weighted mean difference.

Sensitivity analysis

The sensitivity analysis showed that results for each variable were not substantially changed after excluding each study individually.

Publication bias

The results of Egger’s test revealed that with the exception of BFP (P = 0·009), there was no publication bias for outcome variables (BM, P = 0·809; BMI, P = 0·302; FM, P = 0·351; FFM, P = 0·161; carbohydrate, P = 0·733; fat, P = 0·400; protein, P = 0·657; and energy, P = 0·687). Funnel plots for outcome variables are presented in Supplementary file 1. Due to significant publication bias for BFP, we conducted trim and fill analysis, and the results of the analysis showed that with the publication of seven new studies, the results of the publication bias would be non-significant. However, the estimated effects of betaine supplementation on BFP did not significantly change (WMD: 0·26 %, 95 %CI −0·82, 1·36, P = 0·633).

Discussion

In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the effects of betaine supplementation on body composition indices. According to the results derived from this study, betaine supplementation failed to affect body composition indices, including BM, BMI, FM, BFP and FFM. Moreover, our findings showed that those who supplemented with betaine potentially had a slightly increased dietary protein intake, although the magnitude of the difference is negligible. Furthermore, subgroup analyses based on the duration of interventions (≤ 8 and > 8 weeks), participant’s age (< 40 and ≥ 40 years), sex (male, female and both sexes), betaine dose (< 4 and ≥ 4 g/d), baseline BMI ((18·5; 24·9 kg/m2), (25; 29·9 kg/m2) or ≥ 30 kg/m2) and health status (healthy or unhealthy) did not reveal any significant differences.

Prior meta-analytic work of six RCT by Gao et al. evaluated the effects of betaine supplementation on body composition(Reference Gao, Zhang and Guo14). They have shown that betaine supplementation significantly reduced FM and BFP without affecting BM and BMI(Reference Gao, Zhang and Guo14). The present findings exhibit some discrepancies with the results of the study by Gao et al., who provided new knowledge on several relevant topics. First, Gao et al. included only four studies for assessing the effects of betaine supplementation on FM and BFP while we included five and seven trials, respectively. The lower number of included studies in the previous meta-analysis resulted in one study(Reference Cholewa, Wyszczelska-Rokiel and Glowacki44) having relatively high weight in the analysis (68·83 % and 68·44 % for FM and BFP, respectively), which might have influenced the trend of the pooled effects of betaine supplementation on body fat. Second, some aspects of the meta-analytical methods may have differed between investigations. For example, Gao et al. reported a much narrower 95 % CI for the study of Cholewa et al. (Reference Cholewa, Wyszczelska-Rokiel and Glowacki44) in terms of FM reduction (–4·96 kg, –1·44 kg) as compared with the CI calculated in the present investigation (–7·31 kg, 0·91 kg). This is notable as this was the same investigation that had a very high weight (68·83 %) in the previous meta-analysis study. Third, Gao et al. (Reference Gao, Zhang and Guo14) did not evaluate the influence of betaine supplementation on FFM, while we showed that betaine supplementation was unable to induce any significant changes in FFM. Fourth, due to the limited trials in the previous study, subgroup analysis was not performed. However, we showed the effects of betaine supplementation in different subgroups based on duration, dosage and baseline BMI. Fifth, we analysed dietary intake to determine if there were any significant changes following betaine supplementation. Therefore, the inclusion of seven additional studies, increasing the sample size by 89 % in the current analysis, has a substantial influence on the available evidence. In contrast with the previous meta-analysis(Reference Gao, Zhang and Guo14), our findings suggest that betaine supplementation does not improve body composition indices.

In healthy adults, serum betaine concentration is normally between 20 and 60 μmol/l(Reference Lever, Sizeland and Bason47). From all included studies, the two studies by Cholewa et al. (Reference Cholewa, Wyszczelska-Rokiel and Glowacki44,Reference Cholewa, Hudson and Cicholski45) reported significant body fat-lowering effects of betaine supplementation; however, betaine concentration was not measured in these investigations. Nevertheless, based on the other included studies reporting serum concentration of betaine(Reference Rajdl, Racek and Trefil16,Reference Tiihonen, Saarinen and Alhoniemi38,Reference Schwab, Törrönen and Toppinen39,Reference Schwab, Alfthan and Aro42,Reference Grizales, Patti and Lin46) , it seems that all participants had normal or nearly normal betaine concentration. Moreover, these investigations failed to show any significant difference in body composition indices(Reference Rajdl, Racek and Trefil16,Reference Tiihonen, Saarinen and Alhoniemi38,Reference Schwab, Törrönen and Toppinen39,Reference Schwab, Alfthan and Aro42,Reference Grizales, Patti and Lin46) . These results suggest that at least when betaine concentration is normal or near-normal, betaine supplementation may not affect body composition indices. To reveal the extent to which the effects of betaine supplementation are dependent on baseline concentration, studies could be conducted in individuals with varying serum concentration of betaine.

Betaine is a commonly used additive in the animal’s diet. Some studies showed that betaine is effective in increasing lean mass in pigs(Reference Campbell, Morley and Zabaras-Krick48Reference Cromwell, Lindemann and Randolph50) and chickens(Reference Saunderson and Mackinlay51). The possible mechanism for increasing lean mass in animals is unclear. However, animal studies showed that betaine supplementation may act as a methyl donor in methionine-deficient diets and may result in growth rates comparable to animals fed diets with adequate methionine(Reference Campbell, Cadogan and Morley52Reference Lawrence, Schinckel and Adeola54). For example, a study by Saunderson et al. demonstrated reductions in FM and increased protein content of chicken breast following betaine supplementation(Reference Saunderson and Mackinlay51). However, there is no evidence that betaine supplementation can improve FFM in humans. All studies included in our analysis reported a non-significant change of FFM following betaine supplementation(Reference Del Favero, Roschel and Artioli15,Reference Schwab, Törrönen and Toppinen39,Reference Cholewa, Wyszczelska-Rokiel and Glowacki44,Reference Cholewa, Hudson and Cicholski45) . Therefore, betaine supplementation appears to reduce FM and increase FFM in animals, but the results from our analysis do not support the efficacy of betaine supplementation to alter these indices in humans.

Dietary intake changes are the most important factor affecting the rate of BM and FM alterations(Reference Champagne, Broyles and Moran55). In agreement with the ‘calories in, calories out’ theory, the unchanged energy intake following betaine supplementation corresponded to no changes in BM and BMI. Although protein intake significantly increased following betaine supplementation, the magnitude was very small and not clinically significant. Overall, based on the current evidence, betaine supplementation is not an effective supplement for BM loss(Reference Schwab, Törrönen and Toppinen39,Reference Abdelmalek, Sanderson and Angulo40,Reference Grizales, Patti and Lin46) .

Only three of the included studies were conducted in individuals with overweight and obesity. Further long-term interventional studies, especially in populations with obesity, may be needed to allow for additional evaluation of the influence of betaine supplementation on body composition indices. As mentioned, examining the potential influence of betaine supplementation in those with suboptimal concentration may reveal differential effects as compared with those with normal concentrations.

Betaine supplementation may not be effective for improving BM, BMI, FM, FFM and BFP. Moreover, our findings showed that dietary intake did not meaningfully change following betaine supplementation. Additional longer-term and high-quality studies are needed to further evaluate and confirm these findings.

Acknowledgements

None.

No funding received.

Conceptualisation: R. B. and D. A. L.; methodology: D. A. L., S. S., S. K., W. K. and R. B.; software: O. A.; writing – original draft preparation: R. B. and D. A. L.; writing – review and editing: R. B., D. A. L., G. M. T. and A. W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Zhao, G, He, F, Wu, C, et al. (2018) Betaine in inflammation: mechanistic aspects and applications. Front Immunol 9, 1070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, EJ, An, D, Nguyen, CT, et al. (2014) Betalain and betaine composition of greenhouse-or field-produced beetroot (Beta vulgaris L.) and inhibition of HepG2 cell proliferation. J Agric Food Chem 62, 13241331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeisel, SH, Mar, M-H, Howe, JC, et al. (2003) Concentrations of choline-containing compounds and betaine in common foods. J Nutr 133, 13021307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, SA (2004) Betaine in human nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr 80, 539549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashtary-Larky, D, Bagheri, R, Ghanavati, M, et al. (2021) Effects of betaine supplementation on cardiovascular markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 118.Google ScholarPubMed
Wu, J, He, C, Bu, J, et al. (2020) Betaine attenuates LPS-induced downregulation of occludin and claudin-1 and restores intestinal barrier function. BMC Vet Res 16, 18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ge, C-X, Yu, R, Xu, M-X, et al. (2016) Betaine prevented fructose-induced NAFLD by regulating LXRα/PPARα pathway and alleviating ER stress in rats. Eur J Pharmacol 770, 154164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daily, JW, Hongu, N, Mynatt, RL, et al. (1998) Choline supplementation increases tissue concentrations of carnitine and lowers body fat in guinea pigs. J Nutr Biochem 9, 464470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virtanen, E & Campbell, RG (1994) Reduction of Backfat Thickness through Betaine Supplementation of Diets for Fattening Pigs. Handbuch der tierishen Veredlung (Handbook of Animal Improving). Osnabruek, Germany: Verlag H Kamlage.Google Scholar
Simon, J (1999) Choline, betaine and methionine interactions in chickens, pigs and fish (including crustaceans). World’s Poult Sci J 55, 353374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lever, M, George, PM, Atkinson, W, et al. (2011) Plasma lipids and betaine are related in an acute coronary syndrome cohort. PLoS One 6, e21666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konstantinova, SV, Tell, GS, Vollset, SE, et al. (2008) Divergent associations of plasma choline and betaine with components of metabolic syndrome in middle age and elderly men and women. J Nutr 138, 914920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Y, Liu, Y, Liu, Y, et al. (2015) Higher serum concentrations of betaine rather than choline is associated with better profiles of DXA-derived body fat and fat distribution in Chinese adults. Int J Obes 39, 465471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gao, X, Zhang, H, Guo, X-F, et al. (2019) Effect of betaine on reducing body fat – a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutrients 11, 2480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Del Favero, S, Roschel, H, Artioli, G, et al. (2012) Creatine but not betaine supplementation increases muscle phosphorylcreatine content and strength performance. Amino Acid 42, 22992305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajdl, D, Racek, J, Trefil, L, et al. (2016) Effect of folic acid, betaine, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 on homocysteine and dimethylglycine levels in middle-aged men drinking white wine. Nutrient 8, 34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moro, T, Badiali, F, Fabbri, I, et al. (2020) Betaine supplementation does not improve muscle hypertrophy or strength following 6 weeks of cross-fit training. Nutrients 12, 1688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashtary-Larky, D, Ghanavati, M, Lamuchi-Deli, N, et al. (2017) Rapid weight loss v. slow weight loss: which is more effective on body composition and metabolic risk factors? Int J Endocrinol Metab 15, e13249.Google Scholar
Ashtary Larky, D, Bagheri, R, Abbasnezhad, A, et al. (2020) Effects of gradual weight loss v. rapid weight loss on body composition and resting metabolic rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Nutr 124, 11211132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gomez-Arbelaez, D, Bellido, D, Castro, AI, et al. (2017) Body composition changes after very-low-calorie ketogenic diet in obesity evaluated by 3 standardized methods. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 102, 488498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haghighat, N, Ashtary-Larky, D, Bagheri, R, et al. (2020) The effect of 12 weeks of equicaloric high protein diet in regulating appetite and body compositio n of women with normal weight obesity: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Nutr 124, 10441051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, DK, Evans, EM, Erickson, D, et al. (2009) A moderate-protein diet produces sustained weight loss and long-term changes in body composition and blood lipids in obese adults. J Nutr 139, 514521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, et al. (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8, 336341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, JP, Altman, DG, Gøtzsche, PC, et al. (2011) The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343, d5928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, JP, Thomas, J, Chandler, J, et al. (2019) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wan, X, Wang, W, Liu, J, et al. (2014) Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Method 14, 135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashtary-Larky, D, Kashkooli, S, Bagheri, R, et al. (2021) The effect of exercise training on serum concentrations of chemerin in patients with metabolic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Physiol Biochem 110.Google ScholarPubMed
Upadhyay, J, Farr, O, Perakakis, N, et al. (2018) Obesity as a disease. Med Clin 102, 1333.Google ScholarPubMed
Bloomer, RJ, Farney, TM, Trepanowski, JF, et al. (2011) Effect of betaine supplementation on plasma nitrate/nitrite in exercise-trained men. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 8, 5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pryor, JL, Craig, SA & Swensen, T (2012) Effect of betaine supplementation on cycling sprint performance. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 9, 17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olthof, MR, Van Vliet, T, Verhoef, P, et al. (2005) Effect of homocysteine-lowering nutrients on blood lipids: results from four randomised, placebo-controlled studies in healthy humans. PLoS Med 2, e135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alfthan, G, Tapani, K, Nissinen, K, et al. (2004) The effect of low doses of betaine on plasma homocysteine in healthy volunteers. Br J Nutr 92, 665669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miglio, F, Rovati, LC, Santoro, A, et al. (2000) Efficacy and safety of oral betaine glucuronate in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Arzneimittelforschung 50, 722727.Google ScholarPubMed
Guldener, Cv, Janssen, M, Meer, KD, et al. (1999) Effect of folic acid and betaine on fasting and postmethionine-loading plasma homocysteine and methionine levels in chronic haemodialysis patients. J Intern Med 245, 175183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atkinson, W, Slow, S, Elmslie, J, et al. (2009) Dietary and supplementary betaine: effects on betaine and homocysteine concentrations in males. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 19, 767773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pryor, JL, Wolf, ST, Sforzo, G, et al. (2017) The effect of betaine on nitrate and cardiovascular response to exercise. Int J Exercise Sci 10, 550.Google ScholarPubMed
Armstrong, LE, Casa, DJ, Roti, MW, et al. (2008) Influence of betaine consumption on strenuous running and sprinting in a hot environment. J Strength Condit Res 22, 851860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiihonen, K, Saarinen, MT, Alhoniemi, E, et al. (2016) Effect of dietary betaine on metabolic syndrome risk factors in Asian males with mild fatty liver. J Diabetes Metab 7, 692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwab, U, Törrönen, A, Toppinen, L, et al. (2002) Betaine supplementation decreases plasma homocysteine concentrations but does not affect body weight, body composition, or resting energy expenditure in human subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 76, 961967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abdelmalek, MF, Sanderson, SO, Angulo, P, et al. (2009) Betaine for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: results of a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Hepatology 50, 18181826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, EC, Maresh, CM, Kraemer, WJ, et al. (2010) Ergogenic effects of betaine supplementation on strength and power performance. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 7, 27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwab, U, Alfthan, G, Aro, A, et al. (2011) Long-term effect of betaine on risk factors associated with the metabolic syndrome in healthy subjects. Eur J Clin Nutr 65, 7076.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trepanowski, JF, Farney, TM, Mccarthy, CG, et al. (2011) The effects of chronic betaine supplementation on exercise performance, skeletal muscle oxygen saturation and associated biochemical parameters in resistance trained men. J Strength Condit Res 25, 34613471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cholewa, JM, Wyszczelska-Rokiel, M, Glowacki, R, et al. (2013) Effects of betaine on body composition, performance, and homocysteine thiolactone. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 10, 39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cholewa, JM, Hudson, A, Cicholski, T, et al. (2018) The effects of chronic betaine supplementation on body composition and performance in collegiate females: a double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 15, 37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grizales, AM, Patti, M-E, Lin, AP, et al. (2018) Metabolic effects of betaine: a randomized clinical trial of betaine supplementation in prediabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 103, 30383049.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lever, M, Sizeland, P, Bason, L, et al. (1994) Glycine betaine and proline betaine in human blood and urine. Biochim Biophys Acta Gen Subj 1200, 259264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, R, Morley, W & Zabaras-Krick, B (1997) The Effects of Betaine on Protein and Energy Metabolism of Growing Pigs. Werribee, Australia: Australasian Pig Science Association.Google Scholar
Casarin, A, Forat, M & Zabaras-Krick, B (1997) Interrelationships between betaine (Betafin-BCR) and level of feed intake on the performance parameters and carcass characteristics of growing-finishing pigs. J Anim Sci 75, 75.Google Scholar
Cromwell, G, Lindemann, M, Randolph, J, et al. (1999) Efficacy of betaine as a carcass modifier in finishing pigs fed normal and reduced energy diets. J Anim Sci 77, 179.Google Scholar
Saunderson, CL & Mackinlay, J (1990) Changes in body-weight, composition and hepatic enzyme activities in response to dietary methionine, betaine and choline levels in growing chicks. Br J Nutr 63, 339349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, R, Cadogan, D, Morley, W, et al. (1995) Interrelationships between dietary methionine and betaine on the growth performance of pigs from 65 to 100 kg. J Anim Sci 73, 82.Google Scholar
Pesti, GM, Harper, AE & Sunde, ML (1980) Choline/methionine nutrition of starting broiler chicks. Three models for estimating the choline requirement with economic considerations. Poultr Sci 59, 10731081.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, B, Schinckel, A, Adeola, O, et al. (2002) Impact of betaine on pig finishing performance and carcass composition. J Anim Sci 80, 475482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Champagne, CM, Broyles, ST, Moran, LD, et al. (2011) Dietary intakes associated with successful weight loss and maintenance during the weight loss maintenance trial. J Am Dietetic Assoc 111, 18261835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the literature search.

Figure 1

Table 1. Participants, intervention, comparators, outcomes, study design (PICOS) criteria for inclusion of studies

Figure 2

Table 2. Quality assessment (method: Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias)

Figure 3

Table 3. The characteristics of the included trials

Figure 4

Fig. 2. Forest plot of the random effects meta-analysis of the effect of betaine supplementation on (a) BM and (b) BMI. BM, body mass. WMD, weighted mean difference.

Figure 5

Table 4. Subgroup analysis of betaine supplementation on body composition

Figure 6

Fig. 3. Forest plot of the random effects meta-analysis of the effect of betaine supplementation on (a) BFP and (b) FM. BFP, body fat percentage; FM, fat mass. WMD, weighted mean difference.

Figure 7

Fig. 4. Forest plot detailing weighted mean difference and 95 % CI for the effect of betaine supplementation on FFM. FFM, fat-free mass. WMD, weighted mean difference.

Figure 8

Fig. 5. Forest plot of the random effects meta-analysis of the effect of betaine supplementation on (a) dietary carbohydrate intake, (b) dietary fat intake, (c) dietary protein intake and (d) dietary energy intake. WMD, weighted mean difference.