Premium
Effects of Electronic Cigarette Vapor on Body Mass, Food Intake, and Body Composition
Author(s) -
Breit Matthew,
Hoskinson Hannah,
Pitzer Chris,
Wu Zhongxin,
Bryner Randall,
Olfert I.M
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.31.1_supplement.1037.6
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , appetite , body weight , electronic cigarette , nicotine , fat mass , chemistry , smoke , cigarette smoke , composition (language) , zoology , lean body mass , food intake , food science , medicine , endocrinology , biology , environmental health , biochemistry , paleontology , linguistics , philosophy , organic chemistry
Nicotine and cigarette smoking is known to promote weight loss and suppress appetite. Since becoming available in 2007, the use of electronic cigarettes (E‐cig) has increased dramatically in the US, however there are still very few studies that examine the long‐term consequences of e‐vapor, particularly in the context of appetite regulation or weight management. The present study was devised to compare the effects of cigarette smoke and E‐cig vapor exposure on food intake, body weight, and body composition in mice. We hypothesized that E‐cigs would elicit similar changes on body mass, adiposity, and food intake as conventional cigarettes (i.e. 3R4F reference cigarette). Female C57BL/6 mice were exposed to filtered room air (n=15), mainstream smoke from 3R4F reference cigarette (n=15), or cappuccino E‐cig vapor (n=15). We report assessments in body mass, food intake, and body composition following daily exposure (4 h/d, 5d/wk) for up to 6 months. Food and water were administered ad libitum. 3R4F, E‐cig and control mice increased body mass by 15%, 30%, and 31%, respectively, over 6 months. 3R4F mice had 15–16% lower body mass (24.9±0.55 g, p<0.01) compared to E‐cig (28.2±0.77 g) and controls (27.7±0.72 g). 3R4F exposed mice also exhibited reduced total body fat (2.74±0.25 g, p<0.01) compared to E‐cig (4.10±0.42 g) and controls (4.18±0.40 g). E‐cig mice food consumption was significantly increased compared to 3R4F (12.4±0.8 vs 9.5±0.7 g, respectively; p<0.05) but not significantly different compared to controls (12.4±0.8 vs 10.5±0.8 g, respectively, p=0.12). Unlike conventional cigarettes, we found that our E‐cig exposed mice did not elicit reductions in total body or adipose mass. This suggests the effects of E‐cig may not be the same as that occurring with traditional tobacco cigarettes, or that the exposure to nicotine and/or other chemicals in the E‐cig liquid elicits a different response on appetite or feeding behavior. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect that flavorings and/or the compounds produced in E‐cig vapor exert on metabolism and the hypothalamic appetite neurosystems. Support or Funding Information NIH Grant P20GM103434 (West Virginia IDeA Network for Biomedical Research Excellence) and Marshall‐WVU Health Initiative Award