Letter: Effect of dietary additives on intestinal barrier and acute stress in healthy adults

Abstract

Fitzpatrick et al.¹ examined the influence of high-emulsifier and low-emulsifier diets on intestinal barrier function of healthy people in unstressed and acutely stressed circumstances. Although the study offered important perspectives on the connection between dietary emulsifiers, intestinal barrier function and stress reactions, multiple aspects can be enhanced or explored further.

First, the study's sample comprising 22 healthy adults might restrict the generalisation of the results. A larger and more diverse group of participants, encompassing individuals with different health conditions and demographic characteristics, could boost the external validity of the findings. Second, the study's single-blinded design, where participants are not informed of their dietary allocations, is prone to bias. A double-blind design, where neither participants nor researchers were aware of the dietary interventions, would fortify the internal validity of the study. Additionally, the study's dependence on self-reported dietary adherence might have led to measurement errors. Integrating objective measurements of dietary intake, such as food diaries or biomarkers, could offer more precise data regarding participant compliance. Moreover, the study concentrated on the impacts of emulsifiers and thickeners on intestinal barrier function and stress responses in healthy individuals. It would be advantageous to investigate the long-term consequences of these dietary components, and their potential implications for individuals with pre-existing gastrointestinal disorders, such as inflammatory bowel disease.

In conclusion, although this study has provided valuable information, addressing the aforementioned limitations could improve its validity and furnish a more all-encompassing comprehension of the effects of dietary emulsifiers and thickeners on intestinal barrier function and stress responses.

Liqi Li: Conceptualization; investigation; methodology; writing – review and editing; writing – original draft; validation.

The author declares no conflicts.

This article is linked to Fitzpatrick et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.18172 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.18267.