Effect of Kefir on Appetite

October 31, 2020 updated by: Zeynep Caferoglu, PhD, TC Erciyes University
This study aimed to determine the effect of kefir on appetite in healthy subjects. A randomized, single-blind, and 3-intervention crossover trial included 22 healthy and normal-weight (BMI 18.5-25 kg/m2) females aged 21-24 years. Participants were recruited to three test meals: an LGI-Milk, an LGI-Kefir, and an HGI-Kefir, with a one-week washout period. Appetite ratings were measured at 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 minutes. At the end of three hours, participants were served an ad libitum lunch meal. Then, the foods eaten at lunch were recorded and their energy and nutrient analysis was calculated.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
24

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Turkey
      • Kayseri, Turkey, 38039
        • Erciyes University Faculty of Health Sciences

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

21 years to 24 years (Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

Female

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Healthy
  • Normal-weight (BMI 18.5-25 kg/m2)
  • Female
  • 21-24 years

Exclusion Criteria:

  • During the last three months, change more than 5 kg in body weight or following an energy-restricted diet
  • Being a vegan
  • Having any chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, etc.
  • Physician-diagnosed medications or conditions that influence metabolism
  • Smoking
  • Practicing endurance sports
  • Having difficulties with swallowing/eating
  • Lack of appetite
  • Hypersensitivity for the foods understudy
  • Pregnant or lactating

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Screening
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: LGI-Milk Breakfast
Low glycemic index and milk content (LGI-Milk) breakfast as a test meal
Other: LGI-Milk Breakfast
This test meal with low glycemic index and milk were served as a breakfast after 12-hours fasting and participants were asked to consume the meal in full, within 15 min.
Experimental: LGI-Kefir Breakfast
Low glycemic index and kefir content (LGI-Kefir) breakfast as a test meal
Other: LGI-Kefir Breakfast
In crossover design, this test meal with low glycemic index and kefir was served as a breakfast to compare the LGI-Milk Breakfast.
Experimental: HGI-Kefir Breakfast
High glycemic index and kefir content (HGI-Kefir) breakfast as a test meal
Other: HGI-Kefir Breakfast
In crossover design, this test meal with high glycemic index and kefir was served as a breakfast to compare the LGI-Milk Breakfast and the LGI-Kefir Breakfast.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Hunger rating
Time Frame: Three hours postprandial period
Subjective assessment of appetite sensations was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How hungry do you feel? (not at all hungry - as hungry as I ever felt)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and hunger rating was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.
Three hours postprandial period
Fullness rating
Time Frame: Three hours postprandial period
Subjective assessment of appetite sensations was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How full do you feel? (not at all full - totally full)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and fullness rating was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a better outcome.
Three hours postprandial period
Desiring to eat
Time Frame: Three hours postprandial period
Subjective assessment of appetite sensations was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How strong is your desire to eat? (very weak - very strong)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and desiring to eat was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.
Three hours postprandial period
Prospective food consumption
Time Frame: Three hours postprandial period
Subjective assessment of appetite sensations was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How much do you think you can eat? (no food at all - a large amount of food)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and prospective food consumption was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.
Three hours postprandial period
Composite appetite score
Time Frame: Three hours postprandial period
The separate visual analog scale factors like hunger, fullness, desiring for eat, and prospective food consumption were combined to produce an additional measure termed 'composite appetite score'. This average appetite score was computed for 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes using the following equation: [(hunger + desire to eat + prospective food consumption + (100 - fullness)]/4 Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.
Three hours postprandial period
Subsequent energy consumption
Time Frame: Three hours after the test breakfast
Energy intake at ad libitum lunch was calculated.
Three hours after the test breakfast

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Desiring for sweet
Time Frame: Three hours postprandial period
Subjective assessment of desire for specific food types was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "Would you like to eat something sweet? (No, not at all - Yes, very much)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and desiring for sweet was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.
Three hours postprandial period
Desiring for salty
Time Frame: Three hours postprandial period
Subjective assessment of desire for specific food types was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "Would you like to eat something salty? (No, not at all - Yes, very much)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and desiring for salty was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.
Three hours postprandial period
Desiring for savoury
Time Frame: Three hours postprandial period
Subjective assessment of desire for specific food types was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "Would you like to eat something savoury? (No, not at all - Yes, very much)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and desiring for savoury was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.
Three hours postprandial period
Desiring for fatty
Time Frame: Three hours postprandial period
Subjective assessment of desire for specific food types was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "Would you like to eat something fatty? (No, not at all - Yes, very much)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and desiring for fatty was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.
Three hours postprandial period
Visual appeal of test meal
Time Frame: Immediately after consuming test meal (at 15 min)
Palatability of test meals was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How is the visual appeal of test meal? (Good - Bad)" at time points 15 minutes (immediately after consuming test meal). Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.
Immediately after consuming test meal (at 15 min)
Smell of test meal
Time Frame: Immediately after consuming test meal (at 15 min)
Palatability of test meals was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How is the smell of test meal? (Good - Bad)" at time points 15 minutes (immediately after consuming test meal). Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.
Immediately after consuming test meal (at 15 min)
Taste of test meal
Time Frame: Immediately after consuming test meal (at 15 min)
Palatability of test meals was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How is the taste of test meal? (Good - Bad)" at time points 15 minutes (immediately after consuming test meal). Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.
Immediately after consuming test meal (at 15 min)
Aftertaste of test meal
Time Frame: Immediately after consuming test meal (at 15 min)
Palatability of test meals was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "Is there any perceived taste in your mouth after test meal? (Much - None)" at time points 15 minutes (immediately after consuming test meal). Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a better outcome.
Immediately after consuming test meal (at 15 min)
Palatability of test meal
Time Frame: Immediately after consuming test meal (at 15 min)
Palatability of test meals was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How is the palatability of test meal? (Good - Bad)" at time points 15 minutes (immediately after consuming test meal). Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.
Immediately after consuming test meal (at 15 min)

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
TC Erciyes University

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
November 15, 2016

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
March 15, 2017

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
May 31, 2017

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
August 16, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
August 16, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
August 17, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
November 3, 2020

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
October 31, 2020

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
October 1, 2020

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • not defined

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

Undecided

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings