Effect of a High-Protein, High-Fiber Beverage Preload on Subjective Appetite Ratings and Subsequent Ad Libitum Energy Intake in Overweight Men and Women: A Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study

Mastaneh Sharafi, Nima Alamdari, Michael Wilson, Heather J Leidy, Erin L Glynn, Mastaneh Sharafi, Nima Alamdari, Michael Wilson, Heather J Leidy, Erin L Glynn

Abstract

Background: Dietary protein and fiber have been shown to independently improve subjective measures of appetite control.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the acute effects of a high-protein, high-fiber (HP/HFb) beverage taken as a preload compared with an isocaloric lower-protein, lower-fiber (LP/LFb) placebo beverage on subjective appetite ratings and subsequent energy intake at an ad libitum meal in healthy adults.

Methods: A total of 50 overweight/obese men and women [n = 25 men, 25 women; age 30 ± 2 y; body mass index (BMI) 29.6 ± 0.3 kg/m2] received a 160 kcal HP/HFb beverage containing 17 g protein and 6 g fiber on one occasion and an isocaloric LP/LFb placebo beverage containing 1 g protein and 3 g fiber on another occasion in a randomized, double-blind, crossover design. Thirty min after consumption of the beverage preload, an ad libitum pizza meal was provided to be consumed over a 30-min period. Visual analog scales (VAS) were used to assess subjective appetite ratings throughout the testing period. The Revised Restraint Scale (RRS) was used to classify participants as restrained or unrestrained eaters.

Results: HP/HFb led to greater reductions in postprandial desire to eat and hunger compared with LP/LFb (both, P < 0.05) but did not significantly affect postprandial fullness or prospective food consumption. Subsequent meal energy intake tended to be lower after HP/HFb compared with LP/LFb (P = 0.09). A subanalysis showed lower energy intake after HP/HFb in older participants (≥25 y) compared with LP/LFb, which was not observed in the younger participants (<25 y).

Conclusions: Compared with LP/LFb, a HP/HFb beverage preload reduced hunger, desire to eat, and tended to reduce subsequent food intake. Dietary restraint and age appear to influence subsequent energy intake and should be taken into account when designing nutrition interventions for weight reduction and/or maintenance. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02979717.

Keywords: appetite; dietary fiber; dietary protein; dietary restraint; dietary supplement; energy intake; food intake; preload; satiety.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flow diagram of the recruitment, enrollment, and random assignment processes. HP/HFb: high-protein/high-fiber; LP/LFb: lower-protein/lower-fiber.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Testing day procedures. B, baseline; HP/HFb: high-protein, high-fiber; LP/LFb: lower-protein, lower-fiber.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Appetite response time course and 30 min area under the curve (AUC) change in desire to eat (A, B), hunger (C, D), fullness (E, F), and prospective consumption (G, H) following high protein/high fiber (HP/HFb) and isocaloric lower protein/lower fiber placebo (LP/LFb) preloads. ◊ Pizza meal served. Time 60 represents post-meal appetite rating. Values are mean ± SEM. * P < 0.05.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Change in energy intake at ad libitum pizza meal by age (A); and change in desire to eat (white bars), Hunger (black bars), and composite appetite score (gray bars) from baseline to 60 min (post pizza) by age (B) after high-protein/high-fiber (HP/HFb) and lower-protein/lower-fiber (LP/LFb) preloads. Values are mean ± SEM; n = 41. † P < 0.1, * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01.

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013-2014, .
    1. Obesity and overweight. WHO. World Health Organization. October 18, 2017. . Accessed June 7, 2018.
    1. Holt S, Brand Miller J, Petocz P, Farmakalidis E. A satiety index of common foods. Eur J Clin Nutr 1995;49(9):675–90.
    1. Leidy HJ, Clifton PM, Astrup A, Wycherley TP, Westerterp-Plantenga MS, Luscombe-Marsh ND, Woods SC, Mattes RD. The role of protein in weight loss and maintenance. Am J Clin Nutr 2015;101:1320S–9S.
    1. Leidy HJ, Gwin JA, Roenfeldt CA, Zino AZ, Shafer RS. Evaluating the intervention-based evidence surrounding the causal role of breakfast on markers of weight management, with specific focus on breakfast composition and size. Adv Nutr 2016;7(3):563S–75S.
    1. Douglas SM, Lasley TR, Leidy HJ. Consuming beef vs. soy protein has little effect on appetite, satiety, and food intake in healthy adults. J Nutr 2015;145(5):1010–16.
    1. Bonnema AL, Altschwager D, Thomas W, Slavin JL. The effects of a beef-based meal compared to a calorie matched bean-based meal on appetite and food intake. J Food Sci 2015;80(9):H2088–93.
    1. Wysokiński A, Sobów T, Kłoszewska I, Kostka T. Mechanisms of the anorexia of aging—a review. Age (Omaha) 2015;37(4):81.
    1. Makovey J, Naganathan V, Seibel M, Sambrook P. Gender differences in plasma ghrelin and its relations to body composition and bone – an opposite-sex twin study. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2007;66(4):530–7.
    1. Bédard A, Hudon A-M, Drapeau V, Corneau L, Dodin S, Lemieux S. Gender differences in the appetite response to a satiating diet. J Obes 2015;2015:1–9.
    1. Ogden J, Wardle J. Cognitive restraint and sensitivity to cues for hunger and satiety. Physiol Behav 1990;47(3):477–81.
    1. Sloan AE. The top ten food trends. Food Technol 2015;69(4):24.
    1. Harper A, James A, Flint A, Astrup A. Increased satiety after intake of a chocolate milk drink compared with a carbonated beverage, but no difference in subsequent ad libitum lunch intake. Br J Nutr 2007;97(3):579–83.
    1. Rolls BJ, Kim S, McNelis AL, Fischman MW, Foltin RW, Moran TH. Time course of effects of preloads high in fat or carbohydrate on food intake and hunger ratings in humans. Am J Physiol 1991;260(4 Pt 2):R756–63.
    1. Flint A, Raben A, Blundell JE, Astrup A. Reproducibility, power and validity of visual analogue scales in assessment of appetite sensations in single test meal studies. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000;24(1):38–48.
    1. Sloth B, Due A, Larsen TM, Holst JJ, Heding A, Astrup A. The effect of a high-MUFA, low-glycaemic index diet and a low-fat diet on appetite and glucose metabolism during a 6-month weight maintenance period. Br J Nutr 2009;101(12):1846–58.
    1. Herman C, Polivy J. Restrained eating. In: Stunkard A, editor. Obesity. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1980. 208–25.
    1. Allison DB, Baskin ML, editors. Handbook of assessment methods for eating behaviors and weight-related problems: measures, theory, and research. 2nd ed Los Angeles: SAGE; 2009. 297–8.
    1. Brouns F, Bjorck I, Frayn KN, Gibbs AL, Lang V, Slama G, Wolever TM. Glycaemic index methodology. Nutr Res Rev 2005;18(1):145–71.
    1. Rolls BJ, Kim-Harris S, Fischman MW, Foltin RW, Moran TH, Stoner SA. Satiety after preloads with different amounts of fat and carbohydrate: implications for obesity. Am J Clin Nutr 1994;60(4):476–87.
    1. Rolls BJ, Gnizak N, Summerfelt A, Laster LJ. Food intake in dieters and nondieters after a liquid meal containing medium-chain triglycerides. Am J Clin Nutr 1988;48(1):66–71.
    1. Tiggemann M, Lynch JE. Body image across the life span in adult women: the role of self-objectification. Dev Psychol 2001;37(2):243–53.
    1. Dhillon J, Craig BA, Leidy HJ, Amankwaah AF, Osei-Boadi Anguah K, Jacobs A, Jones BL, Jones JB, Keeler CL, Keller CE, et al. . The effects of increased protein intake on fullness: a meta-analysis and its limitations. J Acad Nutr Diet 2016;116(6):968–83.
    1. Poutanen KS, Dussort P, Erkner A, Fiszman S, Karnik K, Kristensen M, Marsaux CFM, Miquel-Kergoat S, Pentikäinen SP, Putz P, et al. . A review of the characteristics of dietary fibers relevant to appetite and energy intake outcomes in human intervention trials. Am J Clin Nutr 2017;106(3):747–54.
    1. Clark MJ, Slavin JL. The effect of fiber on satiety and food intake: a systematic review. J Am Coll Nutr 2013;32(3):200–11.
    1. Almiron-Roig E, Chen Y, Drewnowski A. Liquid calories and the failure of satiety: how good is the evidence? Obes Rev 2003;4(4):201–12.
    1. Leidy HJ, Apolzan JW, Mattes RD, Campbell WW. Food form and portion size affect postprandial appetite sensations and hormonal responses in healthy, nonobese, older adults. Obesity 2010;18(2):293–9.
    1. Lindroos A-K, Lissner L, Mathiassen ME, Karlsson J, Sullivan M, Bengtsson C, Sjöström L. Dietary intake in relation to restrained eating, disinhibition, and hunger in obese and nonobese Swedish women. Obes Res 1997;5(3):175–82.
    1. Laessle RG, Tuschl RJ, Kotthaus BC, Prike KM. A comparison of the validity of three scales for the assessment of dietary restraint. J Abnorm Psychol 1989;98(4):504–7.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren