BACKGROUND: Previous short-term studies (< or =6 h) showed differences in energy expenditure (EE) and macronutrient oxidation in response to overfeeding with different types of dietary carbohydrate. This finding could have implications for obesity. OBJECTIVE: We used 96-h continuous whole-body calorimetry in 8 lean and 5 obese women to assess metabolic disposal (energy dissipation and glycogen or fat storage) of a controlled excess of dietary energy supplied as different carbohydrate sources or as fat. DESIGN: Five dietary treatments were applied in random order: energy balance (control) and overfeeding by 50% of energy requirements with fat (O(fat)) or predominantly with glucose, fructose, or sucrose (O(cho)). Macronutrient oxidation rates were assessed from nonprotein gaseous exchanges. Net macronutrient balances were calculated as cumulative differences between intake and oxidation. RESULTS: Increased EE in response to overfeeding dissipated 7.9% of the energy excess with a variation in EE of <1.7% across overfeeding treatments (NS). EE during the O(fat) treatment significantly exceeded that during the control treatment in the lean but not in the obese women. There were no significant differences between lean and obese women in macronutrient oxidation or balances, so data were pooled. O(cho) induced glycogen storage on day 1 ( approximately 100 g) but thereafter progressively stimulated carbohydrate oxidation so that balance was reached on days 3 and 4. Fat oxidation was proportionately suppressed. Of the excess carbohydrate, 74% was oxidized; there were no significant differences between the various O(cho) treatments. O(fat) stimulated fat oxidation by 18% and suppressed carbohydrate oxidation. On average, 12% of the excess energy was stored as glycogen and 88% as fat; there was no significant difference between overfeeding treatments. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in fat balance during controlled overfeeding with fat, fructose, glucose, or sucrose.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Previous short-term studies (< or =6 h) showed differences in energy expenditure (EE) and macronutrient oxidation in response to overfeeding with different types of dietary carbohydrate. This finding could have implications for obesity. OBJECTIVE: We used 96-h continuous whole-body calorimetry in 8 lean and 5 obesewomen to assess metabolic disposal (energy dissipation and glycogen or fat storage) of a controlled excess of dietary energy supplied as different carbohydrate sources or as fat. DESIGN: Five dietary treatments were applied in random order: energy balance (control) and overfeeding by 50% of energy requirements with fat (O(fat)) or predominantly with glucose, fructose, or sucrose (O(cho)). Macronutrient oxidation rates were assessed from nonprotein gaseous exchanges. Net macronutrient balances were calculated as cumulative differences between intake and oxidation. RESULTS: Increased EE in response to overfeeding dissipated 7.9% of the energy excess with a variation in EE of <1.7% across overfeeding treatments (NS). EE during the O(fat) treatment significantly exceeded that during the control treatment in the lean but not in the obesewomen. There were no significant differences between lean and obesewomen in macronutrient oxidation or balances, so data were pooled. O(cho) induced glycogen storage on day 1 ( approximately 100 g) but thereafter progressively stimulated carbohydrate oxidation so that balance was reached on days 3 and 4. Fat oxidation was proportionately suppressed. Of the excess carbohydrate, 74% was oxidized; there were no significant differences between the various O(cho) treatments. O(fat) stimulated fat oxidation by 18% and suppressed carbohydrate oxidation. On average, 12% of the excess energy was stored as glycogen and 88% as fat; there was no significant difference between overfeeding treatments. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in fat balance during controlled overfeeding with fat, fructose, glucose, or sucrose.
Authors: J Kahlhöfer; M Lagerpusch; J Enderle; B Eggeling; W Braun; D Pape; M J Müller; A Bosy-Westphal Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 4.016