BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility of Fabuless (previously called Olibra and Reducal) as a food ingredient for food intake and appetite reduction, by assessing the effects of food processing on efficacy. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: In total, 24 healthy volunteers (16 female, 8 male; age: 18-43 years; body mass index: 18-37 kg/m(2)) took part in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, cross-over trial. Yoghurt-based meal replacement drinks (containing processed or unprocessed Fabuless, or a control fat) were followed by an ad libitum lunch and evening meal (dinner). Key outcome measures were energy intake and self-reported appetite ratings. RESULTS: Compared with control, only unprocessed Fabuless reduced subsequent energy intake, although only during dinner (P < 0.01; control, processed and unprocessed: 4.3, 3.9 and 4.2 MJ, respectively) and not during lunch (3.6, 3.7 and 3.6 MJ). Self-reported appetite scores did not differ between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Although modest effects of unprocessed Fabuless were seen on food intake, but not on appetite, the ingredient was not robust to common food-manufacturing processes (thermal and shear processing). Claims on reduced food intake and appetite relating to this ingredient in food products are, therefore, only valid if functionality has been demonstrated after all relevant processing and storage steps.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility of Fabuless (previously called Olibra and Reducal) as a food ingredient for food intake and appetite reduction, by assessing the effects of food processing on efficacy. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: In total, 24 healthy volunteers (16 female, 8 male; age: 18-43 years; body mass index: 18-37 kg/m(2)) took part in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, cross-over trial. Yoghurt-based meal replacement drinks (containing processed or unprocessed Fabuless, or a control fat) were followed by an ad libitum lunch and evening meal (dinner). Key outcome measures were energy intake and self-reported appetite ratings. RESULTS: Compared with control, only unprocessed Fabuless reduced subsequent energy intake, although only during dinner (P < 0.01; control, processed and unprocessed: 4.3, 3.9 and 4.2 MJ, respectively) and not during lunch (3.6, 3.7 and 3.6 MJ). Self-reported appetite scores did not differ between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Although modest effects of unprocessed Fabuless were seen on food intake, but not on appetite, the ingredient was not robust to common food-manufacturing processes (thermal and shear processing). Claims on reduced food intake and appetite relating to this ingredient in food products are, therefore, only valid if functionality has been demonstrated after all relevant processing and storage steps.
Authors: Annick M E Alleleyn; Mark van Avesaat; Dina Ripken; Sinéad B Bleiel; Daniel Keszthelyi; Ellen Wilms; Freddy J Troost; Henk F J Hendriks; Adrian A M Masclee Journal: Nutrients Date: 2018-11-17 Impact factor: 5.717