BACKGROUND: Because the source of protein may play a role in its satiating effect, we investigated the effect of different proteins on satiation and short-term satiety. METHODS: Two randomized single-blind cross-over studies were completed. In the first study, we investigated the effect of a preload containing 20 g of casein, whey, pea protein, egg albumin or maltodextrin vs. water control on food intake 30 min later in 32 male volunteers (25 ± 4 yrs, BMI 24 ± 0.4 kg/m(2)). Subjective appetite was assessed using visual analogue scales at 10 min intervals after the preload. Capillary blood glucose was measured every 30 min during 2 hrs before and after the ad libitum meal. In the second study, we compared the effect of 20 g of casein, pea protein or whey vs. water control on satiation in 32 male volunteers (25 ± 0.6 yrs, BMI 24 ± 0.5 kg/m(2)). The preload was consumed as a starter during an ad libitum meal and food intake was measured. The preloads in both studies were in the form of a beverage. RESULTS: In the first study, food intake was significantly lower only after casein and pea protein compared to water control (P = 0.02; 0.04 respectively). Caloric compensation was 110, 103, 62, 56 and 51% after casein, pea protein, whey, albumin and maltodextrin, respectively. Feelings of satiety were significantly higher after casein and pea protein compared to other preloads (P < 0.05). Blood glucose response to the meal was significantly lower when whey protein was consumed as a preload compared to other groups (P < 0.001). In the second study, results showed no difference between preloads on ad libitum intake. Total intake was significantly higher after caloric preloads compared to water control (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION:Casein and pea protein showed a stronger effect on food intake compared to whey when consumed as a preload. However, consuming the protein preload as a starter of a meal decreased its impact on food intake as opposed to consuming it 30 min before the meal.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Because the source of protein may play a role in its satiating effect, we investigated the effect of different proteins on satiation and short-term satiety. METHODS: Two randomized single-blind cross-over studies were completed. In the first study, we investigated the effect of a preload containing 20 g of casein, whey, pea protein, egg albumin or maltodextrin vs. water control on food intake 30 min later in 32 male volunteers (25 ± 4 yrs, BMI 24 ± 0.4 kg/m(2)). Subjective appetite was assessed using visual analogue scales at 10 min intervals after the preload. Capillary blood glucose was measured every 30 min during 2 hrs before and after the ad libitum meal. In the second study, we compared the effect of 20 g of casein, pea protein or whey vs. water control on satiation in 32 male volunteers (25 ± 0.6 yrs, BMI 24 ± 0.5 kg/m(2)). The preload was consumed as a starter during an ad libitum meal and food intake was measured. The preloads in both studies were in the form of a beverage. RESULTS: In the first study, food intake was significantly lower only after casein and pea protein compared to water control (P = 0.02; 0.04 respectively). Caloric compensation was 110, 103, 62, 56 and 51% after casein, pea protein, whey, albumin and maltodextrin, respectively. Feelings of satiety were significantly higher after casein and pea protein compared to other preloads (P < 0.05). Blood glucose response to the meal was significantly lower when whey protein was consumed as a preload compared to other groups (P < 0.001). In the second study, results showed no difference between preloads on ad libitum intake. Total intake was significantly higher after caloric preloads compared to water control (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Casein and pea protein showed a stronger effect on food intake compared to whey when consumed as a preload. However, consuming the protein preload as a starter of a meal decreased its impact on food intake as opposed to consuming it 30 min before the meal.
Authors: Margriet A B Veldhorst; Arie G Nieuwenhuizen; Ananda Hochstenbach-Waelen; Klaas R Westerterp; Marielle P K J Engelen; Robert-Jan M Brummer; Nicolaas E P Deutz; Margriet S Westerterp-Plantenga Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2009-01-31 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Corby K Martin; Stephen D Anton; Heather Walden; Cheryl Arnett; Frank L Greenway; Donald A Williamson Journal: Behav Res Ther Date: 2007-04-05
Authors: Alicia L Carreiro; Jaapna Dhillon; Susannah Gordon; Kelly A Higgins; Ashley G Jacobs; Breanna M McArthur; Benjamin W Redan; Rebecca L Rivera; Leigh R Schmidt; Richard D Mattes Journal: Annu Rev Nutr Date: 2016-07-17 Impact factor: 11.848
Authors: Marlene D Kristensen; Nathalie T Bendsen; Sheena M Christensen; Arne Astrup; Anne Raben Journal: Food Nutr Res Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: A K McGavigan; H C O'Hara; A Amin; J Kinsey-Jones; E Spreckley; A Alamshah; A Agahi; K Banks; R France; G Hyberg; C Wong; G A Bewick; J V Gardiner; A Lehmann; N M Martin; M A Ghatei; S R Bloom; K G Murphy Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2014-09-15 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Clare L Adam; Silvia W Gratz; Diana I Peinado; Lynn M Thomson; Karen E Garden; Patricia A Williams; Anthony J Richardson; Alexander W Ross Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lone V Nielsen; Marlene D Kristensen; Lars Klingenberg; Christian Ritz; Anita Belza; Arne Astrup; Anne Raben Journal: Nutrients Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 5.717