| Literature DB >> 24661836 |
Tina Forsberg, Per Åman, Rikard Landberg1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fibre-rich rye products have been shown to have superior effects on self-reported appetite compared to white wheat bread and some studies have shown lower energy intake after subsequent meal. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of whole grain rye crisp bread (RB) versus refined wheat bread (WB) on appetite in two studies using different portion sizes and total energy intakes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24661836 PMCID: PMC4006307 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2891-13-26
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr J ISSN: 1475-2891 Impact factor: 3.271
Dietary fibre content and composition in whole grain rye crisp bread (RB) and refined wheat bread (WB)
| | ||
|---|---|---|
| Total dietary fibrea | 17.5 | 6.4 |
| Arabinoxylanb | 8.2 | 2.1 |
| β-Glucan | 1.9 | 0.27 |
| Cellulose and resistant starchc | 2.4 | 2.3 |
| Fructan | 2.9 | 0.38 |
aCalculated as the sum of dietary fibre components analysed by the Uppsala method [26] and fructan content [28].
bCalculated as sum of arabinose and xylose residues analysed by the Uppsala method [26].
cCalculated as the difference between glucose residues analysed by the Uppsala method [26] and total β-glucan [27].
Values are given as% of dry matter.
The amount, macro-nutrient and energy content of the breakfasts provided in Study one (S1) and two (S2)
| | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole grain rye crisp bread | 80 | 64 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 7.7 | 6.1 | 52 | 42 | 13 | 10 | 1188 | 953 |
| Margarine | 30 | 20 | 11.7 | 7.8 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0 | 0 | 450 | 301 |
| Ham | 27 | 30 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 5.9 | 6.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 136 | 151 |
| Cheese | 25 | - | 7 | - | 5.6 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 357 | - |
| Orange juice | 200 | 100 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 18 | 9.0 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 348 | 174 |
| Total | 362 | 214 | 22 | 10 | 21 | 14 | 71 | 52 | 14 | 11 | 2479 | 1573 |
| E% | | | 33 | 24 | 14 | 15 | 48 | 56 | 5 | 6 | 100 | 100 |
| Refined soft wheat bread | 108 | 86 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 9.7 | 6.9 | 50 | 40 | 3.8 | 2.6 | 1180 | 936 |
| Margarine | 30 | 20 | 11.7 | 7.8 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0 | 0 | 450 | 301 |
| Ham | 27 | 30 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 5.9 | 6.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 136 | 152 |
| Cheese | 25 | - | 7 | | 5.8 | | 0 | - | 0 | - | 357 | - |
| Orange juice | 200 | 100 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 18 | 9.0 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 348 | 174 |
| Total | 390 | 241 | 24 | 12 | 23 | 14 | 69 | 50 | 5.2 | 3.3 | 2475 | 1561 |
| E% | 35 | 28 | 13 | 16 | 47 | 55 | 2 | 2 | 100 | 100 | ||
Characteristics of participants in Study one (S1) and two (S2)
| | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants (n) | 10 | 6 | 11 | 14 | 21 | 20 |
| Age (years) | 34 ± 11 | 38 ± 13 | 44 ± 15 | 40 ± 15 | 39 ± 14 | 39 ± 14 |
| Weight (kg) | 78 ± 12 | 75 ± 15 | 62 ± 5 | 62 ± 6 | 70 ± 12 | 66 ± 12 |
| Height (m) | 1.80 ± 0.08 | 1.79 ± 0.07 | 1.66 ± 0.05 | 1.66 ± 0.04 | 1.73 ± 0.1 | 1.70 ± 0.08 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24 ± 4 | 23 ± 4 | 23 ± 2 | 22 ± 2 | 23 ± 3 | 23 ± 3 |
Figure 1Self-reported appetite ratings from 8.00 – 12.00 and the corresponding area under the curve (AUC) in Study one. Self-reported A) hunger, B) satiety, C) desire to heat, D) AUC for hunger, E) AUC for satiety, F) AUC for desire to eat. Estimates in A-C represent arithmetic mean values for each treatment. The difference between rye bread (RB) and wheat bread (WB) treatments is provided as a % difference between the least square means (LSM) for each treatment AUC, estimated by mixed linear models appropriate for cross-over designs (see statistical analysis section). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Figure 2Self-reported appetite ratings from 8.00 – 12.00 and the corresponding area under the curve (AUC) in Study 2. Self-reported A) hunger, B) satiety, C) desire to heat, D) AUC for hunger, E) AUC for satiety, F) AUC for desire to eat. Estimates in A-C represent arithmetic mean values for each treatment. The difference between rye bread (RB) and wheat bread (WB) treatments is provided as a % difference between the least square means (LSM) for each treatment AUC, estimated by mixed linear models appropriate for cross-over designs (see statistical analysis section). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. When a statistically significant interaction between treatment and occasion was observed i.e. when effect of treatment appeared to be treatment order, treatment effects were evaluated separately according to treatment sequence (RB-WB or WB-RB, respectively). This was the case for G) hunger and H) desire to eat.