OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of dietary pulses (beans, peas, chickpeas, lentils) on acute satiety and second meal intake, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Registry (through May 6, 2013) were searched for acute controlled trials examining the effect of dietary pulses on postprandial satiety or second meal intake compared with isocaloric controls. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodological quality and risk of bias. Data were pooled by generic inverse variance random effects models and expressed as ratio of means (RoMs) for satiety and mean differences (MDs) for second meal food intake, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed (Q statistic) and quantified (I(2) statistic). Protocol registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT01605422. RESULTS: Nine trials met the eligibility criteria. Dietary pulses produced a 31% greater satiety incremental area under the curve (IAUC) (RoM = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.58, P = 0.004; Phet = 0.96; I(2) = 0%) without affecting second meal intake (MD = -19.94, 95% CI: -75-35, P = 0.48; Phet = 0.01; I(2) = 63%). Our data are limited by the small sample sizes, narrow participant characteristics and significant unexplained heterogeneity among the available trials. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled analyses show that dietary pulses contribute to acute satiety but not second meal intake.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of dietary pulses (beans, peas, chickpeas, lentils) on acute satiety and second meal intake, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Registry (through May 6, 2013) were searched for acute controlled trials examining the effect of dietary pulses on postprandial satiety or second meal intake compared with isocaloric controls. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodological quality and risk of bias. Data were pooled by generic inverse variance random effects models and expressed as ratio of means (RoMs) for satiety and mean differences (MDs) for second meal food intake, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed (Q statistic) and quantified (I(2) statistic). Protocol registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT01605422. RESULTS: Nine trials met the eligibility criteria. Dietary pulses produced a 31% greater satiety incremental area under the curve (IAUC) (RoM = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.58, P = 0.004; Phet = 0.96; I(2) = 0%) without affecting second meal intake (MD = -19.94, 95% CI: -75-35, P = 0.48; Phet = 0.01; I(2) = 63%). Our data are limited by the small sample sizes, narrow participant characteristics and significant unexplained heterogeneity among the available trials. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled analyses show that dietary pulses contribute to acute satiety but not second meal intake.
Authors: Hanny M Boers; Katrina MacAulay; Peter Murray; Jack Seijen Ten Hoorn; Anne-Roos Hoogenraad; Harry P F Peters; Maria A M Vente-Spreeuwenberg; David J Mela Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: Laura Chiavaroli; Arash Mirrahimi; Christopher Ireland; Sandra Mitchell; Sandhya Sahye-Pudaruth; Judy Coveney; Omodele Olowoyeye; Darshna Patel; Russell J de Souza; Livia S A Augustin; Balachandran Bashyam; Sathish Chandra Pichika; Sonia Blanco Mejia; Stephanie K Nishi; Lawrence A Leiter; Robert G Josse; Gail E McKeown-Eyssen; Alan R Moody; Cyril W C Kendall; John L Sievenpiper; David J A Jenkins Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Christopher P F Marinangeli; Julianne Curran; Susan I Barr; Joanne Slavin; Seema Puri; Sumathi Swaminathan; Linda Tapsell; Carol Ann Patterson Journal: Nutr Rev Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 7.110
Authors: Pedapati S C Sri Harsha; Roshaida Abdul Wahab; Mar Garcia-Aloy; Francisco Madrid-Gambin; Sheila Estruel-Amades; Bernhard Watzl; Cristina Andrés-Lacueva; Lorraine Brennan Journal: Genes Nutr Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 5.523