| Literature DB >> 25139426 |
Seiichiro Aoe1, Takeshi Ikenaga, Hiroki Noguchi, Chieko Kohashi, Keiji Kakumoto, Noriyuki Kohda.
Abstract
White rice is a dominant grain-based food in Japan, but excess intake of polished rice may cause obesity. Barley is a grain-based food, similar to white rice, but it has the potential to control appetite and reduce energy intake. We investigated the effect of cooked white rice with high β-glucan barley on appetite and energy intake. The study was conducted as a randomized crossover design with twenty-one healthy Japanese women [mean ± standard deviation body mass index (BMI) 23.3 ± 0.7 kg/m(2)]. Subjects consumed a breakfast of cooked white rice with high β-glucan barley (BAR) or white rice (WR), followed by an ad libitum lunch and dinner. Energy intake was measured at the lunch and the dinner using plate waste. Subjects' perception scores on hunger, fullness, satiety, and prospective food consumption were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) before and after the breakfast, lunch and dinner. BAR significantly reduced the VAS scores of hunger and prospective food consumption, and increased fullness before lunch compared to WR (P = 0.032, 0.019 and 0.038, respectively). Energy intake at lunch and the cumulative energy intake (lunch + dinner) subsequent to BAR consumption were significantly lower than WR (P = 0.035 and 0.021, respectively). BAR was able to modulate appetite and reduce energy intake. The combination of white rice with high β-glucan barley could play a beneficial role in preventing and treating obesity and other obesity-related metabolic diseases.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25139426 PMCID: PMC4555196 DOI: 10.1007/s11130-014-0437-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Foods Hum Nutr ISSN: 0921-9668 Impact factor: 3.921
Nutrient composition and energy value of BAR, WR and omelette
| BAR | WR | Omelette | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Serving (g) | 150 | 147 | 42 |
| Proteins (g) | 5.1 | 3.4 | 3.5 |
| Fats (g) | 0.9 | 0.4 | 1.1 |
| Carbohydrates (g) | 42.9 | 48.1 | 4.0 |
| Dietary fibre (g) | 5.3 | – | – |
| β-glucans (g) | 2.9 | – | – |
| Energy content (kJ) | 879 | 879 | 169 |
BAR cooked white rice with β-glucan enriched barley, WR white rice
Nutrient composition and energy value of 100 g of foods and dishes consumed at the ad libitum test meal
| Foods | Proteins | Fats | Carbohydrates | Dietary fibre | Energy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lunch | |||||
| Vegetable sandwich | 10.0 | 13.1 | 21.1 | 1.3 | 1,022 |
| Roast beef sandwich | 9.4 | 12.5 | 19.4 | 1.2 | 962 |
| Spaghetti with ham and mushroom | 5.5 | 5.0 | 20.3 | 1.9 | 624 |
| Spaghetti with tomato sauce | 3.2 | 1.2 | 17.3 | 1.5 | 399 |
| Baked fish and scallop | 16.7 | 8.8 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 659 |
| Roast pork with demi-glaze sauce | 13.2 | 5.0 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 472 |
| Dinner | |||||
| Bonito carpaccio | 19.3 | 4.8 | 5.1 | 0.4 | 597 |
| Steamed vegetable | 1.3 | 5.9 | 9.9 | 1.8 | 399 |
| Spaghetti with spinach and bacon | 5.0 | 3.4 | 19.9 | 1.5 | 587 |
| Spaghetti Bolognese | 4.7 | 2.5 | 17.9 | 1.2 | 494 |
| Saute Marlin | 11.8 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 0.4 | 451 |
| Sauteed chicken with wine vinegar sauce | 13.8 | 5.1 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 462 |
Fig. 1Flow diagram of enrolment, random assignment, withdrawals and follow-up of the study subjects. BAR cooked white rice with β-glucan enriched barley, WR white rice
Fig. 2Energy intakes (kJ) measured at ad libitum lunch and dinner, and the cumulative energy intake (lunch + dinner) subsequent to cooked white rice with β-glucan enriched barley (BAR) or white rice (WR) consumption. Values are means (n = 21), with their standard deviation. Energy intakes were analyzed using an ANOVA model suited to a two-period, two-treatment, and two-sequence crossover design. Statistical significance was defined at * P < 0.05
Fig. 3The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of hunger, fullness, satiety, and prospective food consumption response after consumption of cooked white rice with β-glucan enriched barley (BAR) and white rice (WR). The line graph displays the time course of change throughout the testing day in the BAR (♦) and WR (◇) groups for VAS ratings of hunger, fullness, satiety and prospective food consumption at breakfast, lunch and dinner. Values are means (n = 21), with their standard deviation. Each of the VAS score time points were analyzed using paired t-tests (2-tailed). Statistical significance was defined at * P < 0.05