Meena Shah1, Brian Franklin2, Beverley Adams-Huet3, Joel Mitchell2, Brooke Bouza2, Lyn Dart4, Melody Phillips2. 1. Department of Kinesiology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, 76129, USA. m.shah@tcu.edu. 2. Department of Kinesiology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, 76129, USA. 3. Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. Department of Nutritional Sciences, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), an incretin hormone, is released in response to food intake. It is unclear how meals high in protein (HP) and monounsaturated fat (HMF) affect GLP-1 response. PURPOSE: To examine the effect of a HP versus a HMF meal on GLP-1 response. METHODS:Twenty-four overweight/obese participantsconsumed two meals (HP: 31.9 % energy from protein; HMF: 35.2 % fat and 20.7 % monounsaturated fat) in a random order. Both meals contained the same energy and carbohydrate content. GLP-1, insulin, glucagon, C-peptide, and glucose were assessed from blood drawn in the fasting and postprandial states. The effect of meal condition on hormone and glucose responses and appetite ratings were assessed by repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: Statistically significant (p < 0.01) time by meal condition effect was observed on active GLP-1, total GLP-1, insulin, C-peptide, and glucagon, but not glucose (p = 0.83). Area under the curve was significantly higher during the HP versus the HMF meal conditions for active GLP-1 (23.7 %; p = 0.0007), total GLP-1 (12.2 %; p < 0.0001), insulin (54.4 %; p < 0.0001), C-peptide (14.8 %; p < 0.0001), and glucagon (40.7 %; p < 0.0001). Blood glucose was not different between the HP versus HMF conditions (-4.8 %; p = 0.11). Insulin sensitivity was higher during the HMF versus HP conditions (Matsuda index mean difference: 16.3 %; p = 0.007). Appetite ratings were not different by meal condition. CONCLUSIONS:GLP-1 and insulin responses were higher during the HP condition. However, no difference was found in blood glucose between conditions, and insulin sensitivity was higher during the HMF condition, indicating that a HMF meal may be optimal at regulating blood glucose in overweight/obese individuals without type 2 diabetes.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), an incretin hormone, is released in response to food intake. It is unclear how meals high in protein (HP) and monounsaturated fat (HMF) affect GLP-1 response. PURPOSE: To examine the effect of a HP versus a HMF meal on GLP-1 response. METHODS: Twenty-four overweight/obeseparticipants consumed two meals (HP: 31.9 % energy from protein; HMF: 35.2 % fat and 20.7 % monounsaturated fat) in a random order. Both meals contained the same energy and carbohydrate content. GLP-1, insulin, glucagon, C-peptide, and glucose were assessed from blood drawn in the fasting and postprandial states. The effect of meal condition on hormone and glucose responses and appetite ratings were assessed by repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: Statistically significant (p < 0.01) time by meal condition effect was observed on active GLP-1, total GLP-1, insulin, C-peptide, and glucagon, but not glucose (p = 0.83). Area under the curve was significantly higher during the HP versus the HMF meal conditions for active GLP-1 (23.7 %; p = 0.0007), total GLP-1 (12.2 %; p < 0.0001), insulin (54.4 %; p < 0.0001), C-peptide (14.8 %; p < 0.0001), and glucagon (40.7 %; p < 0.0001). Blood glucose was not different between the HP versus HMF conditions (-4.8 %; p = 0.11). Insulin sensitivity was higher during the HMF versus HP conditions (Matsuda index mean difference: 16.3 %; p = 0.007). Appetite ratings were not different by meal condition. CONCLUSIONS:GLP-1 and insulin responses were higher during the HP condition. However, no difference was found in blood glucose between conditions, and insulin sensitivity was higher during the HMF condition, indicating that a HMF meal may be optimal at regulating blood glucose in overweight/obese individuals without type 2 diabetes.
Authors: Silvio E Inzucchi; Richard M Bergenstal; John B Buse; Michaela Diamant; Ele Ferrannini; Michael Nauck; Anne L Peters; Apostolos Tsapas; Richard Wender; David R Matthews Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Anne C Meyer-Gerspach; Bettina Wölnerhanssen; Bettina Beglinger; Falk Nessenius; Marylin Napitupulu; Felix H Schulte; Robert E Steinert; Christoph Beglinger Journal: Physiol Behav Date: 2014-02-28
Authors: Rachel L Batterham; Helen Heffron; Saloni Kapoor; Joanna E Chivers; Keval Chandarana; Herbert Herzog; Carel W Le Roux; E Louise Thomas; Jimmy D Bell; Dominic J Withers Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 27.287
Authors: Nora Hedbäck; Morten Hindsø; Kirstine N Bojsen-Møller; Adelaide K Linddal; Nils B Jørgensen; Carsten Dirksen; Andreas Møller; Viggo B Kristiansen; Bolette Hartmann; Jens J Holst; Maria S Svane; Sten Madsbad Journal: Front Nutr Date: 2022-04-29
Authors: Ernesto Maddaloni; Geremia B Bolli; Brian M Frier; Randie R Little; Richard D Leslie; Paolo Pozzilli; Raffaela Buzzetti Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 6.408
Authors: Hannah M Kinsella; Laura D Hostnik; Lindsey M Rings; Jacob M Swink; Teresa A Burns; Ramiro E Toribio Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.175