| Literature DB >> 30424537 |
Zhuoshi Zhang1, Bernard J Venn2, John Monro3, Suman Mishra4.
Abstract
The satiating capacity of carbohydrate staples eaten alone is dependent upon the energy density of the food but relative satiety when starchy staples are incorporated into mixed meals is uncertain. Our aim was to assess the satiating effects of three carbohydrate staples; jasmine rice, penne pasta, and Agria potato, each consumed within a standard mixed meal. Cooked portions of each staple containing 45 g carbohydrate were combined with 200 g of meat sauce and 200 g of mixed vegetables in three mixed meals. The quantities of staple providing 45 g carbohydrate were: Rice, 142 g; pasta, 138 g and potato 337 g. Participants (n = 14) consumed each of the mixed meals in random order on separate days. Satiety was assessed with using visual analogue scales at baseline and for 3 h post meal. In an area-under-the-curve comparison, participants felt less hungry (mean (SD)) following potato 263 (230) than following rice 374 (237) or pasta 444 (254) mm∙min, and felt fuller, more satisfied, and wanted to eat less following the potato compared with the rice and pasta meals (p for all <0.01). The superior satiating effect of potato compared with rice and pasta in a mixed meal was consistent with its lower energy density.Entities:
Keywords: carbohydrate; mixed meal; pasta; potato; rice; satiety
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30424537 PMCID: PMC6267283 DOI: 10.3390/nu10111739
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Test meal composition.
| Meal | Meal Components | Total CHO (g) | Total Energy (kJ) | Energy Density (kJ/g) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mince + Sauce (g) | Vegetables (g) | Starchy Staple (g) | ||||
| Rice | 200 | 200 | 142 | 112 | 3010 | 5.55 |
| Pasta | 200 | 200 | 138 | 112 | 3010 | 5.59 |
| Whole potato | 200 | 200 | 337 | 112 | 3010 | 4.08 |
Figure 1CONSORT diagram showing the flow of participants through the study.
Mean (SD) baseline satiety scores of 14 people.
| Satiety Measure (mm) * | Pasta | Potato | Rice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hunger | 77.4 (21.9) | 77.1 (10.2) | 72.9 (19.8) |
| Fullness | 18.9 (16.9) | 18.7 (12.1) | 19.6 (14.9) |
| Desire | 87.9 (11.1) a | 77.1 (12.5) b | 77.3 (19.1) b |
| Quantity | 81.9 (11.4) a | 68.9 (11.2) b | 68.6 (19.8) b |
Different superscript letters within a row signify statistically significant. differences. * A high score indicates hunger; fullness, desire to eat; and ability to eat a large quantity.
Mean visual analogue scale (VAS) outcomes of 14 people in response to four satiety questions.
| Satiety Measure 1 | Mean (SD) | Mean Difference (95% Confidence Interval) Comparing between Meals Given in the Column Headings above | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pasta | Potato | Rice | Pasta vs. Potato | Pasta vs. Rice | Rice vs. Potato | |
| Hunger AUC | 448 (254) | 264 (230) | 376 (236) | 184 (105, 263) | −72 (−151, 8) | 112 (33, 191) |
| Fullness AUC | 964 (468) | 1120 (345) | 954 (423) | −155 (−335, 24) | −10 (−189, 170) | −165 (−344, 14.3) |
| Desire AUC | 427 (220) | 210 (190) | 361 (218) | 217 (147, 287) | −66 (−136, 4) | 151 (87, 214) |
| Quantity AUC | 436 (231) | 289 (257) | 389 (221) | 148 (65, 230) | −47 (−130, 36) | 100 (30, 171) |
| Change (mm) in VAS scores from commencement of eating to finishing the meal | ||||||
| Hunger drop 2 | 76 (18) | 72 (15) | 71 (16) | 3.6 (−2.5, 9.8) | −4.6 (−10.9, 1.6) | −1.0 (−7.2, 5.2) |
| Fullness rise 2 | 70.6 (18.3) | 75.7 (13.3) | 71.4 (19.7) | −5.1 (−8.0, −2.2) | 0.7 (−2.1, 3.7) | −4.3 (−7.2, −1.4) |
| Desire drop | 87.9 (11.1) | 77.1 (12.5) | 77.3 (19.1) | 10.9 (2.3, 19.4) | −10.6 (−19.2, −2.1) | 0.2 (−8.4, 8.8) |
| Quantity drop | 81.9 (11.4) | 68.9 (11.2) | 68.6 (19.8) | 13.0 (5.2, 20.8) | −13.4 (−21.2, −5.5) | −0.4 (−8.1, 7.5) |
| Rate of return of VAS scores (mm/h) from eating cessation to 3 h post-baseline | ||||||
| Hunger return 3 | 9.8 (6.5) | 6.5 (9.0) | 10.6 (9.3) | 3.2 (−0.1, 6.6) | 0.9 (−2.5, 4.3) | 4.1 (0.7, 7.5) |
| Fullness return | −10.6 (7.0) | −6.3 (8.5) | −12.2 (9.4) | −4.2 (−8.3, −0.2) | −1.6 (−5.7, 2.4) | −5.9 (−9.9, −1.8) |
| Desire return | 9.7 (6.1) | 5.7 (9.6) | 10.2 (8.8) | 4.0 (−1.1, 9.1) | 0.5 (−4.6, 5.6) | 4.5 (−0.2, 9.2) |
| Quantity return | 8.2 (3.9) | 3.5 (3.6) | 8.6 (6.2) | 4.7 (1.5, 7.9) | 0.4 (-2.8, 3.6) | 5.1 (2.3, 7.9) |
1 AUC Area-Under-the-Curve (cm∙min); 2 drop/rise = change in score (mm) from baseline to immediately after finishing the meal; 3 return from a satiated to a less satiated condition over time (mm/h). A positive difference in hunger, desire and quantity represent being hungrier, having greater desire and a feeling of being able to eat more. A negative difference in fullness represents feeling less full. Bolded p-values indicate differences between treatments.
Figure 2Plots of visual analogue scales (VAS) in response to four questions over time starting at baseline (t = 0) and following the consumption of pasta (×), potato (○) and rice (▲) meals. Data were analyzed by comparing the area-under-the-curve (AUC) among the meals for each of the questions. Interpretation of the data: How hungry do you feel? (Small AUC—Not at all hungry; Large AUC—Extremely hungry). How full do you feel? (Small AUC—Not at all full; Large AUC—Totally full). How strong is your desire to eat? (Small AUC—Not at all strong; Large AUC—Extremely strong). How much do you think you can eat? (Small AUC—Nothing at all; Large AUC—A large amount).