| Literature DB >> 31590285 |
Helen Lightowler1, Lisa Schweitzer2, Stephan Theis3, Christiani Jeyakumar Henry4.
Abstract
Low-glycemic compared to high-glycemic diets have been shown to improve metabolic status and enhance fat oxidation. The randomized, double-blind, controlled intervention study aimed to evaluate the effects of an energy-reduced diet containing isomaltulose (ISO, Palatinose™) versus sucrose (SUC) on body weight loss. Sixty-four healthy overweight/obese adults were allocated to consume either 40g/d ISO or SUC added to an energy-reduced diet for 12 weeks. Anthropometric measurements, body composition, and energy metabolism were assessed at baseline and after 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Fifty participants (age: 40.7 ± 11.7 y; BMI: 29.4 ± 2.7 kg/m²) completed the study. During the 12 weeks, both groups significantly lost weight (p < 0.001), which was more pronounced following ISO (-3.2 ± 2.9 vs. -2.1 ± 2.6 kg; p = 0.258). Moreover, for participants in the ISO group, this was accompanied by a significant reduction in fat mass (ISO: -1.9 ± 2.5, p = 0.005; SUC: -0.9 ± 2.6%, p = 0.224). The overall decrease in energy intake was significantly higher in the ISO compared to that in the SUC group (p = 0.022). In addition, breakfast containing ISO induced a significantly lower increase in postprandial respiratory quotient (RQ) (mean incremental area under the curve (iAUC)2h for ISO vs. SUC: 4.8 ± 4.1 vs. 6.9 ± 3.1, p = 0.047). The results suggest that ISO in exchange for SUC may help to facilitate body weight reduction, lower postprandial RQ associated with higher fat oxidation, and reduce energy intake.Entities:
Keywords: Palatinose™; diet; glycemic index; isomaltulose; overweight; substrate oxidation; weight management
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31590285 PMCID: PMC6836138 DOI: 10.3390/nu11102367
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Flow chart of participant numbers. ISO, isomaltulose; SUC, sucrose.
Anthropometrics, body composition, and energy metabolism of subjects before, during, and after the 12-week intervention (mean ± SD).
| Isomaltulose | Sucrose | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Week 4 | Week 8 | Week 12 | Baseline | Week 4 | Week 8 | Week 12 | |
| Females/males (n) | 21/4 (25) | – | – | – | 20/5 (25) | – | – | – |
| Age (yr) | 40.2 ± 12 | – | – | – | 41.2 ± 12 | – | – | – |
|
| ||||||||
| Weight (kg) | 82.8 ± 13.3 a | 81.0 ± 13.2 b | 80.0 ± 12.4 c | 79.6 ± 12.5 c | 83.2 ± 12.6 a | 81.9 ± 12.2 b | 81.3 ± 11.8 b | 81.0 ± 11.7 b |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 29.7 ± 2.9 a | 29.0 ± 2.9 b | 28.7 ± 2.8 c | 28.6 ± 2.9 c | 29.1 ± 2.5 a | 28.7 ± 2.4 b | 28.5 ± 2.3 b | 28.5 ± 2.3 b |
| WC (cm) | 91.4 ± 10.2 a | 90.1 ± 9.9 a | 87.9 ± 8.8 a | 87.9 ± 7.3 a | 90.7 ± 7.5 a | 89.1 ± 8.1 a | 90.0 ± 6.3 a | 89.1 ± 7.5 a |
| Fat mass (%) | 38.9 ± 5.7 a | 38.0 ± 6.1 a,b | 38.2 ± 6.0 a,b | 37.0 ± 6.9 b | 40.1 ± 6.2 a | 39.3 ± 6.8 a | 39.9 ± 6.5 a | 39.3 ± 6.6 a |
| Fat free mass (%) | 60.9 ± 5.8 a | 61.7 ± 6.6 a,b | 61.8 ± 6.0 a,b | 63.0 ± 6.9 b | 59.9 ± 6.2 a | 61.0 ± 6.9 a | 60.3 ± 6.6 a | 61.0 ± 6.6 a |
|
| ||||||||
| Total EI (kcal/d) | 2223 ± 486 *,a | 1828 ± 397 b | 1719 ± 347 b | 1679 ± 306 b | 1900±372 *,a | 1705 ± 344 a,b | 1583 ± 233 b | 1617 ± 245 b |
| REE (kcal/d) | 1538 ± 318 a | 1526 ± 353 a | 1480 ± 336 a,b | 1460 ± 333 b | 1502 ± 226 a | 1472 ± 223 a | 1467 ± 235 a | 1463 ± 241 a |
| ppEE (kcal/d) | 1781 ± 366 a | 1745 ± 336 a | 1652 ± 456 a | 1690 ± 291 b | 1800 ± 278 a | 1762 ± 233 a | 1749 ± 240 a | 1747 ± 238 a |
| Fasting RQ | 0.81 ± 0.06 a | 0.81 ± 0.06 a | 0.79 ± 0.05 a | 0.80 ± 0.05 a | 0.80 ± 0.06 a | 0.80 ± 0.05 a | 0.79 ± 0.05 a | 0.81 ± 0.06 a |
| ΔRQpp-fasting | 0.04 ± 0.05 a | 0.03 ± 0.10 a | 0.05 ± 0.05 a | 0.06 ± 0.05 a | 0.07 ± 0.05 a | 0.07 ± 0.04 a | 0.07 ± 0.04 a | 0.07 ± 0.03 a |
| iAUC2h RQ | 4.4 ± 4.9 a | 3.1 ± 10 a | 5.6 ± 6.5 a | 6.2 ± 6.5 a | 6.8 ± 7.9 a | 6.9 ± 6.8 a | 7.7 ± 8.2 a | 6.8 ± 6.6 a |
| Total AUC2h CO (kcal) | 64 ± 34 a | 65 ± 30 *,a | 62 ± 23 a | 68 ± 29 a | 74 ± 34 a | 93 ± 57 *,a | 70 ± 31 a | 78 ± 36 a |
| Total AUC2h FO (kcal) | 78 ± 51 a | 77 ± 47 a | 76 ± 40 a | 71 ± 44 a | 75 ± 36 a | 68 ± 31 a | 73 ± 37 a | 62 ± 32 a |
BMI, body mass index; CO, carbohydrate oxidation; EI, energy intake; FO, fat oxidation; iAUC, incremental area under the curve; ppEE, postprandial energy expenditure (calculated as the mean of the values at 30, 60, 90, and 120 min); REE, resting energy expenditure; RQ, respiratory quotient; WC, waist circumference. Significant within-group differences are characterized by values without a common superscript letter (repeated measures ANOVA: p < 0.05; Friedman test: p < 0.017). Significant between-group differences are marked with an asterisk* (independent sample t-test/Mann–Whitney U test: p < 0.05).
Figure 2Baseline adjusted mean body weight and body fat changes from baseline at weeks 4, 8, and 12 for the participants consuming isomaltulose (triangles, dotted lines) or sucrose (circles, solid line).
Figure 3Change in respiratory quotient (RQ) (∆RQ) from fasting state to 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after consumption of the test breakfast with isomaltulose (triangles, dotted lines) and sucrose (circles, solid line) at all four study visits. * Independent sample t-test: p < 0.05.
Figure 4Mean iAUC for RQ of the visits at baseline and weeks 4, 8, and 12 for isomaltulose (grey bar) and sucrose (black bar) considering 2 h post-breakfast consumption (0–120 min). * Independent sample t-test: p < 0.05.