| Literature DB >> 31614418 |
Carlos García-Vázquez1, Jorge L Ble-Castillo2, Yolanda Arias-Córdova3, Rubén Córdova-Uscanga4, Carlos A Tovilla-Zárate5, Isela E Juárez-Rojop6, Viridiana Olvera-Hernández7, Carina S Alvarez-Villagomez8, Ana M Nolasco-Coleman9, Juan C Díaz-Zagoya10.
Abstract
Reports surrounding the role of resistant starch (RS) on postprandial lipemia in humans are scarce. The aim of the present study is to examine the effects of resistant starch on the postprandial lipemic response, subjective measures of appetite, and energy intake in overweight and obese subjects. In a randomized, single-blind, crossover study, 14 overweight/obese participants ate a high-fat breakfast (679 kcal, 58% from fat) and a supplement with native banana starch (NBS), high-amylose maize starch (HMS), or digestible maize starch (DMS) on three separate occasions. All supplements provided were matched by the available carbohydrate content, and the RS quantity in NBS and HMS supplements was identical. Appetite was estimated using visual analogue scale (VAS) and an ad libitum test meal. Postprandial glycemia, triglycerides, cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and insulin excursions did not differ between treatments. Subjective appetite measures of satiety were significantly increased after HMS; however, no effects on energy intake were observed during the ad libitum test meal. These findings suggest that a single acute dose of RS cannot be expected to improve postprandial lipemia in subjects with overweight or obesity on a high-fat meal. However, the potential benefits of long-term supplementation should not be ruled out based on these results.Entities:
Keywords: appetite; indigestible carbohydrates; postprandial lipemia; resistant starch; triglycerides
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31614418 PMCID: PMC6843443 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16203827
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Flow diagram of participants in enrollment, allocation, and experimental phases. A total of 22 volunteers were randomly allocated to receive a high-fat breakfast supplemented with digestible maize starch (DMS), high-amylose maize starch (HMS), or native banana starch (NBS) during one-day intervention. Then, they were crossed over any of the other arms after one-week washout period. The blue crosses represent the crossover design in which the participants cross over from one treatment to another.
Baseline characteristics of the study participants.
| Characteristic | Female | Male | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects ( | 11 | 3 | 14 |
| Age (year) | 21.18 ± 0.76 | 21.67 ± 1.67 | 21.29 ± 0.67 |
| Height (cm) | 156.50 ± 1.12 | 175.30 ± 3.84 | 160.50 ± 9.06 |
| Body weight (kg) | 75.55 ± 3.80 | 98.17 ± 7.85 | 80.39 ± 4.17 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 30.77 ± 1.29 | 31.80 ± 1.21 | 30.99 ± 1.03 |
| Fat percentage (%) | 36.39 ± 2.12 | 27.50 ± 1.80 | 34.49 ± 1.96 |
| SBP (mm Hg) | 119.50 ± 3.23 | 128.30 ± 11.14 | 121.40 ± 3.37 |
| DBP (mm Hg) | 73.64 ± 2.55 | 73.33 ± 4.10 | 73.57 ± 2.12 |
| Waist (cm) | 100.20 ± 8.13 | 104.00 ± 1.53 | 101.00 ± 6.34 |
| Hip (cm) | 109.10 ± 2.64 | 115.80 ± 4.32 | 110.60 ± 2.32 |
| Waist to Hip Ratio | 0.93 ± 0.09 | 0.90 ± 0.00 | 0.92 ± 0.07 |
|
| |||
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 84.27 ± 1.94 | 89.00 ± 5.20 | 86.00 ± 1.84 |
| Insulin (µUI/mL) | 5.30 (3.62, 9.13) | 9.66 (5.54, 38.70) | 5.72 (3.86, 10.45) |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 154.0 (91.00, 238.00) | 282 (98.00, 441.00) | 163.00 (96.25, 249.00) |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | 184.5 ± 11.59 | 217.7 ± 27.30 | 185.90 ± 9.15 |
| HDL cholesterol (mg/dL) | 48.57 ± 4.03 | 38.70 ± 6.91 | 48.22 ± 3.64 |
Data are expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) or median (25th and 75th percentiles). BMI, body mass index; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; SBP, systolic blood pressure.
Figure 2Postprandial responses of (a) glycemia and (b) insulin. The basal concentrations and the concentrations following ingestion of breakfast and treatments are shown. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 14). Comparisons are based on two-way repeated-measures ANOVA and the Tukey post-hoc test. * p < 0.01, NBS vs. DMS.
Figure 3Postprandial lipemic responses: (a) triglycerides, (b) cholesterol, and (c) HDL cholesterol. Basal concentrations and following ingestion of breakfast and treatments are shown. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 14). The triglyceride values are expressed as Δ-TG. Comparisons are based on two-way repeated-measures ANOVA and the Tukey post-hoc test. * p < 0.05, HMS vs. DMS.
Figure 4Effects of NBS on the subjective estimation of appetite using the visual analogue scale (VAS). (a) Hunger; (b) satiety; (c) fullness; (d) prospective consumption. Data are presented as changes from baseline and are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 14). Comparisons are based on two-way ANOVA with the Tukey post-hoc test. * p < 0.05, HMS vs. NBS; # p < 0.05, HMS vs. DMS.
Figure 5Caloric intake during the (a) ad libitum test meal and (b) dinner. Data for dinner were obtained from food records. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 14). Comparisons are based on one-way ANOVA with Tukey post-hoc test.