| Literature DB >> 34505919 |
Lisa Dicks1,2, Linda Jakobs1,3, Miriam Sari1, Reinhard Hambitzer1, Norbert Ludwig1, Marie-Christine Simon3, Peter Stehle4, Birgit Stoffel-Wagner5, Hans-Peter Helfrich6, Jenny Ahlborn7, Martin Rühl7, Bolette Hartmann8, Jens J Holst8, Sabine Ellinger9,10.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) is a pathophysiological condition characterized by insulin resistance with known metabolic consequences such as postprandial hyperglycemia and hypertriglyceridemia. We hypothesized that fortifying a meal with mushrooms rich in β-glucans may diminish glucose and triglyceride responses by improving postprandial gastrointestinal hormone release.Entities:
Keywords: Appetite sensations; Gastrointestinal hormones; Impaired glucose tolerance; Oyster mushrooms; Postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism; β-Glucans
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34505919 PMCID: PMC8854321 DOI: 10.1007/s00394-021-02674-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nutr ISSN: 1436-6207 Impact factor: 5.614
Fig. 1Study design. Bars reflect measures to ensure comparable conditions on both study days. Stripes: instruction not to change body weight and lifestyle; dashed: treatment of premenopausal women in the same menstrual cycle phase; white: dietary restrictions, carbohydrate intake > 150 g/day; grey: request to avoid physical exertion and to consume a comparable dinner on both pre-study days; black: arriving at study center without great physical effort and using the same means of transport
Energy content and main ingredients of the meals, based on the analyses of their componentsa
| Meal components | Meal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Potato soup | Smoothie | Mushroom powder | Enrichedb | Controlc | |
| Energy, kcald | 287 | 116 | 53 | 456 | 403 |
| Protein, ge | 4.1 | 0.9 | 2.1 | 7.1 | 5.0 |
| Fat, gf | 21.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 21.8 | 21.5 |
| Total carbohydrates, gg | 23.8 | 28.7 | 15.3 | 67.9 | 52.5 |
| Available carbohydrates, gh | 16.0 | 26.5 | 5.5 | 47.6 | 41.1 |
| Trehalose, gi | NA | NA | 4.2 | 4.2 | NA |
| Other α-glucans, gj | NA | NA | 0.9 | 0.9 | NA |
| Dietary fiber, g | 7.9k | 2.3k | 9.9l | 20.0 | 10.1 |
| NA | NA | 8.1 | 8.1 | NA | |
| Chitin, gm | NA | NA | 1.7 | 1.7 | NA |
| Minerals, gn | 5.2 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 6.7 | 5.9 |
| Moisture, g (%)o | 335.6 (86.0) | 219.5 (87.8) | 1.5 (7.3) | 556.5 (84.3) | 555.1 (86.7) |
NA not analyzed
aData are mean values calculated from analyses in duplicate except for β-glucans which were investigated in quadruplicate
bCalculated as sum of potato soup, smoothie and mushroom powder except for trehalose, β-glucans, and chitin
cCalculated as sum of potato soup and smoothie
dDetermined according to regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 with the exception that the protein content was calculated as described in footnote e
eThe true protein content was calculated by the sum of analyzed amino acids, taking into account the loss of water due to the formation of peptide bonds [31]
fDetermined according to the procedure of Weibull-Stoldt [32]
gEstimated by the difference method: 100 − protein − fat − minerals − moisture
hCalculated by subtraction of dietary fiber from total carbohydrates
iDetermined photometrically using Trehalose Assay Kit K-TREH 12/19 (Megazyme Int. Ireland, Bray, Country Wicklow, Ireland)
jDetermined photometrically by β-Glucan (Yeast & Mushroom) Assay Kit K-YBGL (Megazyme Int. Ireland) according to Sari et al. [30]
kDetermined using total dietary fiber kit 1129790001 (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) by a combination of enzymatic and gravimetric methods
lCalculated as sum of β-glucans and chitin
mDetermined colorimetrically as described previously [31]
nDetermined according to §64 of the German Food and Feed Code by ashing the sample at 550 °C
oDetermined by thermogravimetric analysis
Fig. 2Flow of participants. ADA, American Diabetes Association; IGT, impaired glucose tolerance; OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test; RM-ANOVA, repeated-measures ANOVA
Baseline characteristics of the participantsa
| Females | Males | |
|---|---|---|
| Age, y | 42.7 ± 17.4 | 47.6 ± 18.2 |
| Height, m | 1.68 ± 0.05 | 1.75 ± 0.08 |
| BW, kg | 99.5 ± 18.6 | 98.0 ± 20.1 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 35.4 ± 6.3 | 31.8 ± 5.9 |
| BMI classificationb | ||
| Normal weight, | 1 (7.1) | 0 (0.0) |
| Overweight, | 0 (0.0) | 3 (37.5) |
| Obesity, class I, | 8 (57.1) | 3 (37.5) |
| Obesity, class II, | 2 (14.3) | 1 (12.5) |
| Obesity, class III, | 3 (21.4) | 1 (12.5) |
| Fat mass, % BW | 46.0 ± 5.2 | 33.1 ± 5.5 |
| Fat distribution | ||
| Waist circumference, cm | 106.4 ± 13.3 | 109.2 ± 12.7 |
| Waist-to-hip ratio | 0.85 ± 0.07 | 0.99 ± 0.06 |
| Android fat distribution, | 7 (50.0) | 8 (100.0) |
| Gynoid fat distribution, | 7 (50.0) | 0 (0.0) |
BW, body weight
aData are means ± SDs unless indicated otherwise. Determined in fasting state at the first visit
bAccording to WHO
Fig. 3Glucose concentrations (a), glucose iAUC (b), insulin concentrations (c) and insulin iAUC (d) after consumption of the enriched meal compared to the control meal. Data: means ± SEMs. Glucose concentrations were analyzed with Friedman test (P < 0.001; n = 18), followed by Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction (P ≥ 0.05). Insulin concentrations were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA (logarithmized values; effects by time P < 0.001, effects by treatment and meal × time interactions P ≥ 0.05 each; n = 18). iAUCs were compared by paired t test (P ≥ 0.05 each; n = 22). iAUC: incremental area under the curve
Fig. 4TG concentrations (a), TGs tAUC (b), NEFA concentrations (c) and NEFAs tAUC (d) after consumption of the enriched meal compared to the control meal. Data: means ± SEMs. TG concentrations were analyzed with Friedman test (P < 0.001; n = 18), followed by Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction (P ≥ 0.05). NEFA concentrations were analyzed with the use of repeated-measures ANOVA (logarithmized values; effects by time P < 0.001, effects by treatment and meal × time interactions P ≥ 0.05 each; n = 18). tAUCs were compared by paired t test (P ≥ 0.05 for TGs, *P ≤ 0.05 for NEFAs; n = 22). NEFAs: non-esterified free fatty acids, tAUC: total area under the curve, TGs: triglycerides
Fig. 5GLP-1 concentrations (a), GLP-1 tAUC (b), GIP concentrations (c), GIP tAUC (d), ghrelin concentrations (e) and ghrelin tAUC (f) after consumption of the enriched meal compared to the control meal. Data: means ± SEMs. During intervention, changes in plasma concentrations of GLP-1 (n = 18), GIP (n = 18) and ghrelin (n = 19) were investigated using Friedman test (P < 0.001 for each parameter), followed by Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction. P values were always ≥ 0.05 if not indicated otherwise. **P ≤ 0.01. tAUCs were compared by paired t test (GLP-1: ***P ≤ 0.001; GIP and ghrelin: P ≥ 0.05 each; n = 22). GIP: gastric inhibitory polypeptide, GLP-1: glucagon-like peptide-1, tAUC: total area under the curve
Fig. 6Hunger ratings (a), hunger tAUC (b), satiety ratings (c), satiety tAUC (d), fullness ratings (e), fullness tAUC (f), desire to eat ratings (g) and desire to eat tAUC (h) after consumption of the enriched meal compared to the control meal. Data: means ± SEMs. All ratings were analyzed using Friedman test (P < 0.001 each; n = 22), followed by Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction (P ≥ 0.05 for all comparisons). tAUCs were compared by paired t test (hunger: *P ≤ 0.05; further sensations: P ≥ 0.05 each; n = 22). tAUC: total area under the curve