Literature DB >> 8862476

Breakfasts high in protein, fat or carbohydrate: effect on within-day appetite and energy balance.

R J Stubbs1, M C van Wyk, A M Johnstone, C G Harbron.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of isoenergetically-dense, high-protein (HP), high-fat (HF) or high-carbohydrate (HC) breakfasts (at 08.30) on subjective hunger, fullness and appetite (measured hourly on a 100 mm visual analogue scale), macronutrient balance and ad libitum energy intake (EI), at a test meal (13.30) and throughout the rest of the day (until 23.00).
DESIGN: Six men each spent 24 h in a whole-body indirect calorimeter on three separate occasions during which they received breakfasts designed to match 75% of BMR and that comprised, on average 3.1 MJ of protein (HP), carbohydrate (HC) or fat (HF), respectively, the remainder being split between the other two macronutrients. Every item of the ad libitum diet comprised 13% protein, 40% fat and 47% carbohydrate by energy, with an energy density of 550 kJ/100 g.
RESULTS: Subjectively-rated pleasantness did not differ between the breakfasts, or any of the subsequent ad libitum meals. Subjective hunger was significantly greater during the hours between breakfast and lunch after the HF (26) treatment relative to the HP (18) or HC (18 mm) meals (P < 0.001), although the HP treatment suppressed hunger to a greater extent than the other two treatments over 24 h. However, mean ad libitum lunch intakes were similar at 5.38, 5.30 and 5.18 MJ (NS) on the HP, HC and HF treatments, respectively. After-lunch intakes were also very similar at 6.14, 6.18 and 5.83 MJ (NS). Mean 24-h energy expenditure amounted to 11.12, 11.14 and 10.93 MJ, respectively, producing energy balances of 5.71, 5.83 and 5.04 MJ (NS), respectively. The HP, HF and HC breakfasts led to enhanced P, F and C oxidation, respectively (P < 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Large HP, HC or HF breakfasts led to detectable changes in hunger that were not of sufficient magnitude to influence lunch-time intake 5 h later, or EI for the rest of the day. A single positive balance of each macronutrient can be buffered by oxidation and storage capacity, without leading to changes in meal-to-meal EI, when subjects feed ad libitum on unfamiliar diets of fixed composition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8862476

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr        ISSN: 0954-3007            Impact factor:   4.016


  28 in total

1.  Increasing the protein content of meals and its effect on daily energy intake.

Authors:  Alexandria D Blatt; Liane S Roe; Barbara J Rolls
Journal:  J Am Diet Assoc       Date:  2011-02

Review 2.  Homeostatic regulation of protein intake: in search of a mechanism.

Authors:  Christopher D Morrison; Scott D Reed; Tara M Henagan
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 3.619

3.  Energy expenditure does not differ, but protein oxidation rates appear lower in meals containing predominantly meat versus soy sources of protein.

Authors:  Sze-Yen Tan; Marijka Batterham; Linda Tapsell
Journal:  Obes Facts       Date:  2010-04-06       Impact factor: 3.942

4.  Comparative effects of whey and casein proteins on satiety in overweight and obese individuals: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  S Pal; S Radavelli-Bagatini; M Hagger; V Ellis
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 4.016

Review 5.  Evaluating the Intervention-Based Evidence Surrounding the Causal Role of Breakfast on Markers of Weight Management, with Specific Focus on Breakfast Composition and Size.

Authors:  Heather J Leidy; Jess A Gwin; Connor A Roenfeldt; Adam Z Zino; Rebecca S Shafer
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2016-05-16       Impact factor: 8.701

Review 6.  Protein and diabetes: much advice, little research.

Authors:  Marion J Franz
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 4.810

7.  Associations between macronutrient intake and self-reported appetite and fasting levels of appetite hormones: results from the Optimal Macronutrient Intake Trial to Prevent Heart Disease.

Authors:  Jeannette M Beasley; Brett A Ange; Cheryl A M Anderson; Edgar R Miller; Thomas P Erlinger; Janet T Holbrook; Frank M Sacks; Lawrence J Appel
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Acyl and total ghrelin are suppressed strongly by ingested proteins, weakly by lipids, and biphasically by carbohydrates.

Authors:  Karen E Foster-Schubert; Joost Overduin; Catherine E Prudom; Jianhua Liu; Holly S Callahan; Bruce D Gaylinn; Michael O Thorner; David E Cummings
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 5.958

9.  The neural signature of satiation is associated with ghrelin response and triglyceride metabolism.

Authors:  Xue Sun; Maria G Veldhuizen; Amanda E Wray; Ivan E de Araujo; Robert S Sherwin; Rajita Sinha; Dana M Small
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2014-04-13

10.  Biochemical, Anthropometric, and Physiological Responses to Carbohydrate-Restricted Diets Versus a Low-Fat Diet in Obese Adults: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

Authors:  Mayumi Petrisko; Rebecca Kloss; Patricia Bradley; Erika Birrenkott; Audrey Spindler; Zachary S Clayton; Mark Kern
Journal:  J Med Food       Date:  2020-03-02       Impact factor: 2.786

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.