Dataset Information

Instant Oatmeal Increases Satiety and Reduces Energy Intake Compared to a Ready-to-Eat Oat-Based Breakfast Cereal: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Foods that enhance satiety can help consumers to resist environmental cues to eat and help adherence to calorie restriction. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of 2 oat-based breakfast cereals on appetite, satiety, and food intake.

Methods

Forty-eight healthy individuals, 18 years of age or older, were enrolled in a randomized, crossover trial. Subjects consumed isocaloric servings of either oatmeal or an oat-based ready-to-eat breakfast cereal (RTEC) in random order at least a week apart. Visual analogue scales measuring appetite and satiety were completed before breakfast and throughout the morning. Lunch was served 4 hours after breakfast. The physicochemical properties of oat soluble fiber (β-glucan) were determined. Appetite and satiety responses were analyzed by area under the curve. Food intake and β-glucan properties were analyzed using t tests.

Results

Oatmeal increased fullness (p = 0.001) and reduced hunger (p = 0.005), desire to eat (p = 0.001), and prospective intake (p = 0.006) more than the RTEC. Energy intake at lunch was lower after eating oatmeal compared to the RTEC (p = 0.012). Oatmeal had higher viscosity (p = 0.03), β-glucan content, molecular weight (p < 0.001), and radius of gyration (p < 0.001) than the RTEC.

Conclusions

Oatmeal suppresses appetite, increases satiety, and reduces energy intake compared to the RTEC. The physicochemical properties of β-glucan and sufficient hydration of oats are important factors affecting satiety and subsequent energy intake.

SUBMITTER: Rebello CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4674378 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWe tested the acute effect of breakfast (ready-to-eat-cereal [RTEC] and milk) versus (vs.) no breakfast on cognitive function and subjective state in adolescents.MethodsHealthy adolescents (n = 234) aged 11-13 years were recruited to take part in this school-based, acute, randomised, controlled, parallel groups trial with two interventions; Breakfast or No Breakfast. The breakfast intervention consisted of ad libitum intake of RTEC (up to 70 g) with milk (up to 300 ml) administered in a naturalistic school breakfast programme environment. Cognitive function was assessed at baseline and + 70 and + 215 min post-intervention in a group-testing situation, similar to a school classroom context. The CANTAB test battery included: Simple Reaction Time (SRT), 5-Choice Reaction Time (5-CRT), Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVIP), and Paired Associates Learning (PAL; primary outcome). Data collection commenced January 2011 and ended May 2011. This trial was retrospectively registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03979027 on 07/06/2019.ResultsA significant effect of the intervention (CMH[1] = 7.29, p < 0.01) was found for the number of levels achieved on the PAL task. A significant difference between interventions was found when baseline performance reached level 2 (JT, z = 2.58, p < 0.01), such that 100% of participants in the breakfast intervention reached the maximum level 4 but only 41.7% of those in the no breakfast intervention reached level 4. A significant baseline*intervention interaction (F[1,202] = 6.95, p < 0.01) was found for total errors made on the PAL task, indicating that participants who made above-average errors at baseline reduced the total number of errors made at subsequent test sessions following breakfast consumption whilst those in the no breakfast intervention did not. There was a positive effect of breakfast on reaction time and visual-sustained attention. The results also demonstrated interactions of intervention with baseline cognitive performance, such that breakfast conferred a greater advantage for performance when baseline performance was poorer.ConclusionConsuming breakfast has a positive acute effect on cognition in adolescents.

Project description:BackgroundEating disorders and obesity are serious health problems with poor treatment outcomes and high relapse rates despite well-established treatments. Several studies have suggested that virtual reality technology could enhance the current treatment outcomes and could be used as an adjunctive tool in their treatment.ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate the differences between eating virtual and real-life meals and test the hypothesis that eating a virtual meal can reduce hunger among healthy women.MethodsThe study included 20 healthy women and used a randomized crossover design. The participants were asked to eat 1 introduction meal, 2 real meals, and 2 virtual meals, all containing real or virtual meatballs and potatoes. The real meals were eaten on a plate that had been placed on a scale that communicated with analytical software on a computer. The virtual meals were eaten in a room where participants were seated on a real chair in front of a real table and fitted with the virtual reality equipment. The eating behavior for both the real and virtual meals was filmed. Hunger was measured before and after the meals using questionnaires.ResultsThere was a significant difference in hunger from baseline to after the real meal (mean difference=61.8, P<.001) but no significant change in hunger from before to after the virtual meal (mean difference=6.9, P=.10). There was no significant difference in food intake between the virtual and real meals (mean difference=36.8, P=.07). Meal duration was significantly shorter in the virtual meal (mean difference=-5.4, P<.001), which led to a higher eating rate (mean difference=82.9, P<.001). Some participants took bites and chewed during the virtual meal, but the number of bites and chews was lower than in the real meal. The meal duration was reduced from the first virtual meal to the second virtual meal, but no significant difference was observed between the 2 real meals.ConclusionsEating a virtual meal does not appear to significantly reduce hunger in healthy individuals. Also, this methodology does not significantly result in eating behaviors identical to real-life conditions but does evoke chewing and bite behavior in certain individuals.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05734209, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05734209.