Dataset Information

Pre-Sleep Casein Protein Ingestion Does Not Impact Next-Day Appetite, Energy Intake and Metabolism in Older Individuals.

ABSTRACT: Maintaining adequate daily protein intake is important to maintain muscle mass throughout the lifespan. In this regard, the overnight period has been identified as a window of opportunity to increase protein intake in the elderly. However, it is unknown whether pre-sleep protein intake affects next-morning appetite and, consequently, protein intake. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to investigate the effects of a pre-sleep protein drink on next-morning appetite, energy intake and metabolism. Twelve older individuals (eight males, four females; age: 71.3 ± 4.2 years) took part in a single-blind randomised cross-over study. After a standardised dinner, participants consumed either a 40-g protein drink, isocaloric maltodextrin drink, or placebo water control before bedtime. Next-morning appetite, energy intake, resting metabolic rate (RMR), respiratory exchange rate (RER), and plasma acylated ghrelin, leptin, glucose, and insulin concentrations were assessed. No between-group differences were observed for appetite and energy intake at breakfast. Furthermore, RMR, RER, and assessed blood markers were not significantly different between any of the treatment groups. Pre-sleep protein intake does not affect next-morning appetite and energy intake and is therefore a viable strategy to increase daily protein intake in an older population.

SUBMITTER: Morehen S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7019576 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pre-Sleep Casein Protein Ingestion Does Not Impact Next-Day Appetite, Energy Intake and Metabolism in Older Individuals.

Morehen Stephen S Smeuninx Benoit B Perkins Molly M Morgan Paul P Breen Leigh L

Nutrients 20191228 1

Maintaining adequate daily protein intake is important to maintain muscle mass throughout the lifespan. In this regard, the overnight period has been identified as a window of opportunity to increase protein intake in the elderly. However, it is unknown whether pre-sleep protein intake affects next-morning appetite and, consequently, protein intake. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to investigate the effects of a pre-sleep protein drink on next-morning appetite, energy intake and ...[more]

PMID: 31905607

Similar Datasets

Project description:Beverage consumption is implicated in the overweight/obesity epidemic through the weaker energy compensation response it elicits compared with solid food forms. However, plausible mechanisms are not documented.This study assessed the cognitive and sensory contributions of differential postingestive responses to energy- and macronutrient-matched liquid (in beverage form) and solid food forms and identifies physiologic processes that may account for them.Fifty-two healthy adults [mean ± SD age: 24.7 ± 5.5 y; BMI (in kg/m(2)): 26.3 ± 6.3] completed this randomized, 4-arm crossover study. Participants consumed oral liquid and solid preloads that they perceived, through cognitive manipulation, to be liquid or solid in their stomach (ie, oral liquid/perceived gastric liquid, oral liquid/perceived gastric solid, oral solid/perceived gastric liquid, or oral solid/perceived gastric solid). However, all preloads were designed to present a liquid gastric challenge. Appetite, gastric-emptying and orocecal transit times, and selected endocrine responses were monitored for the following 4 h; total energy intake was also recorded.Oral-liquid and perceived gastric-liquid preloads elicited greater postprandial hunger and lower fullness sensations, more rapid gastric-emptying and orocecal transit times, attenuated insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 release, and lower ghrelin suppression than did responses after oral-solid and perceived gastric-solid treatments (all P < 0.05). Faster gastric-emptying times were significantly associated with greater energy intake after consumption of perceived gastric-liquid preloads (P < 0.05). Energy intake was greater on days when perceived gastric-liquid preloads were consumed than when perceived gastric solids were consumed (2311 ± 95 compared with 1897 ± 72 kcal, P = 0.007).These data document sensory and cognitive effects of food form on ingestive behavior and identify physical and endocrine variables that may account for the low satiety value of beverages. They are consistent with findings that clear, energy-yielding beverages pose a particular risk for positive energy balance. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01070199.

Project description:BackgroundType 2 resistant starch (RS2) has been shown to improve metabolic health outcomes and may increase satiety and suppress appetite and food intake in humans.ObjectiveThis study assessed whether 12 weeks of daily RS2 supplementation could influence appetite perception, food intake, and appetite-related gut hormones in adults with prediabetes, relative to the control (CTL) group.DesignThe study was a randomized controlled trial and analysis of secondary study end points.Participants/settingSixty-eight adults (body mass index ≥27) aged 35 to 75 years with prediabetes were enrolled in the study at Pennington Biomedical Research Center (2012 to 2016). Fifty-nine subjects were included in the analysis.InterventionParticipants were randomized to consume 45 g/day of high-amylose maize (RS2) or an isocaloric amount of the rapidly digestible starch amylopectin (CTL) for 12 weeks.Main outcome measuresSubjective appetite measures were assessed via visual analogue scale and the Eating Inventory; appetite-related gut hormones (glucagon-like peptide 1, peptide YY, and ghrelin) were measured during a standard mixed-meal test; and energy and macronutrient intake were assessed by a laboratory food intake (buffet) test, the Remote Food Photography Method, and SmartIntake app.Statistical analyses performedData were analyzed using linear mixed models, adjusting for treatment group and time as fixed effects, with a significance level of α=.05.ResultsRS2 had no effect on subjective measures of appetite, as assessed by visual analogue scale (P>0.05) and the Eating Inventory (P≥0.24), relative to the CTL group. There were no effects of RS2 supplementation on appetite-related gut hormones, including glucagon-like peptide 1 (P=0.61), peptide YY (P=0.34), and both total (P=0.26) and active (P=0.47) ghrelin compared with the CTL. RS2 had no effect on total energy (P=0.30), carbohydrate (P=0.11), protein (P=0.64), or fat (P=0.37) consumption in response to a buffet meal test, relative to the CTL. In addition, total energy (P=0.40), carbohydrate (P=0.15), protein (P=0.46), and fat (P=0.53) intake, as quantified by the Remote Food Photography Method, were also unaffected by RS2, relative to the CTL.ConclusionsRS2 supplementation did not increase satiety or reduce appetite and food intake in adults with prediabetes.

Project description:PurposeTo compare energy intake (EI) and appetite regulation responses between men and women following acute bouts of aerobic (AEx), resistance exercise (REx), and a sedentary control (CON).MethodsMen and women (n = 24; 50% male) with overweight/obesity, matched on age (32.3 ± 2 vs. 36.8 ± 2 yrs, p = 0.14) and BMI (28.1 ± 1.2 vs 29.0 ± 1.5 kg/m2, p = 0.64) completed 3 conditions: 1) AEx (65-70% of age-predicted maximum heart rate for 45 min); 2) REx (1-set to failure on 12 exercises); and 3) CON. Each condition was initiated in the post-prandial state (35 min following consumption of a standardized breakfast). Appetite (visual analog scale for hunger, satiety, and prospective food consumption [PFC]) and hormones (ghrelin, PYY, and GLP-1) were measured in the fasted state and every 30 min post-prandially for 3 h. Post-exercise ad libitum EI at the lunch meal was also measured.ResultsMen reported higher levels of hunger compared to women across all study conditions (AEx: Men: 7815.00 ± 368.3; Women: 5428.50 ± 440.0 mm x 180 min; p = 0.025; REx: Men: 7110.00 ± 548.4; Women: 6086.25 ± 482.9 mm x 180 min; p = 0.427; CON: Men: 8315.00 ± 429.8; Women: 5311.25 ± 543.1 mm x 180 min; p = 0.021) and consumed a greater absolute caloric load than women at the ad libitum lunch meal (AEx: Men: 1021.6 ± 105.4; Women: 851.7 ± 70.5 kcals; p = 0.20; REx: Men: 1114.7 ± 104.0; Women: 867.7 ± 76.4 kcals; p = 0.07; CON: Men: 1087.0 ± 98.8; Women: 800.5 ± 102.3 kcals; p = 0.06). However, when adjusted for relative energy needs, there was no difference in relative ad libitum EI observed between men and women. No differences in Area Under the Curve for Satiety, PFC, ghrelin, PYY, and GLP-1 were noted between men and women following acute exercise (all p > 0.05).ConclusionsThese data suggest that women report lower ratings of appetite following an acute bout of exercise or sedentary time when compared to men, yet have similar relative EI. Future work is needed to examine whether sex-based differences in appetite regulation and EI are present with chronic exercise of differing modalities.

Dataset Information

Pre-Sleep Casein Protein Ingestion Does Not Impact Next-Day Appetite, Energy Intake and Metabolism in Older Individuals.

Publications

Pre-Sleep Casein Protein Ingestion Does Not Impact Next-Day Appetite, Energy Intake and Metabolism in Older Individuals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure