Dataset Information

Lower Postprandial Thermogenic Response to an Unprocessed Whole Food Meal Compared to an Iso-Energetic/Macronutrient Meal Replacement in Young Women: A Single-Blind Randomized Cross-Over Trial.

ABSTRACT: In contrast to ultra-processed foods that are associated with increased weight gain and obesity risk, nutritionally engineered dietary supplements, including meal replacement (MR) bars and shakes, are generally promoted as healthy. Limited data is available comparing the metabolic and hunger responses of whole food (WF) versus MR meals. The purpose of this study was to directly compare the thermic effect (TEM), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), hunger/taste ratings, and glucose response of two different breakfast meals containing MR and WF products in young healthy women. Eight volunteers completed two iso-caloric (529 kcals)/macronutrient (50% carbohydrates; 26% fat; 24% protein) test meals in a single-blind, randomized crossover design: (1) whole food meal; or (2) meal replacement. TEM was significantly higher following MR compared with WF (percent mean difference: 7.76 ± 3.78%; absolute mean difference: 0.053 ± 0.026 kcal/minute, p = 0.048), whereas WF substrate utilization demonstrated lower carbohydrate oxidation (RER) than MR (mean difference: -0.024 ± 0.008, p = 0.005). No differences existed for blood glucose response and feelings of hunger, desire to eat, and satiety among trials. Consumption of an MR meal increases postprandial thermogenesis and RER compared to a WF meal, which may impact weight control and obesity risk over the long-term.

SUBMITTER: Mohr AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7469013 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lower Postprandial Thermogenic Response to an Unprocessed Whole Food Meal Compared to an Iso-Energetic/Macronutrient Meal Replacement in Young Women: A Single-Blind Randomized Cross-Over Trial.

Mohr Alex E AE Ramos Carmen C Tavarez Kelvin K Arciero Paul J PJ

Nutrients 20200817 8

In contrast to ultra-processed foods that are associated with increased weight gain and obesity risk, nutritionally engineered dietary supplements, including meal replacement (MR) bars and shakes, are generally promoted as healthy. Limited data is available comparing the metabolic and hunger responses of whole food (WF) versus MR meals. The purpose of this study was to directly compare the thermic effect (TEM), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), hunger/taste ratings, and glucose response of two d ...[more]

PMID: 32824408

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The potential impact of prior meal composition on the postprandial glycemic response and glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) value determinations remains unclear.Objective: We determined the effect of meals that varied in macronutrient composition on the glycemic response and determination of GI and GL values of a subsequent standard test food.Design: Twenty healthy participants underwent 6 test sessions within 12 wk. The subjects received each of 3 isocaloric breakfast meals (i.e., high carbohydrate, high fat, or high protein) on separate days in a random order, which was followed by a standard set of challenges (i.e., white bread and a glucose drink) that were tested on separate days in a random order 4 h thereafter. Each challenge provided 50 g available carbohydrate. Arterialized venous blood was sampled throughout the 2-h postchallenge period. GI, GL, and insulin index (II) values were calculated with the use of the incremental area under the curve (AUCi) method, and serum lipids were determined with the use of standard assays.Results: The consumption of the high-protein breakfast before the white-bread challenge attenuated the rise in the postprandial serum glucose response (P < 0.0001) and resulted in lower glucose AUCi (P < 0.0001), GI (P = 0.0096), and GL (P = 0.0101) values than did the high-carbohydrate and high-fat breakfasts. The high-protein breakfast resulted in a lower insulin AUCi (P = 0.0146) for white bread than did the high-fat breakfast and a lower II value (P = 0.0285) than did the high-carbohydrate breakfast. The 3 breakfasts resulted in similar serum lipid responses to the white-bread challenge.Conclusions: These data indicate that the macronutrient composition of the prior meal influences the glycemic response and the determination of GI and GL values for white bread. Future studies are needed to determine whether the background food macronutrient composition influences mean dietary GI and GL values that are calculated for eating patterns, which may alter the interpretation of the associations between these values and chronic disease risk. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01023646.

Project description:BackgroundThe effects of ingesting varying essential amino acid (EAA)/protein-containing food formats on protein kinetics during energy deficit are undetermined. Therefore, recommendations for EAA/protein food formats necessary to optimize both whole-body protein balance and muscle protein synthesis (MPS) during energy deficit are unknown. We measured protein kinetics after consuming iso-nitrogenous amounts of free-form essential amino acid-enriched whey (EAA?+?W; 34.7?g protein, 24?g EAA sourced from whey and free-form EAA), whey (WHEY; 34.7?g protein, 18.7?g EAA), or a mixed-macronutrient meal (MEAL; 34.7?g protein, 11.4?g EAA) after exercise during short-term energy deficit.MethodsTen adults (mean?±?SD; 21?±?4 y; 25.7?±?1.7?kg/m2) completed a randomized, double-blind crossover study consisting of three, 5 d energy-deficit periods (-?30?±?3% of total energy requirements), separated by 14 d. Whole-body protein synthesis (PS), breakdown (PB), and net balance (NET) were determined at rest and in response to combination exercise consisting of load carriage treadmill walking, deadlifts, and box step-ups at the end of each energy deficit using L-[2H5]-phenylalanine and L-[2H2]-tyrosine infusions. Treatments were ingested immediately post-exercise. Mixed-muscle protein synthesis (mixed-MPS) was measured during exercise through recovery.ResultsChange (? postabsorptive + exercise to postprandial + recovery [mean treatment difference (95%CI)]) in whole-body (g/180?min) PS was 15.8 (9.8, 21.9; P?=?0.001) and 19.4 (14.8, 24.0; P?=?0.001) greater for EAA?+?W than WHEY and MEAL, respectively, with no difference between WHEY and MEAL. ?PB was -?6.3 (-?11.5, -?1.18; P?=?0.02) greater for EAA?+?W than WHEY and?-?7.7 (-?11.9, -?3.6; P?=?0.002) greater for MEAL than WHEY, with no difference between EAA?+?W and MEAL. ?NET was 22.1 (20.5, 23.8; P?=?0.001) and 18.0 (16.5, 19.5; P?=?0.00) greater for EAA?+?W than WHEY and MEAL, respectively, while ?NET was 4.2 (2.7, 5.6; P?=?0.001) greater for MEAL than WHEY. Mixed-MPS did not differ between treatments.ConclusionsWhile mixed-MPS was similar across treatments, combining free-form EAA with whey promotes greater whole-body net protein balance during energy deficit compared to iso-nitrogenous amounts of whey or a mixed-macronutrient meal.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier no. NCT04004715 . Retrospectively registered 28 June 2019, first enrollment 6 June 2019.

Project description:Biological mechanisms to promote dietary balance remain unclear. Fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21) has been suggested to contribute to such potential regulation considering that FGF21 1) is genetically associated with carbohydrate/sugar and protein intake in opposite directions, 2) is secreted after sugar ingestion and protein restriction, and 3) pharmacologically reduces sugar and increases protein intake in rodents. To gain insight of the nature of this potential regulation, we aimed to study macronutrient interactions in the secretory regulation of FGF21 in healthy humans. We conducted a randomized, double-blinded, crossover meal study (NCT05061485), wherein healthy volunteers consumed a sucrose drink, a sucrose + protein drink, and a sucrose + fat drink (matched sucrose content), and compared postprandial FGF21 responses between the three macronutrient combinations. Protein suppressed the sucrose-induced FGF21 secretion [incremental area under the curve (iAUC) for sucrose 484 ± 127 vs. sucrose + protein -35 ± 49 pg/mL × h, P < 0.001]. The same could not be demonstrated for fat (iAUC 319 ± 102 pg/mL × h, P = 203 for sucrose + fat vs. sucrose). We found no indications that regulators of glycemic homeostasis could explain this effect. This indicates that FGF21 responds to disproportionate intake of sucrose relative to protein acutely within a meal, and that protein outweighs sucrose in FGF21 regulation. Together with previous findings, our results suggests that FGF21 might act to promote macronutrient balance and sufficient protein intake.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Here we test the interactions between sugar, protein, and fat in human FGF21 regulation and demonstrate that protein, but not fat, suppresses sugar-induced FGF21 secretion. This indicates that protein outweighs the effects of sugar in the secretory regulation of FGF21, and could suggest that the nutrient-specific appetite-regulatory actions of FGF21 might prioritize ensuring sufficient protein intake over limiting sugar intake.

Project description:BackgroundMeals differ in their nutritional content. This variation has not been fully addressed despite its potential contribution in understanding eating behavior. The aim of this study was to investigate the between-meal and between-individual variance in energy and macronutrient intake as a measure of variation in intake and the meal type-specific relative importance of predictors of these intake variations.MethodsEnergy and macronutrient intake were derived from three 24 h dietary recalls in an EPIC-Potsdam sub-cohort of 814 German adults. Intra-class correlation was calculated for participants and meal type. Predictors of intake were assessed using meal type-specific multilevel regression models in a structural equation modeling framework at intake and participant levels using the Pratt Index. The importance of the predictor energy misreporting was assessed in sensitivity analyses on 682 participants. 95% confidence intervals were calculated based on 1000 bootstrap samples.ResultsDifferences between meal types explain a large proportion of the variation in intake (intra-class correlation: 39% for energy, 25% for carbohydrates, 47% for protein, and 33% for fat). Between-participant variation in intake was much lower, with a maximum of 3% for carbohydrate and fat. Place of meal was the most important intake-level predictor of energy and macronutrient intake (Pratt Index of up to 65%). Week/weekend day was important in the breakfast meal, and prior interval (hours passed since last meal) was important for the afternoon snack and dinner. On the participant level, sex was the most important predictor, with Pratt Index of up to 95 and 59% in the main and in the sensitivity analysis, respectively. Energy misreporting was especially important at the afternoon snack, accounting for up to 69% of the explained variance.ConclusionsThe meal type explains the highest variation in energy and macronutrient intakes. We identified key predictors of variation in the intake and in the participant levels. These findings suggest that successful dietary modification efforts should focus on improving specific meals.

Dataset Information

Lower Postprandial Thermogenic Response to an Unprocessed Whole Food Meal Compared to an Iso-Energetic/Macronutrient Meal Replacement in Young Women: A Single-Blind Randomized Cross-Over Trial.

Publications

Lower Postprandial Thermogenic Response to an Unprocessed Whole Food Meal Compared to an Iso-Energetic/Macronutrient Meal Replacement in Young Women: A Single-Blind Randomized Cross-Over Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets