Premium
Effects Of Low Calorie High‐Protein, And High‐Carbohydrate Breakfasts On Metabolic And Glycemic Responses And Food Perceptions In Overweight Women
Author(s) -
Rao Manisha,
Avalos Marco,
Wildman Robert,
DiMarco Nancy
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.30.1_supplement.1164.8
Subject(s) - postprandial , calorie , overweight , carbohydrate , glycemic , meal , glycemic index , medicine , appetite , area under the curve , glycemic load , repeated measures design , endocrinology , food science , insulin , zoology , obesity , chemistry , biology , statistics , mathematics
BACKGROUND High protein consumption, especially at breakfast, has been promoted to improve postprandial appetite constructs, resting energy expenditure (REE), glycemic responses and reduce calorie consumption at a subsequent meal. PURPOSE This study examined the acute effects of (a) a low calorie protein bar, (b) an isocaloric carbohydrate breakfast and (c) no breakfast on postprandial hunger, satiety, resting metabolic rate (RMR), plasma glucose and calorie intake at subsequent meal. METHODS Eleven overweight, but healthy, sedentary women (age 23.4 ± 5.0 y, body mass index 27.4 ± 1.54 kg/m 2 ) completed the randomized repeated measures study. The study consisted of three single‐breakfast treatments: (a) 180–190 kcal protein breakfast (PRO: 15g protein, 21g carbohydrate, and 5g fat), (b) isocaloric carbohydrate breakfast (CHO: <1g protein, 36g carbohydrate, and 6g fat) and (c) breakfast skipper (SKP). Plasma glucose concentrations, RMR and self‐perceived hunger and satiety assessments were performed at baseline and repeated over a period of three hours after breakfast (30 min, 60 min, 120 min and 180 min). This was followed by a free‐choice ad libitum lunch to determine calorie consumption. RESULTS Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed no significant differences between the effects of time, treatment, and time X treatment interaction on postprandial plasma glucose concentration, and RMR (p>0.05). Changes between pre‐breakfast and pre‐lunch hunger scores for each of the treatments were not significantly different (p>0.05). Total area under curve (AUC) for glucose responses were statistically similar for both PRO and CHO (AUC PRO = 533.78 kcal/180 min vs AUC CHO = 561.29 kcal/180 min; p>0.05). The three treatments resulted in statistically insignificant differences in average calories consumed at lunches (PRO=469.09 ± 78.32 kcal vs CHO=499.49 ± 144.36 kcal vs SKP=568.68 ± 207.77 kcal). Treatment and time yielded significant main effects on fullness/satiety responses. The PRO, elicited a significantly greater satiety score than CHO (p<0.05). Satiety declined significantly by the 120‐ and 180‐min post‐breakfast, irrespective of the treatment (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS High‐protein, energy‐restricted diets have been associated with several health benefits. Although not significantly different from the other breakfasts, the data trended toward improvements in hunger, RMR, glucose response and subsequent calorie intake and a notable increase in satiety following the consumption of a low‐calorie protein breakfast. It may be concluded that 15g of protein may not be sufficient to positively affect variables for the study population. Support or Funding Information Dymatize Enterprise LLC, Texas Woman's University Institute for Women's Health, and Texas Woman's University Office of Research and Sponsored Programs