NUTRIM School for Nutrition, Toxicology and Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Centre + (MUMC+), Department of Human Biology, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Mar;19(3):522-7. doi: 10.1038/oby.2010.258. Epub 2010 Oct 21.
Hunger is a potential problem for compliance with an energy-restricted diet. Relatively high-protein meal-replacement products have been shown to diminish this problem; they are available as liquid and solid meals, yet their physical state can affect hunger suppression. The objective was to investigate the differences in appetite profile and physiological parameters after consumption of a single-macronutrient, subject-specific, high-protein meal in liquefied vs. solid form, controlled for energy density, weight, and volume. Ten male subjects (age: 21.1 ± 3.9 years; BMI: 22.4 ± 1.2 kg/m²) were offered lunch subject-specifically as 15% of daily energy requirement (DER), consisting of solid (steamed chicken breast + 750 ml water) or liquefied protein (steamed chicken breast blended in 500 ml water + 250 ml water). Appetite profiles, insulin, glucose, and ghrelin were measured over 3 h. Comparing the solid vs. liquefied condition, oral exposure time did not differ between conditions (19.2 ± 0.4 and 18.8 ± 0.6 min, respectively; P = 0.13). Area under the curve (AUC) effects were observed for thirst; statistically significant condition × time interactions and statistically significant differences at several time points were observed for desire to eat (condition × time P < 0.05; 31 ± 6 mm vs. 53 ± 8 mm; P < 0.04 at 115 min) and thirst (condition × time P < 0.01; 27 ± 8 mm vs. 41 ± 8 mm; P < 0.05 at 30 min and 23 ± 6 mm vs. 41 ± 8 mm; P < 0.02 at 70 min) to be lower, while hunger suppression (79 ± 3 mm and 52 ± 10 mm; P < 0.03 at 20 min and 61 ± 7 mm and 44 ± 8 mm; P < 0.03 at 115 min) was higher in the solid condition. Glucose, insulin, and ghrelin concentration curves were similar for both conditions. In conclusion, solid protein evokes a stronger suppression of hunger and desire to eat than liquefied protein.
饥饿是遵守能量限制饮食的一个潜在问题。相对高蛋白的代餐产品已被证明可以减少这个问题;它们有液体和固体形式,但它们的物理状态会影响饥饿抑制。目的是研究在控制能量密度、重量和体积的情况下,单一宏量营养素、个体特定的高蛋白餐以液化和固体形式摄入后,食欲状况和生理参数的差异。10 名男性受试者(年龄:21.1 ± 3.9 岁;BMI:22.4 ± 1.2 kg/m²)根据每天的能量需求(DER)的 15%,提供特定于个体的午餐,包括固体(蒸鸡胸肉+750 毫升水)或液体蛋白质(蒸鸡胸肉与 500 毫升水混合+250 毫升水)。在 3 小时内测量食欲曲线、胰岛素、葡萄糖和 ghrelin。与固体条件相比,液体和固体条件的口腔暴露时间没有差异(分别为 19.2 ± 0.4 和 18.8 ± 0.6 分钟;P = 0.13)。口渴的 AUC 效应存在;在几个时间点观察到了条件×时间的显著交互作用和显著差异(条件×时间 P < 0.05;31 ± 6 毫米 vs. 53 ± 8 毫米;115 分钟时 P < 0.04)和口渴(条件×时间 P < 0.01;27 ± 8 毫米 vs. 41 ± 8 毫米;30 分钟和 23 ± 6 毫米 vs. 41 ± 8 毫米时 P < 0.05;70 分钟时 P < 0.02),而固体条件下的饥饿抑制(79 ± 3 毫米和 52 ± 10 毫米;20 分钟和 61 ± 7 毫米和 44 ± 8 毫米时 P < 0.03)更高。两种条件下的葡萄糖、胰岛素和 ghrelin 浓度曲线相似。总之,固体蛋白质比液体蛋白质引起更强的饥饿抑制和食欲抑制。