Department of Food Science and Nutrition, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
MRC/ARUK Centre for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Division of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2022 Jan 11;115(1):284-297. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqab323.
Evidence is emerging that interdaily meal pattern variability potentially affects response such as thermic effect of food (TEF), macronutrient metabolism, and appetite.
To investigate the effect of irregular meal pattern on TEF, glucose, insulin, lipid profile, and appetite regulation in women who are overweight or with obesity and confirmed insulin resistance.
In a randomized crossover trial, 9 women [mean ± SD BMI (in kg/m2): 33.3 ± 3.1] with confirmed insulin resistance consumed a regular (14 d; 6 meals/d) and an irregular (14 d; 3-9 meals/d) meal pattern separated by a 14-d washout interval. Identical foods were provided during the interventions, and at the start and end of each meal pattern, participants attended the laboratory after an overnight fast. Energy expenditure, glucose, insulin, lipids, adiponectin, leptin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), peptide YY (PYY), and ghrelin were measured at baseline and for 3 h after consumption of a test drink, after which an ad libitum test meal was offered. Subjective appetite ratings were recorded before and after the test drink, after the ad libitum meal, and during the intervention. Continuous interstitial glucose monitoring was undertaken for 7 consecutive days during each intervention.
TEF (over 3 h) was significantly lower postirregular intervention compared with postregular (97.7 ± 19.2 kJ3 h in postregular visit and 76.7 ± 35.2 kJ3 h in postirregular visit, paired t test, P = 0.048). Differences in HOMA-IR between the 2 interventions (3.3 ± 1.7 and 3.6 ± 1.6 in postregular and postirregular meal pattern, respectively) were not significant. Net incremental AUC for GLP-1 concentrations (over 3 h) for the postregular meal pattern were higher (864.9 ± 456.1 pmol/L3 h) than the postirregular meal pattern (487.6 ± 271.7 pmol/L3 h, paired t test, P = 0.005).
Following a 14-d period of an irregular meal pattern, TEF was significantly less than following a regular meal pattern, potentially compromising weight management if sustained long term. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02582606.
有证据表明，日间进食模式的变化可能会影响某些反应，如食物的热效应（TEF）、宏量营养素代谢和食欲。
研究不规律的进食模式对超重或肥胖且确诊存在胰岛素抵抗的女性的 TEF、葡萄糖、胰岛素、血脂谱和食欲调节的影响。
在一项随机交叉试验中，9 名女性[平均±标准差体重指数（kg/m2）：33.3±3.1]在 14 天的试验期内分别接受规律（14 天；6 餐/天）和不规律（14 天；3-9 餐/天）的进食模式，两种模式间有 14 天的洗脱期。在干预期间提供相同的食物，在每种进食模式开始和结束时，参与者在隔夜禁食后前往实验室。在摄入测试饮料后 3 小时内测量能量消耗、葡萄糖、胰岛素、血脂、脂联素、瘦素、胰高血糖素样肽 1（GLP-1）、肽 YY（PYY）和胃饥饿素。在测试饮料前和 3 小时后、在自由进食餐后和干预期间记录主观食欲评分。在每种进食模式期间连续 7 天进行连续间质葡萄糖监测。
不规律干预后 TEF（3 小时内）明显低于规律干预后（规律干预后为 97.7±19.2 kJ3 h，不规律干预后为 76.7±35.2 kJ3 h，配对 t 检验，P=0.048）。两种干预之间的 HOMA-IR 差异无统计学意义（规律干预后和不规律干预后分别为 3.3±1.7 和 3.6±1.6）。GLP-1 浓度的净增量 AUC（3 小时内）在规律餐模式下较高（864.9±456.1 pmol/L3 h），而不规律餐模式下较低（487.6±271.7 pmol/L3 h，配对 t 检验，P=0.005）。
在 14 天的不规律进食模式后，TEF 明显低于规律进食模式，如果长期持续，可能会影响体重管理。本研究在 www.clinicaltrials.gov 上注册为 NCT02582606。
