The Effect of Soluble Fiber Dextrin on Subjective and Physiological Markers of Appetite: A Randomized Trial.

Obesity is a leading public health problem throughout the world. The development of foods that increase satiety and reduce food may aid weight management. This study determined the effect of consuming soluble fiber dextrin (SFD) on appetite, appetitive hormones, breath hydrogen and food intake in adults. Forty-three participants completed this study. For each treatment, 50% of the SFD was provided in liquid form as part of breakfast and 50% in solid form as a morning snack. Appetite questionnaires, blood and breath samples were collected immediately before breakfast and at regular intervals during the test session. The participants consumed an ad libitum lunch meal, afternoon snack and dinner meal, and the amount eaten was recorded. Following dinner, participants left the laboratory but were required to keep a diet diary for the remainder of the day. Breath hydrogen concentration was significantly higher following the consumption of SFD compared to control (p < 0.05). There was no observed overall treatment effect of consuming SFD on GLP-1 (Glucagon-Like-Peptide-1), ghrelin, CCK-8 (Cholecystokinin) or PYY3-36 (Petptide YY) (p > 0.05). Moreover, consuming foods containing SFD had no effect on subjective appetite or food intake (p > 0.05). Consuming foods containing SFD increased breath hydrogen but did not influence food intake, appetite or appetitive hormones. However, the limitations of this study may have individually or collectively masked an effect of SFD on food intake and appetite.

The effect of soluble fiber dextrin on postprandial appetite and subsequent food intake in healthy adults.

OBJECTIVES: This crossover study investigated the effect of consuming a beverage that contains soluble fiber dextrin (SFD) on appetite and food intake in adults to test the hypothesis that beverages that contain 10 or 20 g of fiber from SFD would be more satiating than the control beverage. METHODS: Forty-one participants consumed lunch with a beverage that contained 0 g, 10 g, or 20 g of fiber from SFD. Appetite questionnaires were completed and blood samples collected immediately before lunch and at regular intervals over the following 150 min. Then, participants were provided with an afternoon snack and the amount eaten was recorded. Participants then left the laboratory but were asked to complete hourly appetite questionnaires and record food intake for the remainder of the day. RESULTS: Consuming SFD had no effect on appetite over the 150 min after consumption of the lunch meal (P > 0.05). Hunger and desire to eat were lower and fullness higher after consumption of the beverage that contained 20 g of fiber from SFD (P < 0.05) after participants left the laboratory. There was no effect of consuming SFD on food intake at the snack meal or for the rest of the day (P > 0.05). Plasma glucose-dependent insulintropic polypeptide was lower during the 150 min after consumption of 20 g fiber from the SFD beverage (P < 0.05). There was no treatment effect on the plasma concentration of other biomarkers of glycemic response or appetite (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the study results did not show an effect of SFD on appetite, food intake, and plasma markers of appetite for the first 150 min postconsumption. Further research is required to quantify how SFD influences appetite several hours after consumption.

Effect of resistant wheat starch on subjective appetite and food intake in healthy adults.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of replacing standard wheat flour (SWF) with resistant wheat starch (RWS) on markers of appetite and food intake in healthy adults. METHODS: A randomized, single-blind, crossover study was conducted with 27 healthy adults (ages 23 ± 2 y with a body mass index of 23.0 ± 3.0 kg/m2). After an overnight fast, muffins that contained only SWF or muffins in which 40% of the SWF was replaced with RWS were consumed as part of the breakfast meal. Appetite questionnaires and plasma samples were collected before the test meal and at 10 time points after meal consumption. An ad libitum meal was provided 240 min after breakfast, and the amount eaten was recorded. Food intake was recorded over the remainder of the day using a diet diary, and appetite was measured hourly using appetite questionnaires. Plasma was assayed to measure biomarkers of satiety and glycemia. RESULTS: Replacing SWF with RWS had no effect on subjective appetite or energy intake at the lunch meal (P > 0.05). Total daily energy intake (including the breakfast meal) was reduced by 179 kcal when participants consumed the RWS muffins (P = 0.05). Replacing SWF with RWS reduced plasma insulin (P < 0.05) but had no effect on plasma glucose, cholecystokinin, glucagon-like peptide-1, or peptide YY3-36 concentration (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that replacing SWF with RWS decreases plasma insulin concentration and reduces energy intake over a 24-h period.

The effect of the macronutrient composition of breakfast on satiety and cognitive function in undergraduate students.

PURPOSE: It is believed that breakfast is an important meal due to its effect on appetite control and cognitive performance, yet little evidence exists to support this hypothesis. METHODS: Using a crossover design, 33 healthy undergraduates (aged 22 ± 2 years with a BMI of 23.5 ± 1.7 kg/m2) were randomized one of four breakfast treatments: no breakfast, a low-protein breakfast containing no animal protein, a high-carbohydrate/low-protein breakfast containing animal protein or a low-carbohydrate/high-protein breakfast. After an overnight fast, participants reported to the laboratory and baseline appetite questionnaires and cognitive tests were completed. A baseline blood sample was also collected. These measures were repeated at regular intervals throughout the test session. An ad libitum lunch meal was provided 240 min after breakfast, and the amount eaten recorded. Diet diaries and hourly appetite questionnaires were completed for the rest of the day. RESULTS: The no-breakfast treatment had a marked effect on appetite before lunch (p < .05). Moreover, participants consumed more energy at lunch following the no-breakfast treatment (p < .05). There was no difference in appetite before lunch or food intake at lunch following any treatment when breakfast was eaten. However, food intake over the entire test day was lowest for the no-breakfast treatment (p < .05). Plasma glucose and insulin were lower following the high-protein/low-carbohydrate treatment compared to the low-protein/high-carbohydrate-no animal protein treatment (p < .05). Participants were less happy when they missed breakfast (p < .05), but there were no other statistically significant effects of breakfast on mood or cognitive performance. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that changing the macronutrient content of breakfast influences the glycemic response, but has no effect on the appetitive or cognitive performance measures used in this present study.