4.5 Article

Ghrelin levels are associated with hunger as measured by the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire in healthy young adults

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 104, 期 3, 页码 373-377

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.04.013

关键词

Ghrelin; Eating behaviors; Hunger; Disinhibition; Restraint; Lifestyles; Young adults; Questionnaire

资金

  1. Canadian Diabetes Association
  2. Danone Institute
  3. Fonds de la recherche en sante du Quebec (FRSQ)
  4. FRSQ

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Weight gain and appetite regulation are complex interplays between internal and external cues. Our aim was to investigate the association of eating behaviors with ghrelin taking into account lifestyle. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis in a sample of first-year university students at the Universite de Sherbrooke. We collected medical history, anthropometric measurements, vital signs, fitness index, and fasting blood samples. Questionnaires included a lifestyle questionnaire and the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) estimating dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger. We recruited 308 participants aged 20.7 +/- 3.2 years and a mean BMI of 23.3 +/- 3.4 kg/m(2). Hunger score was significantly associated with ghrelin levels (r = 0.11, P < 0.05). In women, this association was independent of age, BMI, dietary and lifestyle factors (P = 0.02). The association between ghrelin level and hunger score was observable in leaner individuals (r = 0.28, p < 0.0001) but not in heavier individuals (r = -0.08, p = 0.34: stratified by BMI < vs > 22.6 kg/m(2)). Restraint (R) and disinhibition (D) were not associated with ghrelin levels. The three eating behaviors demonstrated expected correlations with lifestyle supporting the validity of the TFEQ in this cohort. In conclusion, we demonstrated that ghrelin. a biological marker, is associated with self-reported perception of hunger, independently of anthropometric measures and lifestyle. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据