4.5 Article

Food intake, postprandial glucose, insulin and subjective satiety responses to three different bread-based test meals

期刊

APPETITE
卷 57, 期 3, 页码 707-710

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.015

关键词

Satiety; Food intake; GI

资金

  1. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing
  2. George Weston Technologies, Sydney, Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of bread consumption on overall food intake is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to measure postprandial food intake after a set breakfast containing three different breads. Ten males and 10 females aged 20.1-44.8 years, BMI 18.4-24.8 kg/m(2), consumed two slices of White Bread, Burgen (R) Wholemeal and Seeds Bread or Lupin Bread (all 1300 kJ) with 10 g margarine and 30 g strawberry jam. Fullness and hunger responses and were measured before and during the test breakfasts. Glucose and insulin responses (incremental area under each two-hour curve (iAUC)) were calculated. Food intake was measured and energy and nutrient intake determined at a buffet meal two hours later. Subjects consumed significantly less energy after the Burgen (R) Bread meal compared to the White Bread meal (2548 +/- 218 vs. 3040 +/- 328 kJ, Burgen (R) Bread vs. White Bread, P < 0.05). There were higher fullness responses for the Lupin Bread (P < 0.01), and the Burgen (R) Bread (P < 0.05) compared with the White Bread. Lupin Bread and Burgen (R) Bread produced smaller postprandial glucose responses (79 +/- 7, 74 +/- 4, 120 +/- 10 mmol/L min iAUC, Lupin. Burgen (R) and White Bread respectively, P < 0.01). Differences in insulin responses were also observed (6145 +/- 1048, 6471 +/- 976, 9674 +/- 1431 pmol/L min iAUC, Lupin, Burgen (R) and White Bread respectively. P < 0.01). Equal-energy portions of three different commercially available breads differed in their short-term satiation capacity. Further studies are needed to demonstrate any potential benefit for weight management. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. 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