4.5 Article

Molecular weight of barley β-glucan does not influence satiety or energy intake in healthy male subjects

期刊

APPETITE
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 167-172

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.002

关键词

Barley beta-glucan; Energy intake; Molecular weight; Satiety; Visual analogue scale

资金

  1. Oxford Brookes University [1130/A300667]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies have shown the ability of high molecular weight barley beta-glucan with increased viscosity to attenuate glycemic response, gastric emptying and in vitro starch digestion. The main objective of this study was to investigate the effect of molecular weight of barley beta-glucan in a semisolid meal on energy intake and subjective feelings of hunger, fullness, desire to eat and prospective food consumption in healthy male subjects. In a randomised, controlled, crossover trial, 23 healthy male subjects (BMI 24.2 +/- 2.5 kg/m(2)) tested soups equivalent to 25 g available carbohydrate containing high or low molecular weight barley beta-glucan (similar to 3 g) as preload after a standard breakfast. The viscosity of soup with high molecular weight beta-glucan was 350 Pa.s whereas the soup with low molecular weight beta-glucan had a viscosity of 100 Pa.s. Appetite ratings before and for two hours after consumption of beta-glucan soups and subsequent ad libitum energy intake at lunch were recorded and compared with a control soup with no beta-glucan. There was no significant difference in food intake at the ad libitum meal or for the remainder of the day following consumption of the three test foods (p > 0.05). Similarly, there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in hunger, fullness, desire to eat or prospective food consumption following beta-glucan soups. The current study provides evidence that the molecular weight of barley beta-glucan may not impact on perceived feelings of hunger or food intake at the current dose and viscosity. (C) 2014 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