Food Properties and. Richard D. Mattes, MPH, PhD, RD Purdue University West Lafayette, IN, USA

Transcription

1 Food Properties and Energy Intake Richard D. Mattes, MPH, PhD, RD Purdue University West Lafayette, IN, USA

2 What is the Primary Problem and Best Solution? Feeding Regulation Target Intervention Non-homeostatic Homeostatic & functional Homeostatic & dysfunctional Homeostatic + non-homeostatic

3 CDC/NCHS, Health, United States, 2006

4 gel RW. Am Econ ev 1994;84: When did this problem begin?

5 When did this pro oblem begin? Data based on the Union Army Veterans data set (~15,000 white males who served in the Union Army during the Civil War ( ) and who, after the war, applied for a pension. Helmchen, LA. Sept 2001.

6 Prevalence Trends of Overweight in Danish Children Bua J, Olsen LW, Sorensen T. Obesity (4):

7 Yanovski et al., 2000;342:861-7.

8 What is the Primary Problem and Best Solution? Feeding Regulation Non-homeostatic Homeostatic & functional Homeostatic & dysfunctional Target Intervention Meal Pattern Homeostatic + non-homeostatic

9 Prentice A. & Jebb S. Nutr Rev 2004;62:S98-S104.

10 Corvalan et al., J Nutr 2008;138:

11 What is the Primary Problem and Best Solution? Feeding Regulation Non-homeostatic Homeostatic & functional Target Intervention Meal Pattern Accessibility Homeostatic & dysfunctional Homeostatic + non-homeostatic

12 Excess Energy Intake and Exercise No Exercise Exercise acette S.B., et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 62:

13 What is the Primary Problem and Best Solution? Feeding Regulation Non-homeostatic Homeostatic & functional Homeostatic & dysfunctional Target Intervention Meal Pattern Accessibility Diet/Lifestyle Homeostatic + non-homeostatic

14

15 What is the Primary Problem and Best Solution? Feeding Regulation Non-homeostatic Homeostatic & functional Homeostatic & dysfunctional Homeostatic + non-homeostatic Target Intervention Meal Pattern Accessibility Diet/Lifestyle Palatability/Reward

16

17 The Role of Appetitee in Ingestive Behavior vbehavior Eating Patterns (Frequency, Size, Timing) Exercise vphysiology Gastric Distention/Emptying GI Satiety Signals Metabolism vfood Properties Macronutrients (protein > carbohydrate > fat) Glycemic Index Other Properties (e.g., fiber, physical form)

18 Pro otein Satiety Thermogenesis Retention of Lean Body Mass

19 High Protein Diets & Weight Loss Energy Intake (Kcals/d) mo 2 6 Atkins Zone LEARN Ornish p Energy Expenditure (Kcals/kg/d) mo 2 6 Atkins Zone LEARN Ornish p The greater satiety from the higher protein content of the Atkins diet may have contributed to the benefits observed for that group Gardner et al., JAMA 2007;297:

20 senstein al., Nutr ev 2002; : Summary of Protein Appetite Research Authors Johnson, 1993 Poppitt, 1998 Porrini, 1995 Rolls, 1988 Stubbs, 1996 Stubbs, 1999 Johnstone, 1996 Barkling, 1990 DeGraaf, 1992 Geliebter, 1978 Long, 2000 Hill, 1986 Holt, 1995 Vanderwater, 1994 Westerterp-Plantenga, 1999 Booth, 1970 Ludwig, 1999 Araya, 2000 Porrini, 1997 Teff, 1989 Duration 90m 90m 2h 2h 5h 24h 15d 4h day 70m 13h/13d 1h 2h 2m 24h 2.5h 5h 3.5h 2h 3h Effect on Satiety Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase NS NS NS I (acute) D (chronic) Increase Increase Increase Increase Effect on Food Intake Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease NS NS NS Decrease NS NS Decrease Decrease Decrease NS NS

21 Summary of Protein Appetite Research Authors Form Effect on Hunger Effect on Food Intake Booth et al. Solid Decrease Hill & Blundell Solid Decrease Hill & Blundell Solid Decrease Decrease Rolls et al. Solid Decrease Decrease Barkeling et al. Solid = Decrease Stubbs et al. Solid Decrease = Vanderwater & Vickers Solid Decrease Johnson & Vickers Solid Decrease Decrease Poppitt et al. Solid Decrease Decrease Lambert et al. Liquid Decrease Decrease Latner & Schwarts Liquid Decrease Decrease Driver Liquid = de Graaf et al. Liquid = = Stockley et al. Liquid = Sunkin & Garrow Liquid = Geilebter Liquid = = Rumpler et al. Liquid (34g) = senstein et al., Nutr Rev 2002; 60:

22 CHO = sucrose; Pro = egg white; Fat = heavy whipping cream Rumpler WV et al., Intl J Obes 2006;30:

23 Rumpler WV et al., Intl J Obes 2006;30:

24 Standard Diet = 15% Pro; 30% fat; 55% CHO High Protein Diet = 22.5% Pro; 30% fat; 47.5% CHO Gately PJ et al., Obesity 2007;15:

25 ately PJ et al., Obesity 2007;15:

26 Source

27 Meal = ~5.2MJ en; 22% protein; ~70g protein ng et al., Am J Clin Nutr 1998; 67:

28 Lang et al., Am J Clin Nutr 1998; 67:

29 Hall et al., Br J Nutr 2003; 89:

30 Mean (SEM) change in appetite (mean subjective ratings for hunger, satiety, desire to eat, and amount of food thatt could be eaten; in overweight males (n=19) after ingestion of preloads containing 56g of whey or casein (mean response to treatments). Bowen et al., J Clin Endocrin & Metab 2006;91:

31 The energy benefit attributable to the satiety property of protein Cannot be Relia ably Predicted

32 Fib ber Satiety Bioaccessibility

33 Conclusion: Satiety, gut hormone response, and food intake did not change in a dose-response manner after subjects consumed 0, 4, 8, and 12 g of mixed fiber in muffins for breakfast. Willis et al., Food and Nutrition Research 2010;54:5135-DOI: /fnr.v54i0.5135

34 Satiety OJ OJ + Pectin Satiety Score Before nd Meal Time (hours) Tiwary et al., JACN 1997;16:

35 Howarth, NC, et al. Nutrition Reviews. 2001;59/5:

36 Howarth, NC, et al. Dietary Fiver and Weight Regulation. Nutrition Reviews. 2001;59/5:

37 owarth, NC, et al. Nutrition Reviews. 2001;59/5:

38 Estimated incremental weight loss attributable to satiety values of increased fiber consumption Assume the 4g/d incremental loss with ad libitum versus fixed intake is due to satiety 31 Kcal Advanta age; ~1.9kg max *Requires ~2-Fold increas se in Dietary Fiber

39 Glycem mic Index Satiety

40 Jenkins et al., AJCN 2002;76(Suppl(:266S-273S.

41 Mean + SE glycemic (GR) and insulinemic (IR) response AUCs ( days 1 and 8, variety session) LGI HGI Glycemic and insulinemic response AUCs Glycemic and insulinemic response AUCs Day 1 Day 8 Day 1 Day 8 Breakfast Lunch Breakfast Lunch Breakfast Lunch Breakfast Lunch Glycemicresponse AUC insulinemic response AUC

42 Mean + SE GR and IR AUCs ( days 1 and 8, monotony session) LGI HGI Glycemic and insulinemic Glycemic and insulinemic response response AUCs AUCs Day 1 Breakfast Lunch Day 8 Breakfast Day 1 Day 8 Lunch Breakfast Lunch Breakfast Lunch Glycemicresponse AUC insulinemic response AUC

43 40 Hunger ratings associated with breakfast and lunch on the first day of a HGI or LGI diet Hunger ratings LG HG Time (30 minute blocks)

44

45 Group mean + SE energy intake (EI) per day, during both study sessions LGI HGI Daily group EI (p = 0.311) Session EI (p = 0.966) Energy intake (kcal) Energy intake (kcal) X X Variety (day) Session 1 Monotony (day) Session 2

46 The energy benefit attributable to the satiety property of foods varying in GI Cannot be Relia ably Predicted

47 Food Form Beverages versuss Solids

48 Energy Intake (N=40) Carbohydrate (Watermellon) Fat (Coconut) Protein (Dairy) Liquid 3000 * Solid Kcals * * Liquid Solid 1500 Liquid 1000 Solid Maurao et al., Intl J Obes 2007;31:

49 Body Weight Change * p< vs. baseline p=0.003 vs. baseline * * * * * p=0.002 vs. baseline p=0.022 vs. baseline, p=0.03 vs. lean and overweight

50 Body Fat Change * p< vs. baseline p=0.002 vs. * baseline p=0.026 vs. baseline p=0.009 vs. baseline p=0.001 vs. baseline p=0.016 vs. baseline

51 Potential Mechanisms for Beverage Contributions to Positive Energy Balance vcognitive vorosensory vgi transit vosmotic pressure vgut peptide responses vnutrient absorption vpost-ingestive endocrine response

52 Summary vthe properties of foods may be manipulated to augment or diminish their satiation/satiety value vthe magnitude of effect that may be expected from manipulation of food properties with realistic portions is uncertain and likely modest