Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2015 Feb 10;14:17.
doi: 10.1186/s12937-015-0002-7.

A Randomized, Controlled, Crossover Trial to Assess the Acute Appetitive and Metabolic Effects of Sausage and Egg-Based Convenience Breakfast Meals in Overweight Premenopausal Women

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Randomized Controlled Trial

A Randomized, Controlled, Crossover Trial to Assess the Acute Appetitive and Metabolic Effects of Sausage and Egg-Based Convenience Breakfast Meals in Overweight Premenopausal Women

Tia M Rains et al. Nutr J. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Dietary protein at breakfast has been shown to enhance satiety and reduce subsequent energy intake more so than carbohydrate or fat. However, relatively few studies have assessed substitution of protein for carbohydrate on indicators of appetite and glucose homeostasis simultaneously.

Methods: The acute appetitive and metabolic effects of commercially-prepared sausage and egg-based breakfast meals at two different protein levels (30 g and 39 g/serving), vs. a low-protein pancake breakfast (3 g protein) and no breakfast (water), were examined in premenopausal women (N = 35; age 32.5 ± 1.6 yr; BMI 24.8 ± 0.5 kg/m(2)). Test products provided ~280 kcal/serving and similar fat (12-14 g) and fiber contents (0-1 g). Visual Analog Scale ratings for appetite (hunger, fullness, prospective consumption, desire to eat) and repeated blood sampling for plasma glucose and insulin concentrations were assessed throughout each test day. Energy intake was recorded at an ad libitum lunch meal at 240 min.

Results: Results showed increased satiety ratings for both the 30 and 39 g protein meals vs. the low-protein and no breakfast conditions (p < 0.001 for all). Postprandial glucose and insulin excursions were lower following the 30 g and 39 g protein conditions vs. the low-protein condition, with smaller responses following the 39 g vs. 30 g protein condition (p < 0.05 for all). Energy intake at lunch was significantly less (p < 0.001) following the 39 g protein meal (692 kcal) vs. the low-protein and no breakfast conditions (789 and 810 kcal, respectively). Total energy intake from the test condition + lunch was higher (p < 0.01) for the 30 and 39 g meals (982 and 983 kcal, respectively) vs. no breakfast (810 kcal), and less than the low protein breakfast (1064 kcal; p < 0.01 vs. 39 g condition only).

Conclusions: Results suggest that convenience meals providing 30 or 39 g protein/serving produce greater appetite control, lower postprandial glycemia and insulinemia, and reduced subsequent intake at lunch relative to a low-protein control, or no breakfast.

Trial registration: NCT01713114.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Test visit flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Appetite VAS ratings (hunger and fullness) at each timepoint and niAUC values for each condition. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Different letters indicate differences between conditions (p < 0.0001). Pairwise comparisons between conditions were conducted using Tukey’s adjustment for multiple comparisons.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Appetite VAS ratings at each timepoint (left) and niAUC values (right) for each condition. Data are for desire to eat and prospective food consumption. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Different letters indicate differences between conditions (p < 0.0001). Pairwise comparisons between conditions were conducted using Tukey’s adjustment for multiple comparisons.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Plasma glucose and insulin at each timepoint (left) and AUC values (right) for each condition. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Different letters indicate differences between conditions (p < 0.0001). Pairwise comparisons between conditions were conducted using Tukey’s adjustment for multiple comparisons.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Lunch (left) and total (preload + lunch; right) energy intake following each condition (t = 240 min). Data are presented as median (75th percentile). Different letters indicate differences between conditions (p < 0.05, note - energy intake at lunch for the 30 g Pro breakfast vs. LP breakfast p = 0.053). Pairwise comparisons between conditions were conducted using Tukey’s adjustment for multiple comparisons.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 7 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Holt SH, Miller JC, Petocz P, Farmakalidis E. A satiety index of common foods. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1995;49:675–90. - PubMed
    1. Stubbs J, Ferres S, Horgan G. Energy density of foods: effects on energy intake. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2000;40:481–515. doi: 10.1080/10408690091189248. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Porrini M, Santangelo A, Crovetti R, Riso P, Testolin G, Blundell JE. Weight, protein, fat, and timing of preloads affect food intake. Physiol Behav. 1997;62:563–70. doi: 10.1016/S0031-9384(97)00162-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Johnstone AM, Stubbs RJ, Harbron CG. Effect of overfeeding macronutrients on day-to-day food intake in man. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996;50:418–30. - PubMed
    1. Leidy HJ, Bossingham MJ, Mattes RD, Campbell WW. Increased dietary protein consumed at breakfast leads to an initial and sustained feeling of fullness during energy restriction compared to other meal times. Br J Nutr. 2009;101:798–803. doi: 10.1017/S0007114508051532. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data

Feedback