Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
, 9 (9)

The Satiating Properties of Pork Are Not Affected by Cooking Methods, Sousvide Holding Time or Mincing in Healthy Men-A Randomized Cross-Over Meal Test Study

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

The Satiating Properties of Pork Are Not Affected by Cooking Methods, Sousvide Holding Time or Mincing in Healthy Men-A Randomized Cross-Over Meal Test Study

Ursula Kehlet et al. Nutrients.

Abstract

Low temperature long time (LTLT) sous-vide cooking may modify meat proteins in a way that could promote satiety. We investigated the effects of (1) cooking method (LTLT 58 °C vs. oven 160 °C), (2) LTLT holding time (17 h vs. 72 min), and (3) pork structure, LTLT 58 °C for 17 h (minced vs. roast) on appetite regulation and in vitro protein digestibility. In a cross-over study, 37 healthy men consumed four meals containing pork: LTLT-cooked roast, 58 °C, 72 min; LTLT-cooked roast, 58 °C, 17 h; and, oven-cooked roast, 160 °C to a core temperature of 58 °C and LTLT-cooked minced patties, 58 °C, 17 h. Ad libitum energy intake (EI) after three hours was the primary endpoint. Moreover, subjective appetite sensations were assessed. Protein digestibility was determined in an in vitro simulated digestion model. Ad libitum EI did not differ between the meals. Furthermore, appetite ratings were not clearly affected. LTLT cooking for 72 min increased the proteolytic rate in the early gastric phase during digestion as compared to LTLT cooking for 17 h or oven cooking. In conclusion, LTLT cooking, LTLT holding time, and pork structure did not affect ad libitum EI. However, LTLT cooking at 58 °C for 72 min seemed to enhance in vitro protein digestibility.

Keywords: appetite; cooking; in vitro digestion; low temperature long time; meat proteins; pork; protein digestibility; satiety; sous-vide.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Ad libitum energy intake (mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM), n = 37) three hours after the test meals. The test meals were prepared according to Table 1. Repeated measurement analysis, differences between meals, p = 0.7.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Fullness: (a) mean 3-hour response and (b) incremental area under the curve (iAUC). Composite satiety score (CSS): (c) mean 3-hour response, and (d) corresponding iAUC. Values are means ± SEM, n = 37. The test meals were prepared according to Table 1.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Palatability of the test meals measured on a 100 mm line scale from “Not at all like” to “Like a lot”. (LS means ± SEM, n = 37)). The test meals were prepared according to Table 1. Different letters for each bar indicate a statistical difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 4
Figure 4
In vitro protein digestion in gastric phase: (a) optical density (OD) expressing the proteolytic activity and (b) the rate of proteolysis (ΔOD/h) and in the duodenal phase: (c) OD, and (d) ΔOD/h. Significant differences at specific time points are indicated by *. The test meals were prepared according to Table 1.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Blundell J., de Graaf C., Hulshof T., Jebb S., Livingstone B., Lluch A., Mela D., Salah S., Schuring E., van der Knaap H., et al. Appetite control: Methodological aspects of the evaluation of foods. Obes. Rev. 2010;11:251–270. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00714.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Westerterp-Plantenga M.S., Nieuwenhuizen A., Tomé D., Soenen S., Westerterp K.R. Dietary protein, weight loss, and weight maintenance. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 2009;29:21–41. doi: 10.1146/annurev-nutr-080508-141056. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Westerterp K.R. Diet induced thermogenesis. Nutr. Metab. (Lond) 2004;1:5. doi: 10.1186/1743-7075-1-5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Belza A., Ritz C., Sørensen M.Q., Holst J.J., Rehfeld J.F., Astrup A. Contribution of gastroenteropancreatic appetite hormones to protein-induced satiety. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2013;97:980–989. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.112.047563. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mellinkoff S.M., Frankland M., Boyle D., Greipe M. Relationship Between Serum Amino Acid Concentration and Fluctuations in Appetite. Obes. Res. 1997;5:381–384. doi: 10.1002/j.1550-8528.1997.tb00568.x. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances

Feedback