Search

Background: Postprandial metabolomic profiles and their inter-individual variability are not well characterised. Here, we describe postprandial metabolite changes, their correlations with fasting values and their inter- and intra-individual variability, following a standardised meal in the ZOE PREDICT 1 cohort. Methods: In the ZOE PREDICT 1 study (n = 1002 (NCT03479866)), 250 metabolites, mainly lipids, were measured by a Nightingale NMR panel in fasting and postprandial (4 and 6 h after a 3.7 MJ mixed nutrient meal, with a second 2.2 MJ mixed nutrient meal at 4 h) serum samples. For each metabolite, inter- and intra-individual variability over time was evaluated using linear mixed modelling and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. Results: Postprandially, 85% (of 250 metabolites) significantly changed from fasting at 6 h (47% increased, 53% decreased; Kruskal–Wallis), with 37 measures increasing by >25% and 14 increasing by >50%. The largest changes were observed in very large lipoprotein particles and ketone bodies. Seventy-one percent of circulating metabolites were strongly correlated (Spearman's rho >0.80) between fasting and postprandial timepoints, and 5% were weakly correlated (rho <0.50). The median ICC of the 250 metabolites was 0.91 (range 0.08–0.99). The lowest ICCs (ICC <0.40, 4% of measures) were found for glucose, pyruvate, ketone bodies (β-hydroxybutyrate, acetoacetate, acetate) and lactate. Conclusions: In this large-scale postprandial metabolomic study, circulating metabolites were highly variable between individuals following sequential mixed meals. Findings suggest that a meal challenge may yield postprandial responses divergent from fasting measures, specifically for glycolysis, essential amino acid, ketone body and lipoprotein size metabolites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Plant-based proteins may have the potential to improve glycaemic and gastrointestinal hormone responses to foods and beverages. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of two doses of pea protein on postprandial glycaemic, insulinaemic, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) response following a high-carbohydrate beverage intake in healthy individuals. Methods: In a single-blind, randomised, controlled, repeat measure, crossover design trial, thirty-one participants were randomly assigned to ingest 50 g glucose (Control), 50 g glucose with 25 g pea protein (Test 1) and 50 g glucose with 50 g pea protein (Test 2) on three separate days. Capillary blood samples (blood glucose and plasma insulin measurements) and venous blood samples (GIP and GLP-1 concentrations) were taken before each test and at fixed intervals for 180 min. The data were compared using repeated-measures ANOVA or the Friedman test. Results: Glucose incremental Area under the Curve (iAUC180) was significantly lower (p < 0.001) after Test 2 compared with Control (− 53%), after Test 1 compared with Control (− 31%) and after Test 2 compared with Test 1 (−32%). Insulin iAUC 180 was significantly higher (p < 0.001) for Test 1 (+ 28%) and Test 2 (+ 40%) compared with Control and for Test 2 (+ 17%) compared with Test 1 (p = 0.003). GIP and GLP-1 release showed no clear difference between Control and Pea protein drinks. Conclusion: The consumption of pea protein reduced postprandial glycaemia and stimulated insulin release in healthy adults with a dose–response effect, supporting its role in regulating glycaemic and insulinaemic responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dietary fat has been implicated in the rise of obesity due to its energy density, palatability and weak effects on satiety. As fat is a major contributor to overall energy intake, incorporating fat with satiating properties could potentially reduce energy intake. This review outlines the potential mechanisms, as far as we know, by which Medium-Chain Triglycerides (MCT), Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA), Short-Chain Fatty Acids (SCFA), Diacylglycerol (DAG), n-3 PUFA, and Small Particle Lipids, exerts their satiating effects. The evidence suggests that the lipid with the most potential to enhance satiety is MCT. SCFA can also promote satiety, but oral administration has been linked to poor tolerability rather than satiety. Data on the appetite effects of CLA is limited but does suggest potential. Research comparing these lipids to each other is also lacking and should be explored to elucidate which of these 'functional lipids' is the most beneficial in enhancing satiety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research has indicated that consuming medium-chain triglycerides (MCT) may be more satiating than consuming long-chain triglycerides (LCT) potentially causing a reduction in energy intake. However not all studies have demonstrated this acute reduction in energy intake and it has yet to be systematically reviewed. Our main objective was to examine how ingestion of MCT influences energy intake, subjective appetite ratings and appetite-related hormones compared to LCT. Web of Science, MEDLINE, CINHAL, and Embase were searched for publications comparing the effect of MCT on appetite (commonly hunger, fullness, desire to eat, and prospective food consumption), appetite-related hormones (pancreatic polypeptide (PP), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), neurotensin, leptin, total ghrelin and active ghrelin) and energy intake to LCT. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted on studies which examined energy intake. Seventeen studies (291 participants) were included in the systematic review, of which 11 were included in the energy intake meta-analysis. Synthesis of combined data showed evidence of a statistically significant moderate decrease in ad libitum energy intake after both acute and chronic ingestion of MCT compared to LCT when assessed under laboratory conditions (mean effect size: -0.444, 95% CI -0.808, -0.080, p  < 0.017), despite little evidence of any effect of MCT on subjective appetite ratings or circulating hormones. The current evidence supports the notion that MCT decreases subsequent energy intake, but does not appear to affect appetite. Further research is warranted to elucidate the mechanisms by which MCT reduce energy intake.