4.6 Article

Preventing Gastric Sieving by Blending a Solid/Water Meal Enhances Satiation in Healthy Humans

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 142, Issue 7, Pages 1253-1258

Publisher

AMER SOC NUTRITION-ASN
DOI: 10.3945/jn.112.159830

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. British Broadcasting Corporation, UK
  2. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0509-10005] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Separation of solids and liquids within the stomach allows faster gastric emptying of liquids compared with solids, a phenomenon known as sieving. We tested the hypothesis that blending a solid and water meal would abolish sieving, preventing the early rapid decrease in gastric volume and thereby enhancing satiety. We carried out 2 separate studies. Study 1 was a 2-way, crossover, satiety study of 22 healthy volunteers who consumed roasted chicken and vegetables with a glass of water (1008 kJ) or the same blended to a soup. They completed satiety visual analogue scales at intervals for 3 h. Study 2 was a 2-way, crossover, mechanistic study of 18 volunteers who consumed the same meals and underwent an MRI to assess gastric emptying, gallbladder contraction, and small bowel water content (SBWC) at intervals for 3 h. In Study 1, the soup meal was associated with reduced hunger (P = 0.02). In Study 2, the volume of the gastric contents after the soup meal decreased more slowly than after the solid/liquid meal (P = 0.0003). The soup meal caused greater gallbladder contraction (P < 0.04). SBWC showed a biphasic response with an initial gastric phase during which SBWC was greater when the solid/liquid meal was consumed (P < 0.001) and a later small bowel phase when SBWC was greater when the soup meal was consumed (P < 0.01). Blending the solid/liquid meal to a soup delayed gastric emptying and increased the hormonal response to feeding, which may contribute to enhanced postprandial satiety. J. Nutr. 142: 1253-1258, 2012.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available