4.5 Article

A pilot study examining the effects of consuming a high-protein vs normal-protein breakfast on free-living glycemic control in overweight/obese 'breakfast skipping' adolescents

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBESITY
Volume 39, Issue 9, Pages 1421-1424

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2015.101

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Pork Checkoff

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To examine whether the daily consumption of normal-protein (NP) vs higher-protein (HP) breakfasts improve free-living glycemic control in overweight/obese, 'breakfast skipping' adolescents. Twenty-eight healthy, but overweight, teens (age: 19 +/- 1 year; BMI: 29.9 +/- 0.8 kg m(-2)) completed a 12-week randomized parallel-arm study in which the adolescents consumed either a 350 kcal NP breakfast (13 g protein) or HP breakfast (35 g protein). Pre-and post-study 24-h blood glucose measures were assessed using continuous glucose monitoring. Although no main effects of time or group were detected, time by group interactions were observed. Post hoc pairwise comparisons assessing the post-pre changes revealed that the daily consumption of the HP breakfasts tended to reduce the 24-h glucose variability (s.d.) vs NP (-0.17 +/- 0.09 vs +0.09 +/- 0.10 s.d.; P = 0.06) and tended to reduce the time spent above the high glucose limit (-292 +/- 118 vs -24 +/- 80 min; P = 0.09). The consumption of the HP breakfasts also reduced the 24-h maximal (peak) glucose response (-0.94 +/- 0.36 vs + 0.30 +/- 0.18 mmol l(-1); P < 0.01) and reduced postprandial glucose fluctuations (-0.88 +/- 0.44 vs +0.49 +/- 0.34 mmol l(-1); P < 0.03) vs NP. These data suggest that the daily addition of a HP breakfast, containing 35 g of high-quality protein, has better efficacy at improving free-living glycemic control compared with a NP breakfast in overweight/obese, but otherwise healthy, 'breakfast skipping' adolescents.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available