4.5 Article

Acute differential effects of dietary protein quality on postprandial lipemia in obese non-diabetic subjects

期刊

NUTRITION RESEARCH
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 34-40

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nutres.2012.11.004

关键词

Obesity; Postprandial lipemia; Triglyceride; Atherosclerosis; Dietary protein; Cross-over

资金

  1. Nordic Centre of Excellence (NCoE) [070014]
  2. Marie Krogh Center for Metabolic Research, Life Sciences, Copenhagen University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-fasting triglyceridemia is much closer associated to cardiovascular risk compared to fasting triglyceridemia. We hypothesized that there would be acute differential effects of four common dietary proteins (cod protein, whey isolate, gluten, and casein) on postprandial lipemia in obese non-diabetic subjects. To test the hypothesis we conducted a randomized, acute clinical intervention study with crossover design. We supplemented a fat rich mixed meal with one of four dietary proteins i.e. cod protein, whey protein, gluten or casein. Eleven obese non-diabetic subjects (age: 40-68, body mass index: 30.3-42.0 kg/m(2)) participated and blood samples were drawn in the 8-h postprandial period. Supplementation of a fat rich mixed meal with whey protein caused lower postprandial lipemia (P = .048) compared to supplementation with cod protein and gluten. This was primarily due to lower triglyceride concentration in the chylomicron rich fraction (P = .0293). Thus, we have demonstrated acute differential effects on postprandial metabolism of four dietary proteins supplemented to a fat rich mixed meal in obese non-diabetic subjects. Supplementation with whey protein caused lower postprandial lipemia compared to supplementation with cod and gluten. As postprandial lipemia is closely correlated to cardiovascular disease, long-term dietary supplementation with whey protein may prove beneficial in preventing cardiovascular disease in obese non-diabetic subjects. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据