4.6 Review

Effect of Dairy Proteins on Appetite, Energy Expenditure, Body Weight, and Composition: a Review of the Evidence from Controlled Clinical Trials

期刊

ADVANCES IN NUTRITION
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 418-438

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/an.113.003723

关键词

-

资金

  1. Arla Foods A/S
  2. Danish Dairy Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evidence supports that a high proportion of calories from protein increases weight loss and prevents weight (re)gain. Proteins are known to induce satiety, increase secretion of gastrointestinal hormones, and increase diet-induced thermogenesis, but less is known about whether various types of proteins exert different metabolic effects. In the Western world, dairy protein, which consists of 80% casein and 20% whey, is a large contributor to our daily protein intake. Casein and whey differ in absorption and digestion rates, with casein being a slow protein and whey being a fast protein. In addition, they differ in amino acid composition. This review examines whether casein, whey, and other protein sources exert different metabolic effects and targets to clarify the underlying mechanisms. Data indicate that whey is more satiating in the short term, whereas casein is more satiating in the long term. In addition, some studies indicate that whey stimulates the secretion of the incretin hormones glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide more than other proteins. However, for the satiety (cholecystokinin and peptide YY) and hunger-stimulating (ghrelin) hormones, no clear evidence exists that 1 protein source has a greater stimulating effect compared with others. Likewise, no clear evidence exists that 1 protein source results in higher diet-induced thermogenesis and promotes more beneficial changes in body weight and composition compared with other protein sources. However, data indicate that amino acid composition, rate of absorption, and protein/food texture may be important factors for protein-stimulated metabolic effects.

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

4.6
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