4.4 Article

Lean and obese dietary phenotypes: differences in energy and substrate metabolism and appetite

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 114, 期 10, 页码 1724-1733

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114515003402

关键词

RMR; Diet; Fat oxidation; RER; Peptide YY; Ghrelin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to characterise lean and obese phenotypes according to diet and body composition, and to compare fasting and postprandial appetite and metabolic profiles following a high-fat test meal. A total of ten lean (BMI <25 kg/m(2)) high-fat (LHF), ten lean low-fat (LLF; >40 and <30 % energy from fat) and ten obese (BMI >30 kg/m(2)) high-fat consumers (OHF; >40 % energy from fat) were recruited. Before and following the test meal (4727 kJ (1130 kcal), 77 % fat, 20 % carbohydrate (CHO) and 3 % protein), fasting plasma glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, peptide YY (PYY), RER, RMR and subjective appetite ratings (AR) were measured for 6 h. Thereafter, subjects consumed a self-selected portion of a standardised post-test meal (40 % fat, 45 % CHO and 15 % protein) and reported AR. Fasting (P = 0.01) and postprandial (P < 0.001) fat oxidation was significantly higher in LHF than in LLF but was not different between LHF and OHF. Although similar between the lean groups, fasting and postprandial energy expenditures were significantly higher in OHF compared with LHF (P<0.01). Despite similar AR across groups, LLF consumed a relatively greater quantity of the post-test meal than did LHF (7.87 (SD 2.96) v. 7.23 (SD 2.67) g/kg, P= 0.013). The lean groups showed appropriate changes in plasma ghrelin and PYY following the test meal, whereas the OHF group showed a blunted response. In conclusion, the LHF phenotype had a greater capacity for fat oxidation, which may be protective against weight gain. OHF individuals had a blunted appetite hormone response to the high-fat test meal, which may subsequently increase energy intake, driving further weight gain.

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

4.4
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