4.7 Article

Oral Erythritol Reduces Energy Intake during a Subsequent ad libitum Test Meal: A Randomized, Controlled, Crossover Trial in Healthy Humans

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 14, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu14193918

关键词

energy intake; erythritol; sucrose; sucralose; gastrointestinal satiation hormone; cholecystokinin; healthy participants; low-caloric sweeteners

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation
  2. Research Foundation Flanders [320030E_189329]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [320030E_189329] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oral erythritol reduces energy intake in subsequent ad libitum test meal and induces the release of cholecystokinin (CCK) before the meal. This makes erythritol a useful sugar alternative.
The impact of oral erythritol on subsequent energy intake is unknown. The aim was to assess the effect of oral erythritol compared to sucrose, sucralose, or tap water on energy intake during a subsequent ad libitum test meal and to examine the release of cholecystokinin (CCK) in response to these substances. In this randomized, crossover trial, 20 healthy volunteers received 50 g erythritol, 33.5 g sucrose, or 0.0558 g sucralose dissolved in tap water, or tap water as an oral preload in four different sessions. Fifteen minutes later, a test meal was served and energy intake was assessed. At set time points, blood samples were collected to quantify CCK concentrations. The energy intake (ad libitum test meal) was significantly lower after erythritol compared to sucrose, sucralose, or tap water (p < 0.05). Before the start of the ad libitum test meal, erythritol led to a significant increase in CCK compared to sucrose, sucralose, or tap water (p < 0.001). Oral erythritol given alone induced the release of CCK before the start of the ad libitum test meal and reduced subsequent energy intake compared to sucrose, sucralose, or tap water. These properties make erythritol a useful sugar alternative.

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

4.7
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