4.7 Article

Consuming Two Eggs per Day, as Compared to an Oatmeal Breakfast, Decreases Plasma Ghrelin while Maintaining the LDL/HDL Ratio

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu9020089

关键词

cholesterol; eggs; oatmeal; HDL-C; satiety; cardiovascular disease

资金

  1. Esperance Family Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Eggs contain high quality protein, vitamins, minerals and antioxidants, yet regular consumption is still met with uncertainty. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of consuming two eggs per day or a heart-healthy oatmeal breakfast on biomarkers of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and satiety measures in a young, healthy population. Fifty subjects participated in a randomized crossover clinical intervention; subjects were randomly allocated to consume either two eggs or one packet of oatmeal per day for breakfast for four weeks. After a three-week washout period, participants were allocated to the alternative breakfast. Fasting blood samples were collected at the end of each intervention period to assess plasma lipids and plasma ghrelin. Subjects completed visual analog scales (VAS) concurrent to dietary records to assess satiety and hunger. Along with an increase in cholesterol intake, there were significant increases in both low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol following the egg consumption period (p < 0.01). However, there was no difference in the LDL/HDL ratio, a recognized biomarker of CVD risk, nor in the plasma glucose, triglycerides or liver enzymes, between diet periods. Several self-reported satiety measures were increased following the consumption of eggs, which were associated with lower plasma ghrelin concentrations (p < 0.05). These results demonstrate that compared to an oatmeal breakfast, two eggs per day do not adversely affect the biomarkers associated with CVD risk, but increase satiety throughout the day in a young healthy population.

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