4.4 Article

Oat β-glucan supplementation does not enhance the effectiveness of an energy-restricted diet in overweight women

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 103, 期 8, 页码 1212-1222

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114509992856

关键词

beta-D-Glucan; Weight loss; Weight control; Appetite hormones

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [ID LP0561586]
  2. Australian Research Council [LP0561586] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epidemiological evidence shows an inverse relationship between dietary fibre intake and body weight gain. Oat beta-glucan, a soluble fibre alters appetite hormones and subjective satiety in acute meal test studies, but its effects have not been demonstrated with chronic consumption. The present study aimed to test the effects in women of two different doses of oat beta-glucan on weight loss and hormones associated with appetite regulation. In a 3-month parallel trial, sixty-six overweight females were randomised into one of three 2 MJ energy-deficit diets: a control and two interventions including 5-6g or 8-9 g beta-glucan. Anthropometric and metabolic variables (blood glucose level, insulin, total cholesterol (TC), LDL, HDL, TAG and leptin), together with markers of appetite regulation (cholecystokinin (CCK), glucagon-like peptide-I (GLP-1), ghrelin, peptide YY (PYY) and PYY3.36) were measured at baseline and at 3 months. After 3 months, all groups lost weight (P<0.001) and showed a reduced waist circumference (P<0.001). The study sample also showed reductions in TC, LDL, HDL, leptin, PYY, GLP-1 values (all P<0.001) and an increase in CCK levels (P<0.001). No significant differences were noted between the groups for all outcome values except PYY levels (P=0.018). In broad terms, the addition of oat beta-glucan did not enhance the effect of energy restriction on weight loss in mildly overweight women, although wide variations in observed results suggests that individual responsiveness may be an issue.

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