A comparison of effects of fish and beef protein on satiety in normal weight men.
- 2006-02-15
- European journal of clinical nutrition 60(7)
- S Borzoei
- M Neovius
- B Barkeling
- A Teixeira-Pinto
- S Rössner
- PubMed: 16482079
- DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602397
Study Design
- Type
- Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)
- Population
- Twenty-three normal non-smoking, healthy males aged 20-32 years, body mass index 22.5+/-1.8 (s.d.) kg/m(2)
- Methods
- Within-subjects design, 1 week between test days; subjects received a standardized breakfast, then an iso-energetic protein-rich (40 energy % protein) lunch meal of fish or beef protein, followed by an ad libitum standardized evening meal; appetite was rated by VAS at scheduled times.
- Blinding
- Open-label
- Duration
- 1 week between test days
- Funding
- Unclear
- Rigorous Journal
Background
Previous studies have indicated that fish protein may have a greater effect on satiety compared to other protein sources of animal origin.Objective
To compare the effects of fish protein and beef protein meals on hunger and satiety.Design
Twenty-three normal non-smoking, healthy males aged 20-32 years, body mass index 22.5+/-1.8 (s.d.) kg/m(2) participated in a study, with within-subjects design and 1 week between test days. In the morning of the test days, subjects received a standardized breakfast. Four hours after breakfast, subjects were served an iso-energetic protein-rich (40 energy % protein) lunch meal, consisting of either a fish protein dish or a beef protein dish. Four hours after the start of the lunch meals, an ad libitum standardized evening meal was served and the intake of food was measured. Appetite was rated by visual analogue scales (VAS) immediately before and after the meals, as well as every hour between the meals. After the evening meal until bedtime, subjects were asked to record in detail foods and drinks consumed.Results
The repeated VAS-ratings of hunger, satiety and prospective consumption were modelled in a random effects model, taking pre-lunch VAS-ratings into account. After the fish meal, the point estimates were lower for hunger (-2+/-4.8), higher for satiety (8.7+/-6.0) and lower for prospective consumption (-4.9+/-4.7), but they did not reach statistical significance (P satiety=0.88; P hunger=0.15; P prospective=0.30). However, the energy intake at the evening meal displayed significant differences with subjects eating less after the fish protein lunch (2765 vs 3080 KJ, P<0.01) without feeling less satiated. No later energy compensation after the evening meal was found on the test day.Conclusion
Although no significant differences in VAS-ratings of satiety or hunger were detected, subjects displayed an 11% reduction in energy intake at the subsequent evening meal.Research Insights
higher for satiety (8.7+/-6.0)... but they did not reach statistical significance (P satiety=0.88)
- Effect
- Neutral
- Effect size
- Small
- Dose
- 40 energy % protein (iso-energetic lunch meal)
the energy intake at the evening meal displayed significant differences with subjects eating less after the fish protein lunch (2765 vs 3080 KJ, P<0.01)
- Effect
- Beneficial
- Effect size
- Moderate
- Dose
- 40 energy % protein (iso-energetic lunch meal)
After the fish meal, the point estimates were lower for hunger (-2+/-4.8)... but they did not reach statistical significance (P hunger=0.15)
- Effect
- Neutral
- Effect size
- Small
- Dose
- 40 energy % protein (iso-energetic lunch meal)
lower for prospective consumption (-4.9+/-4.7)... but they did not reach statistical significance (P prospective=0.30)
- Effect
- Neutral
- Effect size
- Small
- Dose
- 40 energy % protein (iso-energetic lunch meal)