TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of a high-MUFA, low-glycaemic index diet and a low-fat diet on appetite and glucose metabolism during a 6-month weight maintenance period

AU - Sloth, Birgitte

AU - Due, Anette Pia

AU - Larsen, Thomas Meinert

AU - Holst, Jens Juul

AU - Heding, Anders

AU - Astrup, Arne

N1 - Keywords: Adult; Analysis of Variance; Appetite Regulation; Area Under Curve; Blood Glucose; Body Mass Index; Body Weight; Diet, Fat-Restricted; Energy Intake; Fatty Acids, Monounsaturated; Female; Glucagon; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Glucagon-Like Peptide 2; Glycemic Index; Humans; Insulin; Male; Obesity; Pancreatic Polypeptide; Peptide YY; Time Factors; Triglycerides

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - We aimed to test the effects of three different weight maintenance diets on appetite, glucose and fat metabolism following an initial low-energy diet (LED) induced body weight loss. Following an 8-week LED and a 2-3-week refeeding period, 131 subjects were randomized to three diets for 6 months: MUFA, moderate-fat (35-45 energy percentage (E%) fat), high in MUFA with low glycaemic index; LF, low fat (20-30 E% fat) or CTR, control (35 E% fat). A meal test study was performed in a subgroup, before and after the 6-month dietary intervention, with forty-two subjects completing both meal tests. No difference in body weight, energy intake or appetite ratings were observed between diets. Both the LF and MUFA diets compared to CTR diet reduced postprandial glycaemia and insulinaemia and lowered fasting insulin from month 0 to month 6. Following the 8-week LED period lower levels of the appetite regulating peptides, pancreatic polypeptide, peptide YY, glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucagon-like peptide-2, along with increased appetite scores were seen in comparison to measurements performed after the 6-month dietary intervention. In conclusion, the two competing diets, MUFA and LF, were equally good with respect to glucose metabolism, whereas the CTR diet resembling the typical Western diet, high in SFA, sugar and high glycaemic carbohydrates, indicated associations to lowering of insulin sensitivity. Lower levels of appetite regulatory peptides along with increased appetite scores following an 8-week LED and 2-3-week refeeding period, suggest that strategies for physiological appetite control following a LED period are needed, in order to prevent weight regain.

AB - We aimed to test the effects of three different weight maintenance diets on appetite, glucose and fat metabolism following an initial low-energy diet (LED) induced body weight loss. Following an 8-week LED and a 2-3-week refeeding period, 131 subjects were randomized to three diets for 6 months: MUFA, moderate-fat (35-45 energy percentage (E%) fat), high in MUFA with low glycaemic index; LF, low fat (20-30 E% fat) or CTR, control (35 E% fat). A meal test study was performed in a subgroup, before and after the 6-month dietary intervention, with forty-two subjects completing both meal tests. No difference in body weight, energy intake or appetite ratings were observed between diets. Both the LF and MUFA diets compared to CTR diet reduced postprandial glycaemia and insulinaemia and lowered fasting insulin from month 0 to month 6. Following the 8-week LED period lower levels of the appetite regulating peptides, pancreatic polypeptide, peptide YY, glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucagon-like peptide-2, along with increased appetite scores were seen in comparison to measurements performed after the 6-month dietary intervention. In conclusion, the two competing diets, MUFA and LF, were equally good with respect to glucose metabolism, whereas the CTR diet resembling the typical Western diet, high in SFA, sugar and high glycaemic carbohydrates, indicated associations to lowering of insulin sensitivity. Lower levels of appetite regulatory peptides along with increased appetite scores following an 8-week LED and 2-3-week refeeding period, suggest that strategies for physiological appetite control following a LED period are needed, in order to prevent weight regain.

U2 - 10.1017/S0007114508137710

DO - 10.1017/S0007114508137710

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 19079942

VL - 101

SP - 1846

EP - 1858

JO - British Journal of Nutrition

JF - British Journal of Nutrition

SN - 0007-1145

IS - 12

ER -