Content uploaded by William D Johnson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by William D Johnson on Jul 02, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
R E S E A R C H Open Access
Theroleofmealviscosityandoatβ-glucan
characteristics in human appetite control:
a randomized crossover trial
Candida J Rebello
1
, Yi-Fang Chu
2
, William D Johnson
1
, Corby K Martin
1
, Hongmei Han
1
, Nicolas Bordenave
2
,
Yuhui Shi
2
, Marianne O’Shea
2
and Frank L Greenway
1*
Abstract
Background: Foods that enhance satiety can help consumers to resist environmental cues to eat, and improve the
nutritional quality of their diets. Viscosity generated by oat β-glucan, influences gastrointestinal mechanisms that
mediate satiety. Differences in the source, processing treatments, and interactions with other constituents in the
food matrix affect the amount, solubility, molecular weight, and structure of the β-glucan in products, which in turn
influences the viscosity. This study examined the effect of two types of oatmeal and an oat-based ready-to-eat
breakfast cereal (RTEC) on appetite, and assessed differences in meal viscosity and β-glucan characteristics among
the cereals.
Methods: Forty-eight individuals were enrolled in a randomized crossover trial. Subjects consumed isocaloric
breakfast meals containing instant oatmeal (IO), old-fashioned oatmeal (SO) or RTEC in random order at least a week
apart. Each breakfast meal contained 218 kcal (150 kcal cereal, and 68 kcal milk) Visual analogue scales measuring
appetite were completed before breakfast, and over four hours, following the meal. Starch digestion kinetics, meal
viscosities, and β-glucan characteristics for each meal were determined. Appetite responses were analyzed by area
under the curve. Mixed models were used to analyze response changes over time.
Results: IO increased fullness (p = 0.04), suppressed desire to eat (p = 0.01) and reduced prospective intake
(p < 0.01) more than the RTEC over four hours, and consistently at the 60 minute time-point. SO reduced
prospective intake (p = 0.04) more than the RTEC. Hunger scores were not significantly different except that IO reduced
hunger more than the RTEC at the 60 minute time-point. IO and SO had higher β-glucan content, molecular weight, gastric
viscosity, and larger hydration spheres than the RTEC, and IO had greater viscosity after oral and initial gastric digestion
(initial viscosity) than the RTEC.
Conclusion: IO and SO improved appetite control over four hours compared to RTEC. Initial viscosity of oatmeal may be
especially important for reducing appetite.
Keywords: Appetite, β-glucan, Oats, Viscosity, Physicochemical properties
* Correspondence: Frank.Greenway@pbrc.edu
1
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System,
6400 Perkins Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2014 Rebello et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain
Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article,
unless otherwise stated.
Rebello et al. Nutrition Journal 2014, 13:49
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/13/1/49
Introduction
The prevalence of obesity has increased in every region
of the world, including several countries with low and
middle incomes [1]. Evidence for a leveling off in the
steep rises previously observed in high income countries,
however, does not amount to a reversal of the obesity
epidemic [2]. The US will have a projected 65 million
more obese adults in 2030 compared to 2010 [3]. Re-
versing this epidemic requires developing effective ways
of curbing excessive energy intake. The role of dietary
fiber in promoting satiation and satiety has been the
focus of a vast amount of research, and there is evidence
to indicate that consumption of fiber-rich foods has a
modest long-term effect on weight loss [4,5].
Dietary fiber is classified as soluble and insoluble fiber
based on its solubility in aqueous enzyme solutions simi-
lar to those in the gastrointestinal tract [6]. Some soluble
fibers such as β-glucan form a viscous solution when
mixed with liquids. Viscosity is an important rheological
property of β-glucan, and is associated with beneficial
physiologic responses that mediate appetite regulation
such as delayed gastric emptying, increased stomach dis-
tension, and delayed intestinal transit [7]. The increased
viscosity of intestinal contents prolongs transit time and
the absorption rate of nutrients [8]. A thickening of the
unstirred water layer in the intestine further impedes ab-
sorption [9]. Enhanced interaction between nutrients
and the intestinal mucosa stimulates the release of appe-
tite regulating peptides which either function distantly
as hormones or activate nearby nerve fibers [10]. Some
afferent neurons in the gastric mucosa are mechanore-
ceptors while others may transduce chemical or other
signals of satiation [11]. Gastric and intestinal signals
may also work in synergy to influence appetite [11].
When making choices of foods rich in fiber to enhance
satiety it is also important to consider the manner in
which the food is processed. β-glucan, is abundant in oat
kernels and exhibits a high viscosity at relatively low
concentrations [12]. However, the processing of oats, the
concentration of soluble fiber, and the processing of prod-
ucts containing β-glucan affect the amount, solubility, mo-
lecular weight, structure, and functionality of β-glucan
[12,13]. Kilning, a hydrothermal treatment used in the pro-
cessing of oats induces structural changes in the oats, as
do the high shear forces of the flaking process. Old fash-
ioned oats (SO) and instant oats (IO) have different kilning
and flaking processes. Further, unlike old-fashioned oats
instant oats are cut which exposes the endosperm and af-
fects the β-glucan, a major component of endosperm cell
walls. In studies that investigated the effects of β-glucan on
satiety, data on the physicochemical properties of the fiber
are singularly lacking [14-18]. Thus, investigating the phys-
icochemical properties of the fiber would help clarify the
mechanisms by which β-glucan affects satiety, the amount
of β-glucan that elicits an appetite response, and the pro-
cessing techniques that could facilitate development of
satiety-enhancing products to replace foods in the usual
diet.
In a previous study [19] we demonstrated that a break-
fast meal containing 250 kcal serving of SO increased sa-
tiety compared to an isocaloric meal containing 250 kcal
of the most widely consumed oat-based ready-to-eat
breakfast cereal (RTEC) in the United States ((based on
IRI Liquid Data, 52 Weeks Ending March 11, 2012). The
present study measured the satiety effect of breakfast
meals containing single servings (150 kcal) of oatmeal
(IO and SO) and an isocaloric serving of the RTEC over
four hours. Instant oats and SO differ in the manner in
which they are processed; hence, in addition to portion
size, the purpose of the present study was to determine
if differences in processing influence the outcome. Since
replacing foods in the usual diet with foods that increase
satiety may be a means of reducing energy intake, a
popular oat-based RTEC was used as a comparator even
though it differed in nutrient composition and β-glucan
content. The meal viscosity, starch digestion kinetics,
and β-glucan characteristics of each breakfast meal were
also determined. It was hypothesized that both the IO
and SO breakfast meals would have a higher viscosity
and would increase satiety more than the RTEC.
Methods
Subjects
Forty-eight healthy subjects 18 years of age or older
were enrolled in a randomized, three treatment, cross-
over trial. All subjects participated in an initial screening
that involved measurement of body weight; height; waist
and hip circumferences; vital signs (blood pressure and
pulse rate); chemistry-15 panel (glucose, creatinine, po-
tassium, uric acid, albumin, calcium, magnesium, creat-
ine phosphokinase, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline
phosphatase, iron, cholesterol [total, high density lipopro-
tein, low density lipoprotein], and triglycerides); complete
blood count with differential; and beta-human chorionic
gonadotropin urine pregnancy test (in females of child-
bearing potential). Health was further assessed through
the administration of a medical screening questionnaire.
Female subjects also completed a menstrual cycle ques-
tionnaire to ensure that test days would fall within the lu-
teal phase of the menstrual cycle [20]. Inclusion criteria
were: (i) healthy individuals taking no medication other
than birth control or hormone replacement (ii) Willing to
use an effective method of birth control during the course
of the study, if female and capable of bearing children. Ex-
clusion criteria were: (i) women who were pregnant or
nursing, (ii) self-reported weight gain or loss of ≥4kgin
the last 3 months, (iii) fasting glucose >126 mg/dL, (iv)
dietary restraint score ≥14, as assessed by the Dietary
Rebello et al. Nutrition Journal 2014, 13:49 Page 2 of 10
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/13/1/49
Restraint Scale of the Eating Inventory [21] and (v) allergy
or intolerance to oats or milk.
This study was approved by the Institutional Review
Board of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center,
Baton Rouge, where the study was conducted. Partici-
pants provided written informed consent. The trial was
registered on ClinicaTrials.gov with registration number
NCT01666561. Recruitment for clinical trials conducted
at The Pennington Biomedical Research Center is coor-
dinated by the Recruitment Core which is responsible
for the design and placement of advertisements, and
screening of all incoming requests to determine study
eligibility. Participants were recruited from Baton Rouge
and the surrounding areas.
Study design
The test breakfast meals consisting of Quaker Instant
Oatmeal Flakes™(IO), Quaker Old Fashioned Oatmeal™
(SO), and Honey Nut Cheerios™(RTEC), were served to
participants on three test days, separated by at least a
week. There were six possibilities for assigning the order
of the cereals for the three visits (abc, acb, bac, bca, cab,
cba). Each subject was randomly assigned to one of
these orders so that eight subjects were assigned to each
order. The randomization was done by the study statisti-
cian and participants were enrolled by the study coord-
inator. The study dietitian who had no interaction with
study subjects provided the test meals for the partici-
pants and had sole access to the random assignment
until data analysis. The breakfast meals contained 217.5
total kcal, consisting of 150 kcal from the cereal, and
67.5 kcal from lactose-free, fat-free milk. The old fash-
ioned oatmeal, (one standard serving, 40 g dry weight),
was prepared by adding one cup room temperature water
(240 g) and microwaving at high power for three minutes.
The instant oatmeal (40 g dry weight) was stirred, follow-
ing the addition of one cup boiling water. Both were
allowed to stand for one minute, and were served with
184.2 g of cold milk. The RTEC (38.2 g dry weight), was
prepared by adding 184.2 g of cold milk, and was served
with 240 g of water. The participants had the option of
adding one g of Splenda™and one-half teaspoon of cinna-
mon to the oatmeal. If the participant added the Splenda™
and cinnamon to the oatmeal, they were required to add
the same amounts of both to the RTEC.
At each test breakfast visit, participants arrived at the
center after fasting (except for water) for 10 hours over-
night. They were also required to avoid alcohol and
strenuous exercise for 24 hours prior to the test meal.
To determine the presence of colds or allergies that
might affect taste, participants were required to complete
a questionnaire and were asked to return on another day
if such a condition was present. Prior to serving the test
meal hunger, fullness, desire to eat, and prospective intake
were assessed using electronic visual analog scales (VAS)
[22,23]. Participants rated each subjective state on a con-
tinuous line that was anchored using the descriptors ‘Not
at all’to ‘Extremely’, and displayed on a computer screen.
Visual analog scales were scored by the computer on a 0
to 100 unit scale and the score was sent directly to the
database. Hunger, fullness, desire to eat, and prospective
intake, were assessed. The subjects were presented with
their first breakfast test and given 20 minutes to eat it.
Test meals were supervised to ensure that the entire
breakfast was eaten. Visual analog scales were then ad-
ministered at 30, 60, 120, 180, and 240 minutes following
the start of the breakfast meal and subjects were asked an
open ended question (How do you feel?) at each of these
time-points to elicit any adverse events. Subjects were re-
quired to remain in the dining area during this period,
and refrain from any food or drink.
Kinetics of in vitro glucose release
Oatmeal was prepared as described in the study design,
and allowed to rest for one minute. This oatmeal and dry
RTEC were first analyzed for their sugar content by high
performance liquid chromatography and total starch con-
tent by standard American Association of Cereal Chemists
(AACC) procedures [24]. Thus, their total glucose content
(G
tot
) was determined. The cereals then underwent a three-
stage in vitro digestion procedure described by Sopade and
Gidley [25] to evaluate the kinetics of glucose release. The
aim of this method which has been used extensively in the
literature [26-28] is to explore differences in digestibility of
starches caused by differences in their physicochemical and
structural characteristics. During this procedure, α-amylase,
pepsin, and pancreatin with amyloglucosidase were added
in a timely order with adjustments to their corresponding
working pH to mimic digestion in the oral cavity, stomach,
and small intestine. Glucose release from about 500 mg of
digested food in the simulated small intestine phase was
monitored over the course of three hours using the Accu-
Check Aviva glucometer (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis,
IN) which was previously calibrated for glucose response
and interactions with other sugars potentially present in
the matrix. Data were compiled as digestograms (G
t=time
×
100/G
tot
versus time). Digestograms were fitted using a first
order kinetic law, from where initial glucose release (glu-
cose concentration at the beginning of the intestinal phase
[G
t=0
]), rate of glucose release (time constant of the first
order law) time of half-of-total glucose release (time for
G
t
×100/G
tot
= 50%), and area under the curve (AUC) were
calculated. Area under the curve values were normalized
with a white bread control (AUC
white bread
=100).
Characterization of β-glucan
TheRTEC,SO,andIO,weregroundtoflour.Theβ-glucan
component was extracted from dry ground oat flakes and
Rebello et al. Nutrition Journal 2014, 13:49 Page 3 of 10
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/13/1/49
RTEC, according to the procedure described by Rimsten
et al. [29]. After extraction, dialysis purification and drying,
the β-glucan was subjected to molecular weight, distribution,
and radius of gyration analysis using high performance size
exclusion chromatography with multi angle light scattering
detection (sample preparation: dissolution at 0.1% w/w in
mobile phase; mobile phase: 50 mM NaNO
3
and 200 ppm
NaN
3
in deionized water; flow rate: 0.8 mL.min
−1
; col-
umns: Agilent PL aquagel-OH MIXED-H 8 μm300×
7.5 mm column and 50 × 7.5 mm guard column; Light
Scattering detector: Wyatt Dawn Heleos II; Differential
Refractive Index detector: Wyatt Optilab T-rEX, Wyatt
Technology Europe GmbH, Dernbach, Germany). Molecu-
lar weight and radius of gyration calculations (parameters:
second order Berry Model; dn/dc value: 0.146 mL.g
−1
)
were performed using Wyatt Astra V software (Wyatt
Technology, Santa Barbara, California).
The β-glucan content was measured using standardized
AACC procedures [30]. Briefly, β-glucan was hydrolyzed
by lichenase into oligosaccharides, which were converted
into glucose by β-glucosidase. The amount of glucose re-
leased was measured by UV absorbance with glucose oxi-
dase/peroxidase. The β-glucan content was calculated
based on the amount of released glucose.
Breakfast viscosity
The viscosity of the two breakfast meals was measured
in a process simulating the gastric phase of digestion
in vivo. A 250 kcal serving of each breakfast meal (66.8 g
dry weight of oatmeal and 63.6 g dry weight of RTEC)
was prepared as described in the study design, using
proportionate amounts of liquids. Although the in vitro
experiment tested a larger serving than the portion size
used in the study, the relative effects are expected to be
the similar, since the same ratio of cereal to liquid was
used. Each sample underwent the first two phases (oral
and gastric) of the three-stage in vitro digestion procedure
described by Sopade and Gidley [25] and modified as fol-
lows: 61.2 mL of artificial saliva (250 U.mL
−1
α-amylase in
carbonate buffer at pH 6) was used for the oral phase, and
334mLofa1mg.mL
−1
pepsin in 0.02 M HCl was used
for the gastric phase, for each sample. The viscosity of
oatmeal and the RTEC was measured in triplicate at 0,
30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes in a 1000 mL beaker by
using a viscometer (viscometer: Brookfield DV-I+; vane
spindle #71; speed: 100 rpm [Brookfield, Middleboro,
Massachusetts]).
Statistical analysis
A mixed model analysis of variance for a crossover trial was
performed to analyze the primary outcome. A strength of
the crossover design is that significance of differences among
treatments is evaluated in terms of pooled within subject
comparisons. In parallel arm trials, pre-randomization
covariates such as gender, age, and body mass index
(BMI), can be included in analytical models to explain
extraneous variability in outcome variables and increase
precision in estimators of treatment effects. In cross-over
trials pre-randomization covariates can influence only
comparisons between groups containing different sub-
jects in contrast to within subject comparisons where
they have no influence on estimators of treatment ef-
fects or their precision [31]. Hence, covariates were
not included in the models employed in this analysis.
Visual analog scale scores for hunger, fullness, desire
to eat, and prospective food intake, were assessed at
baseline and at 30, 60, 120, 180, and 240 minutes follow-
ing the start of the breakfast meal. The AUC for each as-
sessment was estimated using the linear trapezoidal rule
and calculated as the area between the zero change line
and the measured change curve which could be either
above or below the zero change line. The statistical
model included fixed effects (treatment sequence effects
[residual treatment carryover effects from test day 1 to
test day 2 and test day 2 to test day 3], test day main ef-
fects, and treatment main effects) and random effects
(subjects within treatment sequence groups). Scores at
each assessment time were analyzed using a mixed
model ANOVA for a doubly repeated-measures cross-
over trial, where the first repeated measures variable was
the test day, and the second was the time since start of
breakfast. Any baseline differences in VAS scores among
treatments were normalized to zero, and the resulting
changes from baseline were summarized as least squares
means plotted for each cereal type across the assessment
times. The p-values were adjusted for multiple compari-
sons using the Bonferroni method. Differential treatment
effects with respect to AUC and per time point were
compared using SAS (version 9.2, 2002–2008, PROC
MIXED; SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
Significance of among-treatment differences in viscosity,
molecular weight, and radius of gyration was assessed
using ANOVA. Values were expressed as means ± stand-
ard error. The AUC was used to analyze the kinetics of
starch digestion and glucose release and the values were
expressed as means ± standard deviation. Statistical signifi-
cance was set at p < 0.05.
During the planning phase of the study, sample size
was estimated using G*Power, Version 3.1.2 (F. Faul,
Universitat Kiel, Kiel, Germany) with the following as-
sumptions: (i) power ≥0.75 was considered acceptable,
(ii) the significance level under the null hypothesis was
set at α= 0.05, (iii) the primary outcome was VAS AUC
with aprioristandard deviation assumed to be 3047 mm ×
min based on previous research [32] and (iv) the null hy-
pothesis was to be tested against a two-directional alterna-
tive. The study was sufficiently powered with 43 participants
for detecting a minimum difference of 1258 mm × min
Rebello et al. Nutrition Journal 2014, 13:49 Page 4 of 10
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/13/1/49
between cereal types, which is similar to observed differ-
ences in AUC (1213 mm × min) for desire to eat from a
similar study that assessed appetite sensations [32].
Results
Forty eight subjects were enrolled in the study, of which
three were underweight (BMI < 18.5), 22 were normal
weight (BMI from 18.5 to 24.9), nine were overweight
(BMI from 25 to 29.9) and 14 were obese (BMI > 30).
Five participants were unable to complete the study.
Two participants moved out of the area, one participant
had difficulty in obtaining transportation to the Center,
one participant had a conflicting schedule, and one par-
ticipant had a change of mind. There were no adverse
events. Descriptive characteristics of the subjects at
baseline are summarized in Table 1. A nutrient analysis
of the breakfast meals obtained from the nutrition facts
label, and the β-glucan content which was measured are
presented in Table 2.
Hunger and fullness
The four hour AUC for VAS ratings of hunger were not
statistically different among the three breakfast cereals;
however, IO consumption reduced hunger at 60 minutes
significantly more than the RTEC (p = 0.01) (Figure 1A).
IO consumption increased fullness significantly more
than the RTEC over the four-hour period following the
meal (AUC IO: 9660.62 ± 885.5 mm × min versus RTEC:
7897.65 ± 887.65 mm × min, p = 0.04) and at 60 minutes
(p < 0.01). IO consumption increased fullness more than
SO at 60 minutes (p = 0.04), although fullness was not
significantly different between these two meals over the
four-hour period (Figure 1B).
Desire to eat and prospective intake
IO consumption reduced desire to eat significantly more
than the RTEC over the four hour period (AUC: IO:
9129.38 ± 884.33 mm × min versus RTEC: 7064.69 ±
886.3 mm × min, p = 0.01), at 60 minutes (p < 0.01), and
at 120 minutes (p = 0.01) (Figure 1C). Prospective intake,
was significantly lower after both IO and SO consump-
tion compared to the RTEC over the four-hour period
(AUC IO: 7968.55 ± 769.24 mm × min, p < 0.01, versus
RTEC, SO: 6954.12 ± 769.26 mm × min, p = 0.04 versus
RTEC; RTEC: 5525.98 ± 771.02 mm × min). IO consump-
tion reduced prospective intake at 30 minutes (p = 0.01),
60 minutes (p < 0.01) and 120 minutes (p < 0.01) more
than consumption of the RTEC. SO consumption also de-
creased prospective intake at 30 minutes (p = 0.02) and
120 minutes (p = 0.02) more than consumption of the
RTEC. IO consumption lowered prospective intake at
60 minutes more than SO (p = 0.02), but prospective in-
take was not significantly different between the two over
the four-hour period (Figure 1D).
Kinetics of glucose release
The kinetics of starch digestion and glucose release were
not significantly different among the three breakfast ce-
reals (IO: 99 ± 3 g × min, SO: 100 ± 3 g × min, RTEC:
98 ± 2 g × min, p > 0.05).
Physicochemical characteristics of β-glucan
The molecular weight of β-glucan was higher in both var-
ieties of oatmeal than in the RTEC (IO: 3.89×10
5
± 5.46×10
3
Da, SO: 3.78×10
5
± 5.46×10
3
Da, RTEC: 2.21×10
5
± 5.46×10
3
Da (p < 0.01[IO versus RTEC], p < 0.01[SO versus RTEC])
(Figure 2A). Additionally, the hydrated β-glucan molecules
in oatmeal formed larger spheres than those in the RTEC as
the radius of gyration was 50.23 ± 0.90 nm for IO, 48.2 ±
0.90 nm for SO, and 36.83 ±0.90 nm for the RTEC (p < 0.01
[IO versus RTEC] and p < 0.01 [SO versus RTEC])
(Figure 2B).
Table 1 Subject characteristics at baseline including age,
height, weight, body mass index, waist circumference,
and gender
n=48
Mean Standard deviation
Age 29.8 9.9
Height (cm) 167.2 9.9
Weight (kg) 75.7 19.5
Body Mass Index (kg/m
2
) 27.1 6.7
Waist Circumference (cm) 85.4 15.1
n (%)
Gender
Female 28 (58.3)
Male 20 (41.7)
Table 2 Energy and nutrient content of breakfast meals
SO
*
IO
†
RTEC‡Lactose-Free,
Fat-Free Milk
Energy (kcal) 150 150 150 67.5
Fat (g) 3.0 3.0 2.1 0
Protein (g) 5.0 5.0 2.7 6.0
Total Carbohydrates (g) 27.0 27.0 30.0 9.8
Total Fiber (g) 4.0 4.0 2.7 0
Soluble Fiber (g) 2.0 2.0 1.1 0
β-Glucan (g) 1.6 1.6 1.0 0
Sugar (g) 1.0 1.0 12.3 9.0
Sodium (mg) 0 0 218.3 93.8
Serving Size (g) 40 40 38.2 184.2
*
Quaker Old Fashioned Oatmeal; (Pepsico Inc.Barrington IL).
†
Quaker Instant Oatmeal Flakes; (Pepsico Inc.Barrington IL).
‡
Honey Nut Cheerios; (General Mills Inc. Minneapolis MN).
Rebello et al. Nutrition Journal 2014, 13:49 Page 5 of 10
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/13/1/49
Meal viscosities
IO (7397.17 ± 1564.51 centipoise) exhibited a higher ini-
tial viscosity (time = 0) than SO (1063.33 ± 1564.51 centi-
poise;) and RTEC (175.17 ± 1564.51 centipoise, after oral
and initial gastric digestion (p = 0.03 [IO versus SO] and
p = 0.02 [IO versus RTEC]) (Figure 3A). IO (87.92 ± 3.12
centipoise) and SO (85.13 ± 3.12 centipoise) demonstrated
a greater subsequent viscosity (time ≠0) than the RTEC
(75.92 ± 3.12 centipoise) during the remainder of the
in vitro gastric simulation process (p = 0.01 [IO versus
RTEC] and p <0.05 [SO versus RTEC]) (Figure 3B).
Discussion
Consumption of dietary fiber has been shown to in-
crease satiation and satiety and have a modest effect on
long term weight loss [4,5]. In this study, the satiety
AB
CD
Figure 1 Visual analog scale ratings for hunger (n =48) before and after consumption of instant oatmeal (IO), old fashioned oatmeal
(SO) and a ready-to-eat breakfast cereal (RTEC). (A) Differences in hunger ratings among the three breakfast cereals as assessed by AUC were
not statistically significant. *Least squares mean was different between IO and the RTEC at 60 minutes (p = 0.04). (B) Fullness ratings were different
between IO and the RTEC by AUC. *Least squares mean was different between IO and the RTEC at 60 minutes (p < 0.01). (C) Desire to eat ratings were
different between IO and the RTEC by AUC. *Least squares means were different between IO and the RTEC at 60 minutes (p < 0.01) and 120 minutes
(p < 0.02). (D) Prospective intake ratings were different between the two types of oatmeal and the RTEC by AUC. *Least squares means were different
between IO and the RTEC at 30 minutes (p < 0.02), 60 minutes (p < 0.01), and 120 minutes (p < 0.01).
AB
Figure 2 Least squares means of the molecular weight (Mw) in Daltons (Da) (A) and radius of gyration (Rg) in nanometers (nm) (B), of
the β-glucan content of instant oatmeal (IO), old fashioned oatmeal (SO) and the ready-to-eat breakfast cereal (RTEC). Both varieties of
oatmeal had higher molecular weight and radius of gyration that the RTEC (p < 0.01). Values are mean ± standard error.
Rebello et al. Nutrition Journal 2014, 13:49 Page 6 of 10
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/13/1/49
effects, β-glucan characteristics, and meal viscosities of
three different oat-based breakfast cereals were assessed.
IO consumption increased fullness, suppressed desire to
eat, and reduced prospective intake more than the RTEC
did over a four-hour period, and consistently at the
60 minute time-point. SO consumption reduced pro-
spective intake more than the RTEC did, but did not
significantly improve any other satiety measures. The
content, molecular weight, and radius of gyration of
β-glucan in both oatmeal varieties were higher com-
pared to the RTEC, possibly contributing to greater
viscosity of the oatmeal types.
Food processing may influence satiety by changing the
viscosity and physicochemical properties of β-glucan.
Viscosity (η) is a function of concentration (c) and mo-
lecular weight (Mw) of the polymers (η∝cMα
wwhere αis
a parameter depending of the shape of the polymer)
[33]. Mechanical processing or excessive heat treatments
can change the β-glucan structure reducing its molecu-
lar weight and viscosity. Extrusion, a process often used
in the production of breakfast cereals can affect the
physicochemical properties of the fiber based on the
processing techniques employed, and the composition of
the ingredients [34]. Both sugar and salt increase the ap-
parent viscosity of β-glucan solutions [35]. Although the
oatmeal had no sodium and no added sugar it had a
higher molecular weight, radius of gyration, and viscosity
than the RTEC, further indicating that the functional
properties of β-glucan vary among products.
A serving size (150 kcals) of IO which was composed of
thinly cut flakes increased all indicators of satiety, except
hunger, compared to an isocaloric oat-based RTEC. How-
ever SO, which consisted of thicker flakes only decreased
prospective intake compared to the RTEC. Using echo-
planar magnetic resonance imaging, Hoad et al. [36].
showed that satiety increases as initial viscosity of the
meal increases. Initial viscosity likely modulates a cephalic
phase effect in which the orosensory factors play an im-
portant role in the overall satiety response. Previous re-
search shows that intestinal infusion of a soup produces a
weak effect on the control of appetite, which is progres-
sively amplified with gastric and oral stimulation [37]. In
the present study, IO had greater initial and subsequent
viscosities compared to the RTEC, whereas SO only had
greater subsequent viscosity compared to the RTEC. Thus,
the greater initial viscosity of the IO may have increased
oral stimulation and produced a greater satiety effect than
SO, suggesting that regulation of appetite works in
concert with oral, gastric, intestinal, and post-absorptive
mechanisms.
It is likely that the thinly cut IO flakes hydrated more
easily with the addition of boiling water compared to the
thicker SO flakes and may explain why the two oatmeal
varieties displayed different viscosities when they first
entered the stomach as estimated in the in vitro simula-
tion. The addition of oat bran (4 or 8 g β-glucan) to bis-
cuits and juice (enriched biscuits and enriched juice)
increased satiety compared to the control meal without
β-glucan, but, β-glucan added only to biscuits (enriched
biscuits and juice) did not produce this effect [38]. In a
comparison between two cereals, oatmeal (2.6 g β-glucan)
prepared with hot water produced greater viscosity, larger
hydration molecules, and increased satiety compared to a
ready-to-eat oat based cereal (1.7 g β-glucan) served with
cold milk [19]. Thus, sufficient hydration of the fiber is
important for inducing the process of satiety.
Our previous study shows that larger portion sizes of IO
and SO (250 kcals, 2.6 - 2.7 g β-glucan) increase satiety
more than isocaloric servings of the RTEC (1.7 g β-glucan),
particularly in the two- to four- hour period following con-
sumption (CJ Rebello, et al.; manuscript under review).
Although we also found that IO and SO consumption
AB
Figure 3 Mean viscosities of oatmeal and ready-to-eat-breakfast cereal (RTEC) meals observed at the in vitro simulation of digestion.
Viscosity values are the means of three replicates and expressed in centipoise (cP) ± standard error. Instant oatmeal (IO) exhibited a higher
viscosity than old fashioned oatmeal (SO) (p = 0.03) and the RTEC (p = 0.02) after oral and initial gastric digestion at time = 0 (A). IO (p = 0.01)
as well as SO (p < 0.05) demonstrated significantly greater viscosity than the RTEC during the remainder of the in vitro gastric simulation
process (B).
Rebello et al. Nutrition Journal 2014, 13:49 Page 7 of 10
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/13/1/49
increased some satiety measures in the current study,
the effects were not as robust perhaps due to the smaller
portion sizes. The low volume of food may have caused
minimal stomach distension and quickly emptied from
the stomach, and the energy content was perhaps insuffi-
cient for showing significant differences in satiety at all of
the time-points past 60 minutes. Thus, portion size likely
plays an important role in detecting satiety differences be-
tween two foods within a given time frame.
The effects of β-glucan on appetite and satiety have
been assessed in several studies but the results have been
inconsistent [14-18,39-42]. In a study investigating the
effects of β-glucan on satiety it was shown that con-
sumption of 4 g oat β-glucan served with yogurt, had no
effect on satiety despite a reduction in the post prandial
blood glucose response [17]. Beck et al. concluded that
the optimal dose of β-glucan affecting satiety and other
markers of appetite regulation were between 4 and 6 g
and that the hormonal effects (peptide YY) were medi-
ated through increased viscosity observed with increas-
ing the concentration of β-glucan [18]. However, varying
doses from 2.16 g to 5.68 g of oat β-glucan also in-
creased satiety in a dose dependent manner [40]. Thus,
the differences in the β-glucan content of a food, in
addition to structural and functional differences of the
fiber in different food products may influence satiety
responses.
The sugar content of the oatmeal breakfast meals was
lower than the RTEC breakfast meal. A sensory evalu-
ation of the two breakfast meals was not conducted in
this study to determine the palatability of the two test
meals. Palatability is not a fixed property of a food. Ra-
ther, it is a momentary evaluation liable to change with
the experience [43]. Moreover, it appears to affect sati-
ation (meal termination) more than satiety (prolongation
of the interval between meals) [44]. While the sweetness
of sugar is strongly hedonically positive and may stimu-
late eating rate, sugars in the gut could generate negative
as well as positive feedback signals to influence satiation
and satiety [45,46]. Adults do not always equate good
taste with sweetness, and their taste preferences are not
always direct predictors of appetite regulation [47].
Differences in viscosity arising from differences in physi-
cochemical properties may influence the glycemic re-
sponse [48]. However, the results obtained from the study
of the kinetics of starch digestion and glucose release of
the breakfast meals were not significantly different among
the three cereals. In vitro studies of starch kinetics do not
fully reflect the effects of viscosity, stomach motility, or
nutrient interactions; but, they permit standardization of
conditions. Although oatmeal has been shown to be a
food with a high glycemic index [49] there may have been
differences in the glycemic indices of oatmeal and the
RTEC. However, studies that investigated the effect of the
glycemic response on satiety have shown inconsistent re-
sults [50-53].
Oatmeal had higher protein content than the RTEC
and protein-induced satiety has been demonstrated in
several studies. In a study comparing a high protein
meal (25% of energy) with a low protein meal (10% of
energy) it was found that satiety significantly increased
after the high protein meal [54]. In a comparison be-
tween breakfast skippers and those who ate a high pro-
tein breakfast (35 g protein, 40% of energy content) or a
normal protein breakfast (13 g protein, 15% of energy
content), both the protein breakfasts increased satiety
compared to the breakfast skippers with the high protein
breakfast meals eliciting a greater satiety response than
did the normal protein breakfast [55]. These studies
[54,55], compared meals or diets that differed by 15% to
25% in their energy content from protein. In the present
study, the difference in protein content was 2.3 g or 4%
of total energy, which is less than the proportion previ-
ously shown to increase satiety. Thus, the content and
functionality of β-glucan likely influenced the satiety dif-
ferences observed between the oatmeal types and the
RTEC more than the differences in the protein content.
Hormones, neuropeptides, and the glycemic response
following consumption of the breakfast meals were not
measured in this study. Post-prandial measurements of
glucose and endocrine markers of satiety may have
helped to clarify the physiologic mechanisms influencing
appetite responses, and provided additional support to
the conclusions. In a previous study we showed that en-
ergy intake at lunch decreases after eating a larger portion
size (250 kcal) of oatmeal at breakfast compared to an iso-
caloric serving of the RTEC; (Rebello CJ et al., manuscript
under review) however, in this study food intake was not
measured. Appetite scores measured through VAS can be
reproduced and are therefore feasible tools to measure ap-
petite and satiety sensations [23]. Nevertheless, proof of
concept would require that effects on energy intake and
body weight be assessed in future studies. Further, adults in
different subgroups may or may not demonstrate disparate
treatment response. Thus, it is of interest to compare treat-
ments in subgroups but there must be a sufficient number
of participants within the subgroups to support making
valid conclusions from such analyses. Because of the effi-
ciency gained in crossover designs, relatively small sample
sizes are usually justified. While this is an advantage for in-
vestigating the primary outcome in a diverse sample, the
typically small sample employed in this study does not pro-
vide adequate power to enable drawing reliable conclusions
from subgroup analyses.
Conclusions
The effects of instant oatmeal on satiety demonstrated
in this study are similar to the effects that were observed
Rebello et al. Nutrition Journal 2014, 13:49 Page 8 of 10
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/13/1/49
in a previous study comparing the satiety effects of a lar-
ger portion size of instant oatmeal with the oat-based
RTEC, indicating that IO suppresses appetite, and in-
creases satiety, over a range of portion sizes. SO con-
sumption was less effective in appetite control than IO
was when each was compared with the RTEC. Differ-
ences in β-glucan content, hydration, and physicochemi-
cal properties among the cereals are likely important
factors influencing meal viscosity and therefore satiety.
A high initial meal viscosity may be associated with in-
creased satiety. Oatmeal provides a readily available source
of viscous soluble fiber, and its consumption may be a
means of reducing the motivation to eat at future meals.
Replacing less-filling breakfast cereals with oatmeal can be
an effective tool for promoting satiety.
Abbreviations
RTEC: Ready-to-eat breakfast cereal; IO: Instant oatmeal; SO: Old fashioned
oatmeal; VAS: Visual analog scales; BMI: Body mass index; G
tot
: Total glucose
content; AACC: American Association of Cereal Chemists; AUC: Area under
the curve; G
t=0
: Glucose concentration at the beginning of the intestinal
phase.
Competing interests
Marianne O’Shea, Nicholas Bordenave, Yuhui Shi, and YiFang Chu are
employees of PepsiCo R&D Nutrition. Candida Rebello, Corby Martin, William
Johnson, Hongmei Han, and Frank Greenway have no conflict of interest.
Authors’contributions
WDJ, CKM, YC, MO, NB, and FLG designed research; CJR, CKM, FLG, and NB
conducted research; WDJ, HH, and CJR analyzed the data; CJR and NB wrote
the paper; CJR, WDJ, CKM, NB, YS, YC, and FLG reviewed and edited the
manuscript; CJR had primary responsibility for final content. All authors read
and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
The trial was funded by Quaker Oats Center of Excellence, PepsiCo R&D
Nutrition. The sponsor contributed to study design, analysis of samples, and
writing of the article. Marianne O’Shea, Nicolas Bordenave, Yuhui Shi, and
YiFang Chu receive a salary from PepsiCo R&D Nutrition. Candida Rebello,
Corby Martin, William Johnson, Hongmei Han, and Frank Greenway are
employees of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State
University system.
Author details
1
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System,
6400 Perkins Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA.
2
PepsiCo R&D Nutrition, 617
W. Main Street, Barrington, IL 60010, USA.
Received: 12 February 2014 Accepted: 22 May 2014
Published: 28 May 2014
References
1. Finucane MM, Stevens GA, Cowan MJ, Danaei G, Lin JK, Paciorek CJ, Singh GM,
Gutierrez HR, Lu Y, Bahalim AN, Farzadfar F, Riley LM, Ezzati M, Global Burden
of Metabolic Risk Factors of Chronic Diseases Collaborating Group (Body Mass
Index): National, regional, and global trends in body-mass index since 1980:
systematic analysis of health examination surveys and epidemiological
studies with 960 country-years and 9.1 million participants. Lancet 2011,
377(9765):557–567.
2. Rokholm B, Baker JL, Sorensen TI: The levelling off of the obesity epidemic
since the year 1999–a review of evidence and perspectives. Obes Rev
2010, 11(12):835–846.
3. Wang YC, McPherson K, Marsh T, Gortmaker SL, Brown M: Health and
economic burden of the projected obesity trends in the USA and the
UK. Lancet 2011, 378(9793):815–825.
4. van Dam RM, Seidell JC: Carbohydrate intake and obesity. Eur J Clin Nutr
2007, 61(Suppl 1):S75–99.
5. Rebello CJ, Liu AG, Greenway FL, Dhurandhar NV: Dietary strategies to
increase satiety. Adv Food Nutr Res 2013, 69:105–182.
6. El Khoury D, Cuda C, Luhovyy BL, Anderson GH: Beta glucan: health
benefits in obesity and metabolic syndrome. J Nutr Metab 2012,
2012:851362.
7. Kristensen M, Jensen MG: Dietary fibres in the regulation of appetite and
food intake. Importance of viscosity. Appetite 2011, 56(1):65–70.
8. Maljaars PW, Peters HP, Mela DJ, Masclee AA: Ileal brake: a sensible food
target for appetite control. A review. Physiol Behav 2008, 95(3):271–281.
9. Johnson IT, Gee JM: Effect of gel-forming gums on the intestinal unstirred
layer and sugar transport in vitro. Gut 1981, 22(5):398–403.
10. Cummings DE, Overduin J: Gastrointestinal regulation of food intake. JClin
Invest 2007, 117(1):13–23.
11. Powley TL, Phillips RJ: Gastric satiation is volumetric, intestinal satiation is
nutritive. Physiol Behav 2004, 82(1):69–74.
12. Sadiq Butt M, Tahir-Nadeem M, Khan MK, Shabir R, Butt MS: Oat: unique
among the cereals. Eur J Nutr 2008, 47(2):68–79.
13. Anttila H, Sontag-Strohm T, Salovaara H: Viscosity of beta-glucan in oat
products. Agr Food Sci 2004, 13(1–2):80–87.
14. Vitaglione P, Lumaga RB, Montagnese C, Messia MC, Marconi E, Scalfi L:
Satiating effect of a barley beta-glucan-enriched snack. J Am Coll Nutr
2010, 29(2):113–121.
15. Vitaglione P, Lumaga RB, Stanzione A, Scalfi L, Fogliano V: beta-Glucan-
enriched bread reduces energy intake and modifies plasma ghrelin and
peptide YY concentrations in the short term. Appetite 2009, 53(3):338–344.
16. Schroeder N, Gallaher DD, Arndt EA, Marquart L: Influence of whole grain
barley, whole grain wheat, and refined rice-based foods on short-term
satiety and energy intake. Appetite 2009, 53(3):363–369.
17. Hlebowicz J, Darwiche G, Bjorgell O, Almer LO: Effect of muesli with 4 g
oat beta-glucan on postprandial blood glucose, gastric emptying and
satiety in healthy subjects: a randomized crossover trial. J Am Coll Nutr
2008, 27(4):470–475.
18. Beck EJ, Tapsell LC, Batterham MJ, Tosh SM, Huang XF: Increases in peptide
Y-Y levels following oat beta-glucan ingestion are dose-dependent in
overweight adults. Nutr Res 2009, 29(10):705–709.
19. Rebello CJ, Johnson WD, Martin CK, Xie W, O'Shea M, Kurilich A,
Bordenave N, Andler S, van Klinken BJ, Chu YF, Greenway FL: Acute
effect of oatmeal on subjective measures of appetite and satiety
compared to a ready-to-eat breakfast cereal: a randomized crossover
trial. JAmCollNutr2013, 32(4):272–279.
20. Dye L, Blundell JE: Menstrual cycle and appetite control: implications for
weight regulation. Hum Reprod 1997, 12(6):1142–1151.
21. Stunkard AJ, Messick S: The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary
restraint, disinhibition and hunger. JPsychosomRes1985, 29(1):71–83.
22. Flint A, Raben A, Blundell JE, Astrup A: Reproducibility, power and validity
of visual analogue scales in assessment of appetite sensations in single
test meal studies. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000, 24(1):38–48.
23. Blundell J, de Graaf C, Hulshof T, Jebb S, Livingstone B, Lluch A, Mela D,
Salah S, Schuring E, van der Knaap H, Westerterp M: Appetite control:
methodological aspects of the evaluation of foods. Obes Rev 2010,
11(3):251–270.
24. AACC International: Approved Methods of Analysis, 11th Ed. Method 76–13.01.
Total Starch Assay Procedure (Megazyme Amyloglucosidase/alpha-Amylase
Method). St. Paul, MN, U.S.A: AACC International; http://methods.aaccnet.org/
summaries/76-13-01.aspx.
25. Sopade PA, Gidley MJ: A Rapid In-vitro Digestibility Assay Based on
Glucometry for Investigating Kinetics of Starch Digestion. Starch-Starke
2009, 61(5):245–255.
26. Parada J, Aguilera JM: Review: Starch Matrices and the Glycemic
Response. Food Sci Technol Int 2011, 17(3):187–204.
27. Syahariza ZA, Sar S, Hasjim J, Tizzotti MJ, Gilbert RG: The importance of
amylose and amylopectin fine structures for starch digestibility in
cooked rice grains. Food Chem 2013, 136(2):742–749.
28. Sasaki T, Kohyama K: Effect of non-starch polysaccharides on the in vitro
digestibility and rheological properties of rice starch gel. Food Chem
2011, 127(2):541–546.
29. Rimsten L, Stenberg T, Andersson R, Andersson A, Aman P: Determination
of beta-glucan molecular weight using SEC with calcofluor detection in
cereal extracts. Cereal Chem 2003, 80(4):485–490.
Rebello et al. Nutrition Journal 2014, 13:49 Page 9 of 10
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/13/1/49
30. AACC International: Approved Methods of Analysis, 11th Ed. Method 32–23.01.
Beta-Glucan Content of Barley and Oats –Rapid Enzymatic Procedure. St. Paul, MN,
U.S.A: AACC International; http://methods.aaccnet.org/summaries/32-23-01.aspx.
31. Kenward MG, Roger JH: The use of baseline covariates in crossover
studies. Biostatistics 2010, 11(1):1–17.
32. Pasman WJ, Heimerikx J, Rubingh CM, van den Berg R, O'Shea M, Gambelli L,
Hendriks HF, Einerhand AW, Scott C, Keizer HG, Mennen LI: The effect of
Korean pine nut oil on in vitro CCK release, on appetite sensations and on
gut hormones in post-menopausal overweight women. Lipids Health Dis
2008, 7:10.
33. Gomez C, Navarro A, Manzanares P, Horta A, Carbonell JV: Physical and
structural properties of barley (1->3),(1->4)-beta-D-glucan .2. Viscosity,
chain stiffness and macro molecular dimensions. Carbohyd Polym 1997,
32(1):17–22.
34. Tiwari U, Cummins E: Factors Influencing beta-Glucan Levels and Molecular
Weight in Cereal-Based Products. Cereal Chem 2009, 86(3):290–301.
35. Vaikousi H, Biliaderis CG: Processing and formulation effects on
rheological behavior of barley beta-glucan aqueous dispersions. Food
Chem 2005, 91(3):505–516.
36. Hoad CL, Rayment P, Spiller RC, Marciani L, Alonso Bde C, Traynor C, Mela DJ,
Peters HP, Gowland PA: In vivo imaging of intragastric gelation and its effect
on satiety in humans. The Journal of nutrition 2004, 134(9):2293–2300.
37. Cecil JE, Francis J, Read NW: Comparison of the effects of a high-fat and
high-carbohydrate soup delivered orally and intragastrically on gastric
emptying, appetite, and eating behaviour. Physiology & behavior 1999,
67(2):299–306.
38. Pentikainen S, Karhunen L, Flander L, Katina K, Meynier A, Aymard P, Vinoy S,
Poutanen K: Enrichment of biscuits and juice with oat beta-glucan enhances
postprandial satiety. Appetite 2014, 75:150–156.
39. Chaudhri O, Small C, Bloom S: Gastrointestinal hormones regulating
appetite. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2006, 361(1471):1187–1209.
40. Beck EJ, Tosh SM, Batterham MJ, Tapsell LC, Huang XF: Oat beta-glucan
increases postprandial cholecystokinin levels, decreases insulin response
and extends subjective satiety in overweight subjects. Mol Nutr Food Res
2009, 53(10):1343–1351.
41. Lyly M, Liukkonen KH, Salmenkallio-Marttila M, Karhunen L, Poutanen K,
Lahteenmaki L: Fibre in beverages can enhance perceived satiety. Eur
JNutr2009, 48(4):251–258.
42. Hlebowicz J, Wickenberg J, Fahlstrom R, Bjorgell O, Almer LO, Darwiche G:
Effect of commercial breakfast fibre cereals compared with corn flakes
on postprandial blood glucose, gastric emptying and satiety in healthy
subjects: a randomized blinded crossover trial. Nutr J 2007, 6:22.
43. Mela DJ: Eating for pleasure or just wanting to eat? Reconsidering
sensory hedonic responses as a driver of obesity. Appetite 2006, 47(1):10–17.
44. De Graaf C, De Jong LS, Lambers AC: Palatability affects satiation but not
satiety. Physiol Behav 1999, 66(4):681–688.
45. Myers KP, Taddeo MS, Richards EK: Sensory-specific appetition:
Postingestive detection of glucose rapidly promotes continued
consumption of a recently encountered flavor. Physiol Behav 2013,
121:125–133. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.03.021. Epub 2013 Apr 3.
46. Fernstrom JD, Munger SD, Sclafani A, de Araujo IE, Roberts A, Molinary S:
Mechanisms for sweetness. J Nutr 2012, 142(6):1134S–1141S.
47. Drewnowski A: Taste preferences and food intake. Annu Rev Nutr 1997,
17:237–253.
48. Thondre PS, Shafat A, Clegg ME: Molecular weight of barley beta-glucan
influences energy expenditure, gastric emptying and glycaemic response
in human subjects. Br J Nutr 2013, 110(12):2173–2179.
49. Henry CJ, Lightowler HJ, Dodwell LM, Wynne JM: Glycaemic index and
glycaemic load values of cereal products and weight-management
meals available in the UK. Br J Nutr 2007, 98(1):147–153.
50. Holt SH, Miller JB: Increased insulin responses to ingested foods are
associated with lessened satiety. Appetite 1995, 24(1):43–54.
51. Anderson GH, Catherine NL, Woodend DM, Wolever TM: Inverse
association between the effect of carbohydrates on blood glucose and
subsequent short-term food intake in young men. Am J Clin Nutr 2002,
76(5):1023–1030.
52. Anderson GH, Woodend D: Effect of glycemic carbohydrates on short-term
satiety and food intake. Nutr Rev 2003, 61(5 Pt 2):S17–26.
53. Liu AG, Most MM, Brashear MM, Johnson WD, Cefalu WT, Greenway FL:
Reducing the glycemic index or carbohydrate content of mixed meals
reduces postprandial glycemia and insulinemia over the entire day but
does not affect satiety. Diabetes Care 2012, 35(8):1633–1637.
54. Smeets AJ, Soenen S, Luscombe-Marsh ND, Ueland O, Westerterp-Plantenga MS:
Energy expenditure, satiety, and plasma ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1,
and peptide tyrosine-tyrosine concentrations following a single high-protein
lunch. JNutr2008, 138(4):698–702.
55. Leidy HJ, Ortinau LC, Douglas SM, Hoertel HA: Beneficial effects of a
higher-protein breakfast on the appetitive, hormonal, and neural signals
controlling energy intake regulationinoverweight/obese,“breakfast-skipping,”
late-adolescent girls. Am J Clin Nutr 2013, 97(4):677–688.
doi:10.1186/1475-2891-13-49
Cite this article as: Rebello et al.:Theroleofmealviscosityandoatβ-glucan
characteristics in human appetite control: a randomized crossover trial. Nutrition
Journal 2014 13:49.
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and take full advantage of:
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• No space constraints or color figure charges
• Immediate publication on acceptance
• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Rebello et al. Nutrition Journal 2014, 13:49 Page 10 of 10
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/13/1/49
