Original Article
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2006) 60, 897–902. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602397; published online 15 February 2006
A comparison of effects of fish and beef protein on satiety in normal weight men
Guarantor: S Rössner.
Contributors: BB and SR designed the study. SB designed and cooked the test meals. BB and SB recruited subjects and collected data. ATP and MN conducted the statistical analyses. BB wrote the initial manuscript draft, assisted by SR. None of the authors had any personal or financial conflicts of interest with regard to the study.
S Borzoei1, M Neovius1, B Barkeling1, A Teixeira-Pinto2,3 and S Rössner1
- 1Obesity Unit M73, Department of Internal Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden
- 2Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
- 3Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Correspondence: Professor S Rössner, Obesity Unit M73, Department of Internal Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm SE-141 86, Sweden. E-mail: stephan.rossner@medhs.ki.se
Received 4 May 2005; Revised 21 November 2005; Accepted 12 December 2005; Published online 15 February 2006.
Abstract
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/m2 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 (-24.8), higher for satiety (8.76.0) and lower for prospective consumption (-4.94.7), 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.
Keywords:
appetite, beef, energy intake, fish, protein, satiety
MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS
These links to content published by NPG are automatically generated
REVIEWS
Effect of sensory perception of foods on appetite and food intake: a review of studies on humans
International Journal of Obesity Review
RESEARCH
Oligofructose promotes satiety in healthy human: a pilot study
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Original Article
Beverages and positive energy balance: the menace is the medium
International Journal of Obesity Research
The effect of caffeine, green tea and tyrosine on thermogenesis and energy intake
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Original Article
International Journal of Obesity Original Article
