Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-2tv5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-20T16:49:46.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of oral fat perception by modified sham feeding on energy expenditure, hormones and appetite profile in the postprandial state

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2008

Astrid J. Smeets*
Affiliation:
Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands Top Institute Food and Nutrition, PO Box 557, 6700 AN Wageningen, The Netherlands
Manuela P. Lejeune
Affiliation:
Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands Top Institute Food and Nutrition, PO Box 557, 6700 AN Wageningen, The Netherlands
Margriet S. Westerterp-Plantenga
Affiliation:
Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands Top Institute Food and Nutrition, PO Box 557, 6700 AN Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author: Dr A. J. Smeets, fax +31 433670976, email astrid.smeets@hb.unimaas.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previously, we have shown that satiety and metabolites increased after high-fat modified sham feeding (MSF). We assessed possible metabolic effects due to oral stimulation with a high-fat sham-fed ‘meal’, in comparison with a high-fat fed meal and with water, in the postprandial state. Fourteen healthy women (aged 18–40 years; BMI 22·5 (sd 3) kg/m2) were fed in energy balance during 4 d with a 50 % enegy as carbohydrate, 15 % energy as protein and 35 % energy as fat menu. On day 4, subjects were given one out of three test lunches, 5 h after a high-fat breakfast, in random order: a high-fat MSF lunch, water (W) or the same lunch to be eaten (E), during their 36 h stay in the respiration chamber, where substrate oxidation, 24 h energy expenditure (EE) and appetite profile were measured. Oral fat stimulation by MSF increased EE (W 6·3 (sd 0·8) v. MSF 6·9 (sd 1·0) kJ/min and E 6·8 (sd 0·7) kJ/min; P < 0·04) for 1 h, increased plasma insulin concentrations (t = 15; W 10·0 (sd 3·4) v. MSF 13·2 (sd 4·0) v. E 22·3 (sd 3·3) units/l; P < 0·0001), attenuated changes in plasma NEFA concentrations (t = 15, W 432 (sd 108) v. MSF 418 (sd 146) v. E 282 (sd 72) μmol/l; P < 0·0001), plasma TAG concentrations (t = 60; W 1092 (sd 548) v. MSF 1116 (sd 493) μmol/l and E 1350 (sd 352) μmol/l; P < 0·02) and plasma glycerol concentrations (t = 15, W 87 (sd 29) v. MSF 74 (sd 34) μmol/l and E 67 (sd 18) μmol/l; P < 0·03). Over a longer period of time, MSF had no effects on substrate oxidation, diet-induced thermogenesis or total EE. In addition to the previously observed metabolic effects of oral stimulation with fat, EE is stimulated up to 1 h after the MSF meal.

Information

Type
Full Papers
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2008
Figure 0

Table 1 Total energy expenditure, components of energy expenditure and non-protein respiratory quotient (RQ) during the three conditions(Mean values and standard deviations)

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Mean energy expenditure during 1 h before the lunch ( − 60 to 0 min), the first hour after the lunch (0–60 min) and during the second hour after the lunch (60–120 min) in sham-fed subjects (), subjects that ate the lunch (■) and in subjects given a water lunch (□). * Mean value was significantly different from that after water (repeated-measures ANOVA; P < 0·05).

Figure 2

Fig. 2 Mean cumulative percentage recovery of 2H from 2H-labelled palmitic acid given at breakfast (08.00 hours) in sham-fed subjects (–●–), subjects that ate the lunch (–■–) and in subjects given a water lunch (- -△- -). Values are means, with standard deviations represented by vertical bars.

Figure 3

Table 2 Baseline and changes in plasma concentrations of glucose, insulin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and leptin(Mean values and standard deviations)

Figure 4

Fig. 3 Percentage change in plasma NEFA concentrations in sham-fed subjects (- -♦- -), subjects that ate the lunch (–■–) and in subjects given a water lunch (–△–). Values are means, with standard errors represented by vertical bars. * Mean value was significantly different from that after water (repeated-measures ANOVA; P < 0·05).

Figure 5

Fig. 4 Percentage of change in plasma TAG concentrations in sham-fed subjects (- -♦- -), subjects that ate the lunch (–■–) and in subjects given a water lunch (–△–). Values are means, with standard errors represented by vertical bars. * Mean value was significantly different from that after water (repeated-measures ANOVA; P < 0·05).

Figure 6

Fig. 5 Percentage of change in plasma glycerol concentrations in sham-fed subjects (- -♦- -), subjects that ate the lunch (–■–) and in subjects given a water lunch (–△–). Values are means, with standard errors represented by vertical bars. * Mean value was significantly different from that after water (repeated-measures ANOVA; P < 0·05).

Figure 7

Fig. 6 Percentage of change in plasma active ghrelin concentrations in sham-fed subjects (- -♦- -), subjects that ate the lunch (–■–) and in subjects given a water lunch (–△–). Values are means, with standard errors represented by vertical bars. * Mean value was significantly different from that after water (repeated-measures ANOVA; P < 0·05).

Figure 8

Fig. 7 Change in satiety scores on a visual analogue scale (mm) over 4·5 h after the lunch in sham-fed subjects (- -♦- -), subjects that ate the lunch (–■–) and in subjects given a water lunch (–△–). Values are means, with standard errors represented by vertical bars. * Mean value was significantly different from that after water (repeated-measures ANOVA; P < 0·05).