Abstract

SQUILLACE, María Celeste et al. Effect on the satiety of a hyperproteic breakfast versus a normoproteic one and prospective consumption of food during the day in adult women. Diaeta [online]. 2018, vol.36, n.163, pp.08-13. ISSN 1852-7337.

Introduction: the mechanisms to control hunger and satiety are highly complex. Selecting preparations / foods more satiety could be a useful strategy to control body weight. Objective: to evaluate the effect of satiety of an hyperproteic breakfast (HP) versus a normoproteic (NP) one and prospective consumption of food Ad libitum during the rest of the day in adult women. Methodology: cross-sectional clinical test in healthy volunteer women (30 to 70 years old), residents of South Gran Buenos Aires (July-August 2014). Sixty participants were randomized to consume HP and NP breakfast for three consecutive days each, the same women acting as cases and self-controls. Both breakfasts were similar in energy density (1.22 / 1.23 kcal/g respectively) and fat, varying the protein/carbohydrate ratio (P/C): HP (41 g protein, P/C: 3.72) and NP (7 g proteins, P / C: 0.13). Daily perceived satiety was registered at each hour of the moment of ingestion (4 measurements), using one dimensional Likert scale (1= no desire to eat to 5= eager to eat). Energy consumption and macronutrients contributed by foods consumed Ad libitum during the rest of the day were calculated through SARA Program-version 1.2.12; degree of acceptance through five-point verbal hedonic scale (1= nothing to 5= very much) and choice of type of breakfast for their usual consumption. Data analysis by SPSS 19.0, presenting descriptive statistics for comparison of nonparametric related samples and Wilcoxon test, considering significant level p<0.05. Results: average age: 41 (SD=11.1) years old. BMI: 25.8 (SD=7.4) kg/m². The average acceptability of the HP breakfast was higher: 3.23 (SD=1.07) vs NP: 2.72 (SD=1.05) (p=0.000). However, the majority (58.3%) chose breakfast NP vs HP for usual consumption (33.3%) (p=.01). Satiety was significantly higher with HP breakfast in the first (p: 0.014), third (p: 0.048) and fourth measurement (p=0.000). No differences were observed in the consumption of Ad libitum foods after both breakfasts. Conclusions: the HP breakfast helped to control appetite by improving satiety in the short term compared to breakfast NP. However, throughout the day, its effectiveness could not be observed since, independently of the type of breakfast, the consumption of prospective foods Ad libitum was similar.

Keywords : Hunger; Satiety; High protein breakfast; Normoproteic breakfast.