View clinical trials related to Appetite Control.
Filter by:Disturbances in brain insulin-sensitivity are not only observed in obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D), but also during brain aging and in dementia. Ketone monoester supplements may improve brain insulin-sensitivity, which can be quantified by measuring the gray-matter cerebral blood flow (CBF) response to intranasally administered insulin. We hypothesize that acute ketone monoester supplementation increases (regional) brain vascular function and insulin-sensitivity thereby improving cognitive performance and appetite control. The primary objective is to evaluate in older men the acute effect of ketone monoester supplementation on (regional) brain vascular function and insulin-sensitivity, as quantified by the non-invasive gold standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-perfusion method Arterial Spin Labelling (ASL). The CBF response to intranasal insulin is a robust and sensitive physiological marker of brain insulin-sensitivity. Secondary objectives are to investigate effects on cognitive performance as assessed with a neuropsychological test battery, and appetite control as quantified by functional MRI (fMRI) with visual food cues.
The management of body mass and energy balance requires a better understanding and mastery of the interactions between our daily activities, such as physical exercise, and the control of our food intake. Over the past 15 years, many studies have focused on the potential effects of physical exercise on this satiety cascade and on subsequent food intake, in many populations. Thus, both in normal-weight subjects and in patients suffering from overweight and obesity, it has been shown that the performance of an acute exercise of moderate intensity promotes a transient anorectic effect, reducing feelings of hunger post -exercise, and can even induce a reduction in subsequent food intake. In healthy young adults, recent results show that high-intensity physical exercise can reduce feelings of hunger and increase the satietogenic effect of a meal compared to a control condition and low-intensity exercise. intensity. Nevertheless, it seems that the food reward (which refers to the notion of food reward) does not respond in the same way, the authors not observing any change in either liking or wanting, regardless of exercise intensity. Importantly, this literature uses ad libitum test meals, wishing to assess both satietogenic, hedonic and purely nutritional responses (assessing the amount of food intake). Nevertheless, these sensory and hedonic responses to food intake have recently been shown to be sensitive to the composition of the meal and its caloric quantity, which could induce a significant bias as to the conclusions on the effects of physical exercise. Indeed, the use of meals ad libitum, by definition, leads to caloric intake and different meal compositions. Thus, it is possible that the results obtained are strongly impacted by the nature of the test meal more than by the exercise itself. It therefore remains uncertain today to conclude as to the effects of physical exercise on the factors of the satietogenic cascade, since beyond physical exercise, the test meals compared are not identical. It therefore seems important today to develop a more coherent and adapted methodology, to better study the food and satietogenic responses to our daily activities. In this context, the present project aims to compare the satietogenic response to a meal following acute exercise according to the nature of this meal (ad libitum versus calibrated) in healthy adults.
The objective of this study is to evaluate (1) the effect of a non-restrictive satiating intervention on appetite control, body weight loss and maintenance; and (2) determine whether switching to a non-restrictive satiating intervention following a conventional restrictive intervention can prevent increases in appetite and attenuate body weight regain usually observed after weight loss in men and women living with obesity. This is an 18-month, randomized, controlled, parallel weight loss [Phase 1 (P1): 6 months] and maintenance trial [Phase 2 (P2): 12 months] with three groups (n=234 men and women): (1) non-restrictive, satiating intervention (P1) followed by a continuation of this intervention (P2); (2) conventional restrictive intervention (-500 kcal/d) (P1) followed by a non-restrictive satiating intervention (P2); (3) control group that follows minimal healthy guidelines (P1) followed by recommended weight maintenance strategies (P2). All groups will be controlled for physical activity and sleep patterns. The non-restrictive satiating intervention will include guidelines and recipes to prepare highly satiating meals that will be low in energy density and glycemic index and high in protein, polyunsaturated fats, vitamins and minerals (e.g. calcium), and certain constituents of spices (e.g. capsaicin). Measurements at baseline (week 0), after P1 and P2 will include the following primary outcomes: appetite control, weight loss and maintenance; and secondary outcomes: body composition, physiological, psycho and neurobehavioural and health-related variables. Follow-ups will be done by a dietitian every 2 weeks during P1 and once a month during P2.
This clinical trial is being conducted to study whether eating certain snacks will reduce your desire to eat and for a longer period of time compared to other snacks. The investigators are testing 2 different snacks. Study #1 will involve eating 2 different seed-like snacks or water. Study #2 will involve eating pita bread with jam, bread with jam or water. The test snack is higher in protein and/or fibre compared to the reference product.