Effects of Barley and Oat Breads on Appetite

Healthy Clinical Trial

Official title:

Effects of Barley and Oat Breads on Appetite

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT04749498
• Other study ID #: TSA-2019-8761
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: April 1, 2019
• Est. completion date: February 1, 2021

Study information

• Verified date: February 2021
• Source: TC Erciyes University
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

This study aimed to compare the postprandial effects of ß-glucan derived from oats bread (OB) and barley bread (BB) on appetite and glycemia. A randomized, double-blind, crossover trial included 20 healthy individuals. All participants consumed BB, white bread (WB), and whole wheat bread (WWB) with a standard breakfast and then were served an ad libitum lunch on four different days. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess appetite before breakfast and at 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 minutes after breakfast. Blood glucose levels were measured at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes. Postprandial appetite and glucose responses were quantified as the incremental area under the curve (iAUC) calculated according to the trapezoidal rule.

Description:

This study aimed to compare the postprandial effects of ß-glucan on glycemia and appetite of breads derived from oats and barley, which are the best natural grain sources. In addition, the positive health effects of ß-glucan were sought to be determined independent of total dietary fiber intake, using not only WB as the control food but also WWB, which has a dietary fiber content equal to that of breads containing ß-glucan. This study was planned as a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, and crossover. Twenty healthy adults (10 men, 10 women) between the ages of 19-35 years, with normal body weight (BMI 18.5-25 kg /m2) were included in the study. Participants were selected from among Erciyes University students and staff in accordance with the inclusion criteria. The eating behaviors of all participants were also evaluated using the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire before starting the study. Since the total score obtained from this questionnaire >3.5 is considered as restrictive eating behavior, these individuals were not included in the study.

Participants were served barley bread (BB), oat bread (OB), and white bread (WB), and whole wheat bread (WWB) with a standard breakfast on four different days at least two days apart. Breads were prepared with similar amounts of energy, protein, fat, carbohydrate, and fiber (except WB). The test meal was served to the participants at 09:00 and they were asked to consume it within 15 minutes. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess appetite before breakfast and at 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 minutes after breakfast. Furthermore, the separate VAS components such as hunger, fullness, desire to eat, and prospective food consumption were combined to produce an additional measure termed 'composite appetite score'. For the postprandial glucose assessment, blood glucose measurements were made with the finger-tip glucometer at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes. Postprandial appetite and glucose responses were quantified as the incremental area under the curve (iAUC) calculated according to the trapezoidal rule.

At the end of three hours, the ad libitum lunch was served to the participants as a buffet-style, and the energy and macronutrient intakes in this meal were determined. All foods (meatballs, tuna, sauce pasta, yogurt, salad, white bread, apple, banana, yogurt drink, fruit juice, and water) were weighed using a calibrated kitchen scale with an accuracy of ±1g before being served. At lunch, the participants were asked to consume the foods they wanted and continue eating until they felt completely full. After the participants completed their consumption, the remaining amounts were reweighed and the difference with the initial amounts was accepted as the amount consumed.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 20
• Est. completion date: February 1, 2021
• Est. primary completion date: March 1, 2020
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 19 Years to 35 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Healthy

• Normal-weight (BMI 18.5-25 kg/m2)

• 19-35 years

• Having a <3.5 score on the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (considered as unrestrictive eating behavior)

Exclusion Criteria:

• Applying an energy-restricted diet in the last three months

• Having a change in body weight >5 kg in the last three months

• Vegans

• Having any chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, etc.

• Physician-diagnosed medications or conditions that influence metabolism

• Having fasting glucose >100 mg/dl

• Smoking

• Exercising heavily

• Having chewing/swallowing difficulties or sensitivity/allergies to any food to be used in the study

• Lack of appetite

• Pregnant and lactating women

• Skipping breakfast meals

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Appetitive Behavior
• Healthy

Intervention

Other:
• White Bread
Test breakfast with white bread was served after 12-hours of fasting and participants were asked to consume the meal in full, within 15 minutes.
• Whole Wheat Bread
In a crossover design, this bread was served with a standard breakfast to compare other breads.
• Barley Bread
In a crossover design, this bread was served with a standard breakfast to compare other breads.
• Oat Bread
In a crossover design, this bread was served with a standard breakfast to compare other breads.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Turkey	Erciyes University Faculty of Health Sciences	Kayseri	Kayseri?

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
TC Erciyes University

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Turkey, 

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Postprandial appetite response	The separate visual analog scale factors like hunger, fullness, desiring for eat, and prospective food consumption were combined to produce an additional measure termed 'composite appetite score'. This average appetite score was computed for 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 minutes using the following equation: [(hunger + desire to eat + prospective food consumption + (100 - fullness)]/4 Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome. Postprandial apetite response was quantified as incremental area under the curve (iAUC), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using composite appetite scores at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 minutes. Higher values represent a worse outcome.	Three hours postprandial period (from fasting to 180 minutes after the test breakfast)
Primary	Postprandial glucose response	Postprandial glucose response was quantified as incremental area under the curve (iAUC), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using serum glucose values at time points 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes. Higher values represent a worse outcome.	Two hours postprandial period (from fasting to 120 minutes after the test breakfast)
Primary	Subsequent energy consumption	Energy intake at ad libitum lunch was calculated.	Three hours after consuming the test breakfast (at 180 minutes)
Secondary	Visual appeal of test bread	Palatability of test meals was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How is the visual appeal of test meal? (Good - Bad)" at time points 15 minutes (immediately after consuming test meal). Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.	Immediately after consuming test meal (at 15 minutes)
Secondary	Smell of test bread	Palatability of test meals was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How is the smell of test meal? (Good - Bad)" at time points 15 minutes (immediately after consuming test meal). Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.	Immediately after consuming test meal (at 15 minutes)
Secondary	Taste of test bread	Palatability of test meals was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How is the taste of test meal? (Good - Bad)" at time points 15 minutes (immediately after consuming test meal). Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.	Immediately after consuming test meal (at 15 minutes)
Secondary	Aftertaste of test bread	Palatability of test meals was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "Is there any perceived taste in your mouth after test meal? (Much - None)" at time points 15 minutes (immediately after consuming test meal). Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a better outcome.	Immediately after consuming test meal (at 15 minutes)
Secondary	Palatability of test bread	Palatability of test meals was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How is the palatability of test meal? (Good - Bad)" at time points 15 minutes (immediately after consuming test meal). Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.	Immediately after consuming test meal (at 15 minutes)