Biomedical subjects

Birgitte Sloth

Publications and source records attributed to Birgitte Sloth.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Effects of PYY1-36 and PYY3-36 on appetite, energy intake, energy expenditure, glucose and fat metabolism in obese and lean subjects.

Peptide YY (PYY)(3-36) has been shown to produce dramatic reductions in energy intake (EI), but no human data exist regarding energy expenditure (EE), glucose and fat metabolism. Nothing is known regarding PYY1-36. To compare effects of PYY(1-36) and PYY(3-36) on appetite, EI, EE, insulin, glucose and free fatty acids (FFA) concentrations, 12 lean and 12 obese males participated in a blinded, randomized, crossover study with 90-min infusions of saline, 0.8 pmol x kg(-1) x min(-1) PYY(1-36) and PYY(3-36). Only four participants completed PYY(3-36) infusions because of nausea. Subsequently, six lean and eight obese participants completed 0.2 pmol x kg(-1) x min(-1) PYY(3-36) and 1.6 pmol x kg(-1) x min(-1) PYY(1-36) infusions. PYY(3-36) [corrected] produced [corrected] lower ratings of well-being and [corrected] increases in heart rate, [corrected] FFA, and [corrected] postprandial [corrected] insulin concentrations. Furthermore, high-dose [corrected] PYY(3-36) (0.8 [corrected] pmol x kg(-1) x min(-1)) produced decreased [corrected] EI and increased postprandial [corrected] glucose concentrations and tendency to reduced EE [corrected]

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Glycemic and insulinemic responses as determinants of appetite in humans.

BACKGROUND: The importance of the postprandial glycemic and insulinemic responses for appetite and energy intake (EI) is controversial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that postprandial appetite sensations and subsequent EI are determined by postprandial glycemic and insulinemic responses after the intake of a range of breakfast meals. DESIGN: The study was a randomized, crossover meal test including 28 healthy young men, each of whom tested 10 of 14 breakfast meals. Each meal contained 50 g carbohydrate with various glycemic index and energy and macronutrient contents. Blood samples were taken, and appetite sensations were measured 3 h after the meals. Subsequently, EI at lunch (EI(lunch)) was recorded. RESULTS: The glycemic response was unrelated to appetite sensations, whereas the insulinemic response was positively associated with postprandial fullness (R2 = 0.33, P < 0.05). In contrast, the insulinemic response was unrelated to the subsequent EI(lunch), whereas the glycemic response was positively associated with EI(lunch) (R2 = 0.33, P < 0.05). Although no significant difference in EI(lunch) was observed between different breakfast conditions, a low breakfast EI was associated with a high EI(lunch) (R2 = 0.60, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The current study does not support the contention that the postprandial glycemic response has an important effect on short-term appetite sensations, but a low-glycemic index meal may reduce subsequent EI. In contrast, postprandial insulin seems to affect short-term appetite sensations.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index and a high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk ad libitum intake of the low-glycemic-index diet.

BACKGROUND: The role of glycemic index (GI) in appetite and body-weight regulation is still not clear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to investigate the long-term effects of a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet with either low glycemic index (LGI) or high glycemic index (HGI) on ad libitum energy intake, body weight, and composition, as well as on risk factors for type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease in overweight healthy subjects. DESIGN: The study was a 10-wk parallel, randomized, intervention trial with 2 matched groups. The LGI or HGI test foods, given as replacements for the subjects' usual carbohydrate-rich foods, were equal in total energy, energy density, dietary fiber, and macronutrient composition. Subjects were 45 (LGI diet: n = 23; HGI diet: n = 22) healthy overweight [body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 27.6 +/- 0.2] women aged 20-40 y. RESULTS: Energy intake, mean (+/- SEM) body weight (LGI diet: -1.9 +/- 0.5 kg; HGI diet: -1.3 +/- 0.3 kg), and fat mass (LGI diet: -1.0 +/- 0.4 kg; HGI diet: -0.4 +/- 0.3 kg) decreased over time, but the differences between groups were not significant. No significant differences were observed between groups in fasting serum insulin, homeostasis model assessment for relative insulin resistance, homeostasis model assessment for beta cell function, triacylglycerol, nonesterified fatty acids, or HDL cholesterol. However, a 10% decrease in LDL cholesterol (P < 0.05) and a tendency to a larger decrease in total cholesterol (P = 0.06) were observed with consumption of the LGI diet as compared with the HGI diet. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support the contention that low-fat LGI diets are more beneficial than HGI diets with regard to appetite or body-weight regulation as evaluated over 10 wk. However, it confirms previous findings of a beneficial effect of LGI diets on risk factors for ischemic heart disease.

Adult↗