Acute and short-term effects of Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei 431 and inulin intake on appetite control and dietary intake: A two-phases randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study.


NabizadehAsl L., ŞENDUR S. N., ÖZER H. B., LAY İ., Erbas T., BÜYÜKTUNCER DEMİREL Z.

Appetite, vol.169, pp.105855, 2022 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 169
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105855
  • Journal Name: Appetite
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, Animal Behavior Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, EMBASE, Food Science & Technology Abstracts, Index Islamicus, MEDLINE, Psycinfo, Veterinary Science Database
  • Page Numbers: pp.105855
  • Keywords: Prebiotic, Probiotic, Synbiotic, Hunger and satiety hormone, Appetite, Energy intake, CHAIN FATTY-ACIDS, GUT MICROBIOTA, ENERGY-INTAKE, SYNBIOTIC SUPPLEMENTATION, FOOD-INTAKE, FERMENTATION PROFILES, INSULIN SENSITIVITY, FUNCTIONAL FOODS, RESISTANT STARCH, SATIETY HORMONE
  • Hacettepe University Affiliated: Yes

Abstract

This study aims to examine the acute and short-term effects of prebiotics, probiotics, and their combination on appetite, energy intake and satiety related hormones in two phases. The first phase was a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled crossover study. Prebiotic (16 g inulin), probiotic (Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei 431 (L. casei 431) (> 10(6) cfu/ml), synbiotic (their combination) and control (16 g maltodextrin) dairy drinks were consumed by 16 healthy men with a standard breakfast on four separate test days, and the following satiety responses and ad libitum food intake at lunch and over 24 h were assessed. In the second phase, the effects of 21 days of synbiotic (n = 10) or control (n = 11) drink consumption on appetite sensation, energy intake, serum glucose, insulin, peptide YY, ghrelin, obestatin and adiponectin concentration were assessed in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled design. In the first phase, energy intake values during ad libitum lunch were the lowest in the prebiotic drink, followed by probiotic, synbiotic and control drinks, respectively (p = 0.017); also the rest of the day and 24-h dietary energy intake was lower by prebiotic and probiotic drinks compared to the control drink (p < 0.05 for each). For short-term effects, no significant difference in anthropometric measurements, hunger-satiety scores and serum glucose, insulin, PYY, ghrelin, obestatin and adiponectin concentrations were recorded. Despite the potential of prebiotics and probiotics to reduce energy intake, further studies are required for a better understanding of their role in satiety related mechanisms.