Protein Quality on Appetite Control, Reward-driven Eating, & Subsequent Food Intake
Condition: Appetite and General Nutritional Disorders
MeSH terms: Nutrition Disorders
Study type: Interventional

Summary: 
      To determine whether the consumption of a beef-rich lunch improves appetite control, satiety,
      and energy intake regulation while reducing food reward and food cravings compared to the
      consumption of a soy-rich lunch when matched for macronutrients and fiber content or when
      match for serving size. The mechanisms of action surrounding the differential responses of
      beef versus soy proteins were also explored.
    

Detailed description: 
      A randomized, crossover design, acute study was completed in 21 healthy adults (age 23 ±1 y;
      BMI: 23.8 ± 0.6 kg/m2) to compare 400 kcal lunch meals varying in protein quality. Two
      separate comparisons were performed. The first comparison consisted of macronutrient and
      fiber-matched lunches which varied in protein quality: 24 g beef protein vs. 24 g soy
      protein. The second comparison matched serving size only: 1 serving of beef (24 g protein
      with 0 g fiber) vs. 1 serving of soy (14 g protein; 5 g fiber). For each treatment, the
      participants completed 2 testing days per lunch treatment. During the "Appetite Assessment
      Days," each participant reported to the lab to consume one of the lunch meals. Pre and 7-h
      post-lunch appetite and cravings questionnaires were completed throughout each testing day
      along with plasma, hormonal responses, and plasma amino acid concentrations through repeated
      blood sampling. Ad libitum dinner energy intake was also measured. During the "Reward
      Assessment Days," the participants reported to our facility to again consume one of the lunch
      meals. Pre and post-lunch neural responses to food stimuli, through functional magnetic
      resonance imaging (fMRI), occurred followed by ad libitum consumption of a lunch dessert.
    

Intervention name(s): Macronutrient and Fiber Matched BEEF; Macronutrient and Fiber Matched SOY; Serving Size Matched BEEF; Serving Size Matched SOY
Intervention type(s): Other; Other; Other; Other
Intervention description(s): The participants will consume the macronutrient and fiber matched BEEF lunch on a single testing day. BEEF contained 33% protein, 43% CHO, and 24% fat; the BEEF meal contained 24 g of beef protein from 96% lean ground beef (Cargill, KS). Soy fiber (Nutritional Designs, NY) was added to the BEEF meal to match total final content between meals.The participants will consume the serving size matched BEEF lunch on a single testing day. BEEF contained 33% protein, 43% CHO, and 24% fat; the BEEF meal contained 24 g of beef protein from 96% lean ground beef patty (Cargill, KS).; The participants will consume the macronutrient and fiber matched SOY lunch on a single testing day. SOY contained 33% protein, 43% CHO, and 24% fat; the SOY meal contained 24 g of textured soy protein concentrate (Boca Foods, WI).; The participants will consume the serving size matched BEEF lunch on a single testing day. BEEF contained 33% protein, 43% CHO, and 24% fat; the BEEF meal contained 24 g of beef protein from 96% lean ground beef patty (Cargill, KS).; The participants will consume the serving size matched SOY lunch on a single testing day. SOY contained 24% protein, 49% CHO, and 24% fat; the SOY meal contained 14 g of textured soy protein concentrate (Boca Foods, WI).
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention model: Crossover Assignment
Masking: Triple (Participant, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Primary purpose: Other