Download Fitness Tools

After your workout, whey protein is fine. With a low carb + high fat breakfast, though, it may ruin the satiety inducing effects of the high fat + low CHO meal.

Today I am going to make the short news items actually short in order to be able to cover all the different studies investigating topics that range from the effects of TV watching and other distractions on your likelihood of snacking, the link between the amount of food kids consume when they are allowed to eat as much as they want at a buffet and their body fat levels, the differential effects of various macronutrients on appetite, satiety & co, the negative effects of believing in food addiction, the surprising insight that whey may be for low-carbers not and more.

I think this was a long enough preface. So, let's not waste anymore time, but rather dig into the papers I've found in the latest regular and special edition(s) [some are pre-release abstracts] of the scientific journal Appetite:

• Distraction during eating increases later snacking and reduced meal memory (Higgs. 2015) -  It is not actually surprising, but still interesting. If you are distracted by talking or watching TV or whatever else while you're eating this will have direct effects on your ability to recall what you've eaten and your snack choices (i.e. snacking vs. non-snacking).
  

  Figure 1: Mean snack (buiscits) when subjects were either focused on the meal or distracted (Higgs. 2015).

  In addition, Higgs et al. (2015) were able to show that the effect of distraction is larger when motivation to engage with the distracter was greater, i.e. someone who's watching a captivating TV series you will be more likely to snack later in the day than someone who more or less only "listens" to the charts on MTV. What's noteworthy, though, is that a "food related" TV program, will actually reduce the effect.
  
  Needless to say that focusing your attention on the actual eating process and the food you eat will decreased later snacking.
• Intake at a single, palatable buffet test meal is associated with total body fat and regional fat distribution in children (Fearnbach. 2015) - Eventually the results of this study from the Pennsylvania State University just confirm what we already know. People and in this case kids who tent do overeat are more likely to be obese.
  

  Figure 2: The fatter the kids are the more palatable foods are consumed at the buffet (Fernback. 2015).

  The reason I still mention this study is thus not the fact that the buffet pirates are more likely to be obese, but rather the fact that the relationship between food intake and body fat is particularly significantly for palatable buffets and valid only for savory, but not sweet, foods.
• Differential effect of fat and carbohydrate composition meals on food hedonics, satiation and satiety - The results of this investigation go against the current trend toward low carb diets, after all, Finlayson et al. clearly found that

  "When consumed in controlled amounts, LFHC [low fat high carb] meals induce a greater satiety (SQ) compared to isoenergetic HFLC [high fat low carb] meals. HFLC meals do not dampen the subsequent appeal bias for HFLC foods compared to matched LFHC meals" (Finlayson. 2015).

  What I personally find extra-surprising is that the study was conducted on forty-five overweight and obese adults who were studied on 2 separate days in which they were given access to HFLC or LFHC meals. Usually, overweight and obese people are the ones who best respond to low carb diets.

• Habitual high-fat consumers are not more susceptible to weight gain when exposed to increased portion sizes in a free-living setting (Dalton. 2005) - That's at least what the NIH worksite study suggests. In said study, two hundred thirty-three adults (67.7% women; age 42.6 ± 11.2; BMI 29.8 ± 6.4) were randomly allocated to one of four lunch size groups (400 kcal, 800 kcal, 1600 kcal, and no lunch control) for 6 months. Body weight and energy intake (assessed using 24 hr dietary recalls) were measured at baseline, and Months 1, 3 and 6. Of the 233 subjects, 75 were HF-C (40.2%E fat, SD: 3.0) and 74 were LF-C (26.6%E fat, SD: 3.2).
  
  

  Previous research from overfeeding studies yielded slightly different results with a minimal disadvantage for high fat intake | learn more

  Interestingly, there was no interaction between portion size exposure and fat intake according to habitual fat consumption. What the scientists did observe (and this may have skewed the results) was the fact that the subjects in the HF-C group had a higher BMI (M: 30.8, SD: 7.1) compared to LF-C (M: 28.1, SD: 5.5) and greater baseline total daily energy intake. It is nevertheless hard to debate that the weight change at months 1, 3 and 6 did not differ between HF-C and LF-C in response to portion size. Eventually it would thus appear as if the "habitual dietary energy density" was what actually determines ones obesity risk.
• Fiber-enriched (inulin) squash smoothie decreases ad-libitum food intake in subsequent meal (Slevin. 2015) - Now the fact that the BMI-adjusted (thus g/kg/m²) preload drink, which contained 0.67 g/kg/m² inulin, 0.67 g/kg/m² squash and 8.89 g/kg/m² water the 12 normal weight and 12 obese women consumed 30 min before going to a buffet for lunch did decrease the ad libitum intake (219.7 kcal, p = 0.008; 101.6 g, p = 0.032) and total food intake (187.9 kcal; p = 0.019; 102.3 g, p = 0.033) is not surprising. The fact that it did so only in the obese women, but not in the normal-weight subjects, on the other hand may be considered a surprise-
  

  Figure 3: The more different food items the subjects selected, the more they eat (exact numbers for the different food items were not mentioned in the abstract that is currently available | Slevin. 2015)

  Not surprising, but insightful was the revelation that (a) the subjects' food intake significantly increased with increasing items at lunch (242.7 g, 349.2 g, 431.1 g, p = 0.018; 554.1 kcal, 640.9 kcal, 747.4 kcal, p < 0.001) and that (b) the preload was most effective at reducing hunger (p = 0.005) and total food intake (296.3 kcal, p = 0.009) in the 5 item condition, i.e. if the subjects were told that they may chose only 5 items (overall, the scientists did 3 trials, a control trial, a pre-load trial and a pre-load trial in which the subjects were allowed to select only 5-items).
• Consumption of thylakoid-rich spinach extract reduces hunger, increases satiety and reduces cravings for palatable food in overweight women (Stenblom. 2015) - Thylakoids are contained in green-plant membranes like those of spinach (5g/100g spinach) and have been shown to reduce feelings of hunger as well as cravings for palatable food in human participants, during diet intervention and simultaneous weight loss in overweight women (Montelius. 2014M Stenblom. 2013 & 2014). What still had to be confirmed, though, is that these beneficial effects also affect the intake of such foods.
  
  

  Figure 4: Intake from snack buffet. The effect size is too low to trigger weightloss wonders (Stenblom. 2015).

  Stenblom's study in the course of which the thylakoids were served in a cold blueberry drink, mixed with 2.5 g rapeseed oil (Zeta, Di Luca & Di Luca AB, Stockholm, Sweden) and 92.5 g blueberry soup (Ekströms original, Procordia Food AB, Eslöv, Sweden), immediately before breakfast on treatment test days clearly shows that an effect can be observed with real foods, too, but if you take a look at the only really relevant parameter in Figure 4, i.e. the actual food intake on the breakfast buffet, the effect size is negligible.

• Whey is not always appetite suppressing! Addition of whey protein to a fat-based breakfast has detrimental effects on satiety following subsequent feeding (Allerton. 2015) - You, as a waredownloadsoft reader know: Previous studies have shown that whey protein consumed either before or alongside a meal will make the latter more satiating. What you probably didn't know (I didn't but maybe suspected it) is the fact that this is only the case if the meal is not a low-carb meal.
  
  In their latest study, scientists from the Northumbria University in Newcastle upon Tyne found that healthy males (age 24 ± 2 years, mass 79.7 ± 3.8 kg, BMI 24.5 ± 2.1 kg/m2) consume significantly more of a pasta-based lunch meal  (3427 kJ; 49%, 37%, 14% energy from carbohydrate, fat, protein)  that was served 180 minutes after a fat-based breakfast if the latter contained 20g of whey protein (FAT + WP) than after a "whey protein free" breakfast. In addition, the ...

  10+ Things You Probably Didn't Know Whey & Peptides That Form During its Digestion Can Do | more

  "[p]ostprandial ratings of perceived hunger, fullness, satisfaction and prospective consumption were similar after breakfast between trials (p > 0.05). Following lunch, levels of prospective consumption were higher under FAT+WP (time-averaged AUC; FAT+WP: 62 ± 7 vs FAT: 54 ± 6 mm, p = 0.024). Perceived satisfaction was significantly greater under FAT at 120 (FAT: 52 ± 5 vs FAT+WP: 38 ± 7 mm, p = 0.017) and 150 (FAT: 41 ± 5 vs FAT+WP: 30 ± 6 mm, p = 0.009) minutes post-lunch" (Allerton. 2015).

  Thus, it would appear as if people on a low-carb high fat diet, don't necessarily benefit to the same extend as people on a low(er) fat diet from adding whey protein to their meals. Or it may be even worse. As the scientists point out the "negative effects on responses to a subsequent meal were observed, with lower satisfaction and higher ratings of prospective consumption following prior ingestion of breakfast containing whey protein" - which would (emphasis on the conditional) mean nothing else than 'whey may do more harm than good for low carb high fat eaters who want to lose weight'... and yes, the effect may be mediated by the insulin spike that is higher for whey than for white bread (learn more)!

One scoop would suffice to maximize satiety. And as far as the energy balance and the compensation effect is concerned 20g of protein is actually more effective than 40, 60, or 80 g.

Come on, if you've read my article about the insulinogenic effects of whey protein ("Whey More Insulinogenic Than White Bread: Insulin Spike is Mediated by GIP Secretion in the Gut & Effect of EAAs on the Pancreas + Why Whey is Still the Better Choice" | read more), you can hardly be surprised that the insulin spike that occurs with the ingestion of large amounts of easily digestible protein and the subsequent clearance of blood sugar in healthy individuals may impair the satiating effects of protein. So, is it really that surprising that a recent investigation into the effects of dose manipulation on the subjective sensations of appetite and food intake in a cohort of athletes did not confirm the brosciene principle "you can never eat too much protein"?
Unless your brain has already shriveled away under the influence of all the ammonia that is produced when you neglect the classic "energy delivering" nutrients, i.e. fat and carbohydrate, and "nurture" yourself with a 80% protein diet, it should thus not surprise you that the Kristen MacKenzie-Shalders, Nuala Byrne, Gary Slater, and Neil King found that 20, 40, 60 and 80g of whey protein had the exact same (within the usual statistical margin) effect on the appetite sensation of the 10 male athletes who performed both resistance and aerobic (endurance) training (21.2 ± 2.3 years; 181.7 ± 5.7 cm and 80.8 ± 6.1 kg) the researchers from the s, Queensland University of Technology, the Bond University, and the University of the Sunshine Coast had recruited for the four counter-balanced testing sessions during which the subjects consumed a manipulated whey protein supplement (20, 40, 60 or 80 g protein) 1 hour after a standardised breakfast.

Figure 1: Effects of 20, 40, 60 and 80g post-breakfast whey protein "snack" on hunger (VAS | MacKenzie-Shalders. 2015)

From previous waredownloadsoft articles you will be aware of the futility of visual appetite scores (you get a line where a cross on the left would "no hunger" and on the right would be "ravenous" and the scientists simple measure where their subjects left their mark) as they were used to create Figure 1.

Figure 2: Food intake of subsequent ad-libitum meal that was served thee hours after the protein supplement and thus 4h after standardized breakfast (MacKenzie-Shalders. 2015).

What really counts are not subjective feelings, but objectively measurable data. Data like those represented in Figure 2, data that represent the subsequent energy intake on an ad-libitum (=eat as much as you want) meal that was served three hours after the protein supplement.

Eventually, the additional data from the test meal does yet not change the original results: While the provision of extra protein 1h after the test breakfast lead to a significant decrease in ratings of hunger (50–65%; P < 0.05) at the time of supplement consumption, the scientists did not find evidence to confirm the broscientific hypothesis that more protein would trigger a more pronounced appetite suppression.

It is thus not surprising that there were no significant differences between the conditions at any time point for the energy consumed in the ad libitum meal, either: 4382 ± 1004, 4643 ± 982, 4514 ± 1112, 4177 ± 1494 kJ - that's basically the exact same intake, irrespective of the size of the protein preload.
References:

• Johnstone, A. "Fasting for weight loss: an effective strategy or latest dieting trend&quest." International Journal of Obesity (2014).
• Lemmens, Sofie G., et al. "Staggered meal consumption facilitates appetite control without affecting postprandial energy intake." The Journal of nutrition 141.3 (2011): 482-488.
• MacKenzie-Shalders, Kristen, et al. "The effect of a whey protein supplement dose on satiety and food intake in resistance training athletes." Appetite (2015).
• Schoenfeld, Brad Jon, Alan Albert Aragon, and James W. Krieger. "Effects of meal frequency on weight loss and body composition: a meta-analysis." Nutrition Reviews 73.2 (2015): 69-82.

Hours before your gut even knows how much energy the stuff you ate actually contained, your brain guesstimates its satiety effects and... as you may expect... is quite easy to fool. In some cases with "bingy" consequences.

If you ask people about how to eat to increase your satiety, you will probably hear something like: "Dude, you gotta eat less carbohydrates and more protein!" or "Yo bro, you gotta eat a ketogenic diet with lots of da good fats!" How futile and potentially consequential the vilification of individual nutrients can be, becomes obvious if one analyses how consumer expectations modify responses to ingested nutrients.

As a waredownloadsoft reader you know that satiety is not an objectively predictable quantity. The degree of satiety we feel after a meal is influence by a complex integration of cognitive, sensory and post-ingestive signals which are generated by the consumed product and its interaction with the environment and out belief system.
So, to fully understand what satiates us, one has to go beyond the stupid carbohydrate vs. protein vs. fat discussion and try to develop what Yeomans (2015) demands, i.e....

"[a] better understanding of how these different signals interact could allow the development of novel products optimised to produce satiety, thereby helping to counteract the effects of obesogenic lifestyles" (Jeomans. 2015).

In the latest paper in the Nutrition Bulletin the scientists reviews recent studies, conducted largely as part of the BBSRC DRINC initiative, which examined how beliefs about satiety before food ingestion and the sensory experience during ingestion together influence how the consumer responds to food. Examples? Well, here you go. The two most common effects are...

• Sensory enhance satiety - Thicker drinks will be considered more satiating than thinner drinks; even if the thin drink had sign. more calories, the thick one did still produce the greater satiety expectation and (short term) satiety response.
  

  Figure 1: A high protein meal is only more satiating than a high carb meal, if it is also thicker (HP+: thick high protein, HC+: thick high carb, HP-: thin high protein meal | Bertenshaw. 2013)

  Even if protein is added, the satiety effect vanishes if this does not add to the texture of the product (Bertenshaw. 2013 | see Figure 1).

• Cognitively-enhanced satiety - If something is thick or thin, this will obviously have both physical and cognitive effects on the satiety response, but that's nothing "learning" could not change. In fact, studies have repeatedly shown that the same effect can be achieved by changing expectations through cognitive approaches, such as product labelling and contextual information. There has been a marked increase in the number of products available to consumers that make explicit reference to their ability to counter post-ingestive hunger, with these claims based on the products’ ingredients (usually higher levels of protein and fibre).
  

  Table 1: It's all about finding the right words. Describing a drink / snack as refreshing or filling will influence the consumer's hunger and thirst response to the drink; these are the original product descriptors the subjects in the study by McCrickerd et al. were provided with (McCrickerd. 2014).

  A further study conducted as part of the BBSRC DRINC programme lends support to that argument (McCrickerd et al. 2014). Again, based on a pre-load design with covert energy manipulation, participants consumed the same low and high energy dairy-juice drinks used in previous studies, but rather than enhancing satiety expectations by manipulating sensory characteristics, the key manipulation was persuading the consumers that the product was either specially designed to suppress appetite or to assuage thirst.
  
  Whereas compensation for covert energy in the absence of satiety expectations was weak (6%), this increased to 35% when the products were consumed with the belief that they suppressed appetite. Although this cognitive effect was not as strong as a high as it was, when the sensory characteristics were manipulated 70% compensation), it clearly demonstrates that beliefs alone can enhance nutrient-derived satiety.

References:

• Bertenshaw, Emma J., Anne Lluch, and Martin R. Yeomans. "Perceived thickness and creaminess modulates the short-term satiating effects of high-protein drinks." British Journal of Nutrition 110.03 (2013): 578-586.
• McCrickerd, Keri, Lucy Chambers, and Martin R. Yeomans. "Fluid or fuel? The context of consuming a beverage is important for satiety." PloS one 9.6 (2014): e100406.
• Yeomans, M. R. "Cued satiety: How consumer expectations modify responses to ingested nutrients". Nutrition Bulletin, 40 (2015): 100–103. doi: 10.1111/nbu.12139