AJCN Yamada Bee Farm Grant for Honeybee Research
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cotton, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Blundell, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cotton, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Blundell, J. E.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Cotton, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Blundell, J. E.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 63, 891-896, Copyright © 1996 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc

ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Replacement of dietary fat with sucrose polyester: effects on energy intake and appetite control in nonobese males

JR Cotton, JA Weststrate and JE Blundell
Department of Psychology, University of Leeds, Netherlands.

In previous experiments using the fat substitute sucrose polyester (SPE, or olestra), no compensatory response was observed on day 2 after experimental manipulations, which reduced the percentage of energy from fat to approximately equal to 30% from 40% on day 1. In the present study a more severe manipulation was made; the amount of energy from fat was reduced from 32% to 20% to determine whether such a reduction would provoke any physiologic or behavioral response. Subjects came to the unit for two, 2-d test sessions. Intake on day 1 was fixed: subjects were given meals containing either control fat (11319 kJ, 32% of energy as fat) or SPE (9561 kJ, 20% of energy as fat). On day 2, intake was ad libitum. On day 1 subjects rated themselves as more hungry while consuming the fat-substituted meals than when consuming the control meals and they disclosed greater hunger in the end-of-day questionnaires. The effect of the manipulation was carried over into day 2. By the end of day 2, subjects had compensated for 74% of the energy (fat) deficit caused by the previous day's manipulation. These results differ from those obtained when fat was reduced from 40% to 30% of energy; this more severe reduction reveals that a reduction in fat of this size can lead to a biobehavioral response. Together, these data suggest that people could change their diet to meet dietary guidelines; however, if a more severe reduction is attempted, adherence may be made more difficult by the strength of the compensatory response.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 AJPHHome page
J. Levine, J. D. Gussow, D. Hastings, and A. Eccher
Authors' Financial Relationships With the Food and Beverage Industry and Their Published Positions on the Fat Substitute Olestra
Am J Public Health, April 1, 2003; 93(4): 664 - 669.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
M. J. Franz, J. P. Bantle, C. A. Beebe, J. D. Brunzell, J.-L. Chiasson, A. Garg, L. A. Holzmeister, B. Hoogwerf, E. Mayer-Davis, A. D. Mooradian, et al.
Evidence-Based Nutrition Principles and Recommendations for the Treatment and Prevention of Diabetes and Related Complications
Diabetes Care, January 1, 2002; 25(1): 148 - 198.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Endocr. Rev.Home page
G. A. Bray and F. L. Greenway
Current and Potential Drugs for Treatment of Obesity
Endocr. Rev., December 1, 1999; 20(6): 805 - 875.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by The American Society for Nutrition