TABLE 4.
Main findings of the 11 included studies examining the effect of tree nut and peanut consumption on EE in adults aged ≥18 y
| Reference; country | Primary Outcome | EE Results (control diet) | EE Results (intervention diet) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alves et al. [36,37]; Brazil | PP EE; chronic REE and DIT | PP study Baseline: 1930 (SEM: 41.2) kcal/d (P > 0.05 vs. both peanut meals) 200 min: 9.04% higher than baseline (P < 0.05 vs. regular peanuts) EE expressed as AUC: 582.7 (SEM: 37.7) (P > 0.05 vs. both peanut meals) Chronic study Change in REE: −21.3 (SEM: 15.4) kcal/d Baseline DIT: 3.21% (SEM: 0.25%) DIT (4 wk): 3.07% (SEM: 0.43%) (P > 0.05 vs. both peanut meals; P > 0.05 vs. control baseline) |
PP study Baseline: HOPs: 1968 (SEM: 31.3) kcal/d (P > 0.05 vs. control and regular peanuts) Regular peanuts: 1964 (SEM: 43.9) kcal/d (P > 0.05 vs. control and HOPs) 200 min: HOPs: 9.25% higher than baseline (P < 0.05 vs. regular peanuts) Regular peanuts: 6.46% higher than baseline Both P < 0.05 compared with baseline EE expressed as AUC: HOPs: 636.6 (SEM: 43.7) (P < 0.05 vs. regular peanuts; P > 0.05 vs. control) Regular peanuts: 492.9 (SEM: 35.1) (P > 0.05 vs. control) Chronic study Change in REE HOP: −0.4 (SEM: 19.5) kcal/d CVP: −26.9 (SEM: 14.1) kcal/d Baseline DIT: HOP: 3.57% (SEM: 0.26%) (P < 0.05 vs. CVP; P > 0.05 vs. control) CVP: 2.60% (SEM: 0.17%) DIT (4 wk): HOP: 2.97% (SEM: 0.21%) (P > 0.05 vs. control and vs. CVP) CVP: 2.38% (SEM: 0.24%) (P > 0.05 vs. control) Both P > 0.05 compared with baseline |
| Casas-Agustench et al. [24]; Spain | PP TEF | SFA TEF (% above RMR): 9.6% (95% CI: 7.7, 11.4) Baseline fasting RMR: 323.2 (95% CI: 302.3, 344.1) kJ/h (P > 0.05 vs. MUFA and PUFA) MUFA TEF (% above RMR): 11.8% (95% CI: 9.7, 13.9) (P < 0.05 vs. SFA) Baseline fasting RMR: 318.9 (95% CI: 298.5, 339.3) kJ/h (P > 0.05 vs. SFA and PUFA) |
PUFA TEF (% above RMR): 12.3% (95% CI: 9.7, 14.9) (P < 0.05 vs. SFA; P > 0.05 vs. MUFA) Baseline fasting RMR: 318.5 (95% CI: 298.2, 338.8) kJ/h (P > 0.05 vs. SFA and MUFA) |
| Gepner et al. [49]; Israel | PP EE | Baseline REE: 1829.4 (SD: 229.5) kcal/d (P > 0.05 vs. intervention) 40-min PP REE: 1965.4 (SD: 261.6) kcal/d (P < 0.05 vs. intervention) DIT: 14.24 (SD: 17.58) kcal/40 min (P < 0.001 vs. intervention) |
Baseline REE: 1878.9 (SD: 234.9) kcal/d (P > 0.05 vs. control) 40-min PP REE: 1860.9 (SD: 218.5) kcal/d (P < 0.05 vs. control) DIT: −2.01 (SD: 15.03) kcal/40 min (P < 0.001 vs. control) |
| Tapsell et al. [56]; Australia | PP EE | No adjustment: 677.7 (SD: 133.0) kcal Adjusted: 671.0 (SD: 104.6) kcal.1 Both not significant vs. intervention |
No adjustment: 677.8 (SD: 146.3) kcal Adjusted: 670.2 (SD: 110.0) kcal1 Both not significant vs. control |
| Tentolouris et al. [57]; Greece | PP EE and MIT | Lean participants Fasting REE: 6799.2 (SEM: 31.4) kJ/d (P < 0.05 vs. obese) 3-h PP REE: 7874.4 (SEM: 34.9) kJ/d (P < 0.001 vs. fasting; P > 0.05 vs. obese) MIT (iAUC): 128.4 (SEM: 16.8) kJ/h (P > 0.05 vs. obese; P < 0.05 vs. lean intervention) Participants with obesity Fasting REE: 8090.4 (SEM: 41.5) kJ/d (P < 0.05 vs. lean) 3-h PP REE: 8947.2 (SEM: 41.5) kJ/d (P < 0.001 vs. fasting; P > 0.05 vs. lean) MIT (iAUC): 130.8 (SEM: 11.4) kJ/h (P > 0.05 vs. lean; P < 0.05 vs. obese intervention) |
Lean participants Fasting REE: 6326.4 (SEM: 43.2) kJ/d (P < 0.05 vs. obese) 3-h PP REE: 6998.4 (SEM: 41.6) kJ/d (P < 0.001 vs. fasting; P > 0.05 vs. obese) MIT (iAUC): 74.4 (SEM: 13.2) kJ/h (P > 0.05 vs. obese; P < 0.05 vs. lean control) Participants with obesity Fasting REE: 7944.0 (SEM: 57.1) kJ/d (P < 0.05 vs. lean) 3-h PP REE: 8736.2 (SEM: 63.8) kJ/d (P < 0.001 vs. fasting; P > 0.05 vs. lean) MIT (iAUC): 89.4 (SEM: 8.4) kJ/h (P > 0.05 vs. lean; P < 0.05 vs. obese control) |
| Agebratt et al. [22]; Sweden | Chronic BMR | Baseline: 1787 (SD: 278) kcal/d 8 wk: 1845 (SD: 240) kcal/d (P = 0.52 vs. intervention) |
Baseline: 1931 (SD: 221) kcal/d 8 wk: 2031 (SD: 294) kcal/d (P = 0.52 vs. control) |
| Brennan et al. [39]; USA | Chronic REE | No values provided | “We did not find any REE changes on day 4 of admission” |
| Claesson et al. [44]; Sweden | Chronic BMR | Baseline: 6.657 (SD: 1.1) MJ/d Post: 6.762 (SD: 1.1) MJ/d (P > 0.05 vs. baseline) Change from baseline: 0.105 (SD: 0.31) MJ/2d (P > 0.05 vs. intervention change) |
Baseline: 6.896 (SD: 0.98) MJ/d Post: 7.256 (SD: 1.1) MJ/d (P < 0.05 vs. baseline; P > 0.05 vs. control post) Change from baseline: 0.360 (SD: 0.47) MJ/d (P > 0.05 vs. control change) |
| Fraser et al. [19]; USA | Chronic REE | Estimated REE: 308.8 kcal/d (n = 41) (P > 0.05 vs. intervention) | Estimated REE: 301.4 kcal/d (n = 41) (P > 0.05 vs. control) |
| Hollis and Mattes [25]; USA | Chronic RMR and TEF | RMR Baseline: 1473 (SD: 182) kcal/d Week 8: 1446 (SD: 236) kcal/d TEF (week 8): 3.1% (SD: 6.3%) above RMR No significant changes in RMR or TEF |
RMR Baseline: 1455 (SD: 200) kcal/d Week 8: 1499 (SD: 195) kcal/d TEF (week 8): 3.2% (SD: 4.6%) above RMR No significant changes in RMR or TEF |
| Tey et al. [58]; New Zealand | Chronic RMR | Baseline mean (n = 52): 1489.29 (SD: 275.82) kcal/d2 Week 12 change No snack (n = 13): −79.62 (SE: 38.39) kcal/d Chocolate (n = 12): −69.92 (SE: 89.94) kcal/d Crisps (n = 10): 11.70 (SE: 69.37) kcal/d Overall P = 0.922 among groups |
Baseline mean (n = 52): 1489.29 (SD: 275.82) kcal/d2 Week 12 change Hazelnut (n = 14): −56.86 (SE: 58.40) kcal/d Overall P = 0.922 among groups |
BMR, basal metabolic rate; CVP, conventional peanut; DIT, diet-induced thermogenesis; HOP, high-oleic peanut; iAUC, incremental area under the curve; MIT, meal-induced thermogenesis; PP, postprandial.
1
Sample size: n = 14 for adjusted; n = 16 for nonadjusted.
2
Baseline RMR for 52 participants.