Skip to main content
Diabetes & Metabolism Journal logoLink to Diabetes & Metabolism Journal
. 2020 Feb 21;44(1):207–208. doi: 10.4093/dmj.2020.0026

Response: Premeal Consumption of a Protein-Enriched, Dietary Fiber-Fortified Bar Decreases Total Energy Intake in Healthy Individuals (Diabetes Metab J 2019;43:879–92)

Chang Ho Ahn 1, Jae Hyun Bae 2, Young Min Cho 1,
PMCID: PMC7043992  PMID: 32098004

We thank Professor Mi-kyung Kim for her careful comments on our article [1]. We agree that premeal supplement can have sex-specific effects or, at least, differ in the degree of effects according to sex. Previous studies suggested that nutrient preload can have differential effects between male and female, which is attributed to the differences in a compensatory response, gastric emptying, and gut hormones [2,3]. We reviewed our study results and compared the effects of protein-enriched, dietary fiber-fortified bar (PFB) between male and female subjects. There were 14 male and six female subjects in our study. To compare the effects of PFB, we calculated the changes in various measurements after premeal PFB intake compared to water intake in each subject. Then, we compared these changes between male and female subjects. The effects of PFB on food intake, appetite, and fullness were similar between male and female. PFB decreased total energy intake numerically more in female than male (Δfood intake: −241.9± 235.1 kcal vs. −140.0±253.8 kcal, P=0.412) (Fig. 1), but the difference was not statistically significant. PFB also decreased postprandial glucose and increased postprandial glucagon-like peptide-1 levels similarly in both sexes. The effects of PFB on postprandial peptide YY (PYY) and active ghrelin showed a different trend between male and female, but this trend was not statistically significant. PFB increased postprandial PYY in male, while it was decreased in female (Δincremental area under the curve (iAUC) of PYY: 503.4±2,082.4 pg/mL×min vs. −257.5±2,359.5 pg/mL×min, P=0.480). Postprandial active ghrelin was decreased by PFB in male but increased in female (ΔiAUC of active ghrelin: −652.1±1,353.9 pg/mL×min vs. 854.3± 2,135.6 pg/mL×min, P=0.071). However, the responses of PYY and active ghrelin to premeal PFB were highly variable among subjects and the results had high standard deviations. Our study was not powered to compare the difference between male and female subjects and had unbalanced number of subjects in each sex. Although our study results showed similar effects of PFB on food intake and postprandial glucose in both sexes, further study with enough statistical power is needed to study the sex-specific effects of premeal PFB intake.

Fig. 1. Total energy intake for 120 minutes in male and female subjects. UB, usual bar; PFB, protein-enriched, dietary fiber-fortified bar.

Fig. 1

Footnotes

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

  • 1.Ahn CH, Bae JH, Cho YM. Premeal consumption of a protein-enriched, dietary fiber-fortified bar decreases total energy intake in healthy individuals. Diabetes Metab J. 2019;43:879–892. doi: 10.4093/dmj.2018.0202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Davy BM, Van Walleghen EL, Orr JS. Sex differences in acute energy intake regulation. Appetite. 2007;49:141–147. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2007.01.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Giezenaar C, Luscombe-Marsh ND, Hutchison AT, Lange K, Hausken T, Jones KL, Horowitz M, Chapman I, Soenen S. Effect of gender on the acute effects of whey protein ingestion on energy intake, appetite, gastric emptying and gut hormone responses in healthy young adults. Nutr Diabetes. 2018;8:40. doi: 10.1038/s41387-018-0048-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Diabetes & Metabolism Journal are provided here courtesy of Korean Diabetes Association

RESOURCES