Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20492735›Full record

Trial reportNutrition journal2010

No evidence of differential effects of SFA, MUFA or PUFA on post-ingestive satiety and energy intake: a randomised trial of fatty acid saturation.

Caroline M Strik, Fiona E Lithander, Anne-Thea McGill, Alastair K MacGibbon, Brian H McArdle, Sally D Poppitt

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nutrition journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Macronutrients, Appetite, and Energy Intake.Annual review of nutrition · 2016
    Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Caroline M StrikHuman Nutrition Unit, School of Biological Sciences & Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. s.poppitt@auckland.ac.nz.
Fiona E Lithander
Anne-Thea McGill
Alastair K MacGibbon
Brian H McArdle
Sally D Poppitt
University of Auckland · NZFonterra (New Zealand) · NZTrinity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh fat diets have long been associated with weight gain and obesity, and the weak satiety response elicited in response to dietary lipids is likely to play a role. Suppression of appetite and food intake has consistently been shown to be diminished with high fat relative to either high protein or carbohydrate meals. There is however some evidence that the satiating capacity of lipids may be modulated when physicochemical properties are altered, but studies investigating the effect of lipid saturation on appetite have generated inconsistent findings. This study investigated the effects of changes in fatty acid saturation on post-ingestive satiety and energy intake.

methodsHigh-fat (HF) test breakfasts (2.0 MJ) containing 26 g lipid were given to 18 healthy, lean men in a 3 treatment randomised cross-over design, each treatment separated by a washout of at least 3 days. The breakfasts were high in saturated (SFA, 65% of total fat), polyunsaturated (PUFA, 76%) or monounsaturated (MUFA, 76%) fatty acids, and comprised 2 savoury muffins. Participants rated appetite sensations using visual analogue scales (VAS) to assess palatability immediately following the meals, and hunger and fullness prior to the HF breakfast and throughout the day. Energy intake was measured by covert weighing of a lunch meal which was served 3.5 h after the breakfast, and from which the participants ate ad libitum.

resultsThere was no difference in VAS ratings of pleasantness, visual appearance, smell, taste, aftertaste and overall palatability between the 3 high-fat test breakfasts. However, there was also no differential effect of the 3 treatments on ratings of hunger, fullness, satisfaction or prospective food consumption during the 3.5 h following the breakfast meal and over the full 6 h experiment. Energy and macronutrient intake at lunch also did not differ between treatments (mean, sem; SFA: 5275.9 +/- 286.5 kJ; PUFA: 5227.7 +/- 403.9 kJ; MUFA: 5215.6 +/- 329.5 kJ; P > 0.05). The maximum difference in energy intake between treatments was less than 2%.

conclusionsThere was no evidence of a difference in post-ingestion satiety between high fat meals which differed in saturation profile in this group of lean, healthy men.

Indexed as

Energy IntakeSatiationAdolescentAdultCross-Over StudiesDietary FatsEatingFatty AcidsFatty Acids, MonounsaturatedFatty Acids, UnsaturatedFoodHumansMaleMiddle AgedDietary FatsFatty AcidsFatty Acids, MonounsaturatedFatty Acids, Unsaturated

Identifiers

PMID20492735
PMCPMC2893079
OpenAlexW2139374956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.