Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25809680›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of nutrition2015

Consuming Beef vs. Soy Protein Has Little Effect on Appetite, Satiety, and Food Intake in Healthy Adults.

Steve M Douglas, Tyler R Lasley, Heather J Leidy

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of nutrition, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03031132 (The Effects of a High Protein Breakfast on Appetite and Sleep in Young Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.9field-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.

NCT03031132 nasuspendednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

The Effects of a High Protein Breakfast on Appetite and Sleep in Young Adults

TypeinterventionalSponsorPurdue UniversityRan2016 to 2018Enrolled13ConditionsAppetite and General Nutritional DisordersArmsHP-Beverage Breakfast, HP-Solid Breakfast, Breakfast Skipping
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Physicochemical Properties of Yanggaeng with Added Tempeh Powder.Preventive nutrition and food science · 2023
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Steve M DouglasDepartment of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
Tyler R LasleyDepartment of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
Heather J LeidyDepartment of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO leidyh@health.missouri.edu.
University of Missouri · USUniversity of Missouri Health System · US

Funding

Interdisciplinary Training in Signals Controlling Ingestion and ObesityT32DK076540 · NIDDK · PURDUE UNIVERSITY · PI MATTES, RICHARD D · 2008 to 2018
$766k
NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK076540
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough protein-rich plant foods have recently been touted as an equivalent to animal products, limited data exist regarding the effects of animal vs. plant proteins on appetite, satiety, and subsequent food intake.

objectiveThe objective was to determine whether a high-protein beef lunch alters the appetitive, hormonal, and neural signals controlling food intake regulation vs. a macronutrient and fiber-matched (MF) or serving size-matched (SS) soy lunch in healthy adults.

methodsA randomized, double-blind, crossover design study was completed in 21 adults (aged 23 ± 1 y; body mass index: 23.8 ± 0.6 kg/m²; mean ± SEM) to compare 400-kcal MF and SS lunches varying in protein quality. The MF lunches contained 24-g beef protein or 24-g soy protein, whereas the SS lunches contained 1 serving of beef (24-g protein/1-g fiber) or soy (14-g protein/5-g fiber). Pre- and postlunch appetite questionnaires and blood sampling were completed over an 8-h period until dinner was voluntarily requested. In addition, pre- and postlunch functional MRI brain scans were completed to assess neural activation in response to food stimuli.

resultsOn average, dinner was requested at ∼250 ± 20 min postlunch with no differences between beef vs. soy within the MF and SS conditions. Furthermore, no differences in hunger, fullness, peptide YY, or glucagon-like peptide-1 responses were observed after the beef vs. soy lunches within the MF and SS conditions. The SS beef meal led to reductions in anterior cingulate activation (-22 ± 6%) vs. soy (+7 ± 9%; P < 0.01) and greater reductions in insular activation (-30 ± 6%) vs. SS soy (-7 ± 10%; P < 0.01). The participants consumed ∼945 ± 78 kcal after the MF meals and 910 ± 74 kcal after the SS meals with no differences between beef vs. soy.

conclusionsWhen comparing 2 high-quality protein sources, such as beef and soy, the type of protein consumed within a mixed meal elicited very little effect on appetite, satiety, and food intake in healthy adults.

Indexed as

Appetite RegulationEnergy IntakeMeatSatiety ResponseAdultBiomarkersBrainCross-Over StudiesDietary FiberDietary ProteinsDouble-Blind MethodGlucagon-Like Peptide 1HumansLunchMagnetic Resonance ImagingMissouriBiomarkersDietary FiberDietary ProteinsGlucagon-Like Peptide 1Peptide YYSoybean ProteinsbeeffMRIhigh-protein dietssatietysoy

Identifiers

PMID25809680
PMCPMC7289332
OpenAlexW2114086733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.