Acute effects of protein composition and fibre enrichment of yogurt consumed as snacks on appetite sensations and subsequent ad libitum energy intake in healthy men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the study was to assess the impact of protein composition and/or fibre enrichment of yogurt on appetite sensations and subsequent energy intake. In this double-blind crossover study, 20 healthy men (aged 32.4 ± 9.1 years) were submitted to 5 randomized testing sessions, during which they had to consume 5 isocaloric and isonproteinemic yogurt snacks (120-g servings, ∼230 kJ, ∼4.5 g protein) differing by their casein-to-whey protein ratio (C:W) or dietary fibre content: (i) control C:W = 2.8:1; (ii) high whey (HW) C:W = 1.5:1, and fibre-enriched formulations using control; (iii) 2.4 g of inulin; (iv) 1.9 g of inulin and 0.5 g of β-glucan (+IN-βG); and (v) 0.5 g of β-glucan. Appetite sensations were assessed using 150-mm visual analog scales. Plasma variables (glucose, insulin, ghrelin) were measured at 30-min intervals post-yogurt consumption for 2 h. Finally, energy intakes during ad libitum lunches offered 2 h after yogurt snacks were recorded. None of the yogurts impacted appetite sensations. Ad libitum energy intake was significantly different only between HW and control yogurts (-812 kJ; p = 0.03). Regarding post-yogurt plasma variables, a significant difference was found only between ghrelin area under the curve of the +IN-βG and the HW yogurts (-15 510 pmol/L per 120 min, p = 0.04). In conclusion, although appetite sensations were not influenced by variations in yogurts' protein compositions, a reduced energy intake was observed during the ad libitum lunch after the HW yogurt that may be attributable to its lower C:W. Surprisingly, the fibre enrichments studied did not exert effect on appetite sensations and energy intake.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".