The Effects of Reduced Protein‐Nutrition Bars with Enhanced Leucine Content on Ratings of Fullness in Healthy Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher protein meals (>25 g) may be associated with enhanced satiety. Pre‐clinical evidence indicates that leucine when centrally administered into the brain may be a regulator of appetite in animal models. However, animal feeding studies have produced conflicting results. A double‐blind, RCT crossover trial (Glycemic Index Laboratories, Toronto, CN) assessed the effect of acute intake of reduced protein‐nutrition bars, enhanced with leucine on post‐prandial ratings of Fullness and Hunger and plasma leucine response in human subjects. Following an overnight fast, 40 women (age: 28 ± 7.5 y; BMI: 23.5 ± 2.4 kg/m 2 ) consumed the following isocaloric (180 kcal) pre‐loads on three separate visits: control bar [9 g protein; 0 g leucine peptide (LP, Glanbia Nutritionals, PepForm ® )] or treatment bars (11 and 13 g protein; 2 or 3 g leucine from LP, respectively). Fullness and Hunger were assessed by Visual Analog Scales (VAS) and plasma leucine was quantified by GC‐qMS. Fullness iAUC was significantly greater following the consumption of the 2 g versus 0 g LP bar (14.2%; p=0.04). Although there was no difference in iAUC observed between 3 g LP versus 0 g LP, the C max for 3 g LP was 12.2% larger than 0 g LP (p=0.0077). No significant differences in Hunger iAUC was observed among the treatment groups. There was a dose‐dependent increase in C max for plasma leucine for 2 and 3 g LP compared to 0 g LP (167% and 260% for 2 and 3 g LP, respectively; p<0.0001). T max for plasma leucine for 3 g LP was delayed an average 9.5 min compared to 2 g LP (p<0.0001). The results from this pilot study suggest that enhanced leucine availability with the 2 g LP nutrition bar may increase Fullness in humans; however additional research is required to determine the effects of elevated leucine consumption on food intake. Support or Funding Information PepsiCo Global R&D
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".