This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting. We do not share any your subscription information with third parties. It is used solely to send you notifications about site content occasionally.


  • Carbohydrates are the most abundant biomolecules on our planet and in our food supply. They exhibit some of the largest differences in their metabolism by different members of the animal kingdom. At one extreme, herbivores can almost completely break down dietary plant material with the help of beneficial bacteria that dwell within their gastrointestinal tract; at the other extreme, true carnivores can’t process most dietary carbohydrates. Humans fall somewhere in between; we derive a great deal of nutrition out of some dietary carbohydrates, but are unable to process others.

    In our diets, digestible carbohydrates consist of sugars and starches, while the indigestible carbohydrates are the fibers and resistant starches1. Dietary sugars are predominantly monosaccharides (sugars consisting of a single unit, such as glucose and fructose) or disaccharides (sugars consisting of two monosaccharides linked together, such as sucrose and lactose). Starches are long chains (polymers) of many linked monosaccharide molecules, usually glucose.

    Monosaccharides are the preferred form by which sugars are absorbed from the intestines, therefore, starches and disaccharide sugars (sucrose, lactose) must be broken down by digestive enzymes before assimilation. Starches are fairly easily digested by the action of pancreatic enzymes, while disaccharide sugars are degraded by enzymes that dwell on the surface of the small intestines. The familiar lactose maldigestion (“lactose intolerance”) experienced by many individuals actually results from the lack of one of these intestinal enzymes (lactase, the enzyme that breaks down lactose into glucose and galactose).

    Fibers and resistant starches are carbohydrates as well. Like starches, fiber is composed of polymers of linked monosaccharide sugars. Unlike starches, however, fibers and resistant starches are not used as a source of calories; humans lack the necessary enzymes to break down resistant starches and fibers, therefore, they are not absorbed. Some soluble fiber and resistant starch is broken down by intestinal bacteria, the rest passes through the gastrointestinal tract intact.

    The majority of dietary carbohydrates are obtained from plant sources (fruits, vegetables, grains). In contrast to animal tissues, which are held together by mostly proteins, plants cells are held together by cellulose and lignin, two types of dietary fiber. The edible portions of plants are usually those that contain large amounts of storage carbohydrates, such as the kernels of grains (which store starches) or fruits (which store sugars). Smaller amounts of carbohydrates are found in animal products; carbohydrates constitute only about one percent of the mammalian body2.

    Although they do not have the diversity in human metabolism as do proteins, dietary carbohydrates and fibers still have a number of fates:
    Fuel Source and Fuel Storage.

    As versatile as humans are in obtaining energy from a variety of macronutrients, the preferred energy source in our metabolism is the carbohydrate glucose. Under normal conditions, the brain uses glucose as an energy source almost exclusively, and most other tissues rely heavily on it. To accommodate the body’s need for glucose, most sugars and starches can be converted into glucose as they are absorbed and distributed amongst various tissue following a meal. Additionally, some amino acids from digested protein can also be converted into glucose (in true carnivores like cats, this is where most glucose comes from).

    Unlike other cellular energy sources (amino acids and fatty acids), glucose can be converted into energy in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic glycolysis). This makes glucose a critical source of quick energy during times when oxygen is scarce, such as during intense exercise.

    Glucose can also be stored for later usage, in the form of glycogen (“animal starch”). Glycogen is abundant in the liver, which stores about a day’s worth of glucose in order to provide enough energy to fuel the brain during periods between meals. Glycogen is also used to store glucose for use in muscles, which rely on it for quickly generating energy. If the dietary intake of carbohydrates exceeds what is needed for immediate energy and glycogen reserves, then the excess is converted to fat for long-term storage.

    Precursors to other biomolecules. Carbohydrates are used to make other important biomolecules. These include: glycosaminoglycans (such as chondroitin, keratin, and hyaluronic acid), important constituents of joints and connective tissues; nucleic acids (DNA and RNA are partially constructed from the sugar ribose); as well as other amino acids and fatty acids for making new cellular proteins and cell membranes.

    Stimulation of digestion. Fiber, despite its non-nutritive value, still has evolved important roles in human physiology. The bulk of insoluble fibers helps digested food to move more easily through the intestines and be readily eliminated from the body. Soluble fibers and resistant starches can provide a source of energy for intestinal bacteria, which themselves provide a number of health benefits, including the stimulation of immunity, protection from pathogenic bacteria, and enhanced absorption of minerals from the diet. Prebiotics, a subset of soluble fiber, have gained attention in recent years in their ability to be selectively fermented by gut flora for a diversity of potential health-promoting benefits3.

    Many of the health benefits realized by modifying carbohydrate intake involve altering patterns of consumption: reducing intake of sugars, and increasing intake of fiber. For example, recent emphasis on increased intake of whole grains (which contain significantly more fiber, phytonutrients, and protein than do refined cereal flours) has resulted from several studies which suggest that its consumption may reduce the risk of certain cancers, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease4. Fiber intake, in particular, has been the subject of thousands of studies in humans and animals, in part for its ability to successfully reduce the risk of several diseases by different mechanisms:

    Reducing Chronic Low-level Inflammation. In contrast to the conspicuous inflammation that is characteristic of an injury or infection, chronic low-level inflammation can progress unnoticed. This potentially silent affliction has been associated with the progression of several diseases, including cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular, and kidney diseases. In an analysis of 7 studies on the relationship between weight loss and inflammation, increased fiber consumption correlated with significantly greater reductions in C-reactive protein (CRP), one indicator of low-level inflammation5. In these studies, daily fiber intakes ranging from 3.3 to 7.8 g/MJ (equivalent to about 27 to 64 g/day for a standard 2000 kcal diet) reduced CRP from 25–54 percent in a dose-dependent fashion. The Women’s Health Initiative Study also found significant inverse relationships with dietary soluble and insoluble fiber (over 24 g/day) and certain markers of chronic inflammation6.

    Promoting Healthy Blood Pressure. It is not clear how dietary fiber reduces blood pressure, but many studies have observed this trend. Fiber, when taken with a meal, may by reducing the glycemic index of foods and lowering the response of insulin following a meal (insulin may play a role in blood pressure regulation). Soluble fibers may also increase mineral absorption (such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium; all important for healthy blood pressure) by feeding intestinal flora, which lowers intestinal pH and establish a favorable acidic environment for mineral absorption7. Whatever the cause, at least thirty randomized, controlled clinical trials examined the effects of fiber in both hypertensive and normotensive patients. Across all participants, increased fiber intake demonstrated modest average reductions in systolic (1.13–1.15 mm Hg), and diastolic (1.26–1.65 mm Hg) blood pressure89. Amongst hypertensive patients, the average blood pressure reductions were much larger: A significant average reduction in both systolic (-5.95 mm Hg) and diastolic (-4.20 mm Hg) blood pressure was observed over 8 weeks in trials where hypertensive participants increased their daily fiber intake9.

    Promoting Healthy Levels of Blood Lipids. High-fiber diets have been associated with lower prevalence of cardiovascular disease (10). When included as part of a low-saturated fat/low cholesterol diet, dietary fiber can lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by 5–10 percent in persons with high cholesterol, and may reduce LDL-C in healthy individuals as well10. Dozens of controlled clinical trials have shown the cholesterol-lowering potential of dietary fibers including soluble oat fiber, psyllium, pectin, guar gum, b-glucans from barley, and chitosan3,12,13.

    Soluble fibers lower cholesterol by several potential mechanisms (3). They may directly bind cholesterol in the gut, preventing its absorption. The high viscosity of soluble fiber and its ability to slow intestinal motility may help to limit cholesterol and fat uptake as well. Fiber can also increase satiety, which can limit overall energy intake14,15. Lowering Uric Acid. Elevated blood uric acid (hyperuricemia) is a risk factor for kidney disease, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes; it is also a primary cause for gout16. Fiber intake may lower blood uric acid levels. A significant inverse relationship between fiber intake and hyperuricemia risk was established by analyzing dietary fiber intake data from over 9000 otherwise healthy adults participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 1999–2004. Based on these data, participants with high fiber diets (over about 19 grams fiber/day for the average 2000 kcal diet) had a 55 percent reduction in hyperuricemia risk compared to those on lower fiber diets (<9.2 g fiber/day)17. While these mechanisms for this reduction is unknown, dietary fiber may reduce the absorption of purines from the diet, one of the inciting factors for hyperuricemia.

    The amount and composition of carbohydrates in the “ideal” diet is amongst the most heavily debated topics in nutrition. There are scientifically-substantiated merits to both the “low-carb” and “low-fat, high-carb” diets in terms of reducing disease risk and maintaining a healthy body mass index (these will be discussed in greater detail in a future article). The common ground between the two schools of thought is that the average Western diet probably contains too little fiber, and too much refined grains and added sugar. A low-fiber/high-sugar diet, when coupled with excessive caloric intake, has been associated with significant increases in the risk for a number of ailments, including obesity, insulin resistance/type II diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

    As mentioned previously, the benefits of dietary fiber are numerous. The average daily fiber intake in the American diet, based on data from 2007–2008 NHANEs survey, is about half of the 28 grams/day recommendation by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Significant numbers of people consume even less than the national average. The highest intakes of dietary fiber are associated with the lowest disease risks; for several observational studies, the greatest risk reductions required intakes exceeding the IOM recommendations.

    In contrast, the American diet contains no shortage of refined grains or sugars. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates average grain consumption at about 33 percent more than 6 oz./day recommended in its Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Most of this grain is refined; the same group estimates Americans consume only one-third of the recommended 3 oz./day of whole grains18,19.

    Analysis of data from the last NHANEs survey (2007–2008) determined that Americans consume an average of 120 grams/day of total sugars (about 30 teaspoons), most of which are added sugars. This amounts to approximately 480 kilocalories of energy per day. Most of these sugars come from sweetened carbonated beverages (~37 percent); other top sources include desserts and fruit drinks (fruitades and fruit punches). While arguments can be made that it is the added fructose or corn syrup are particularly dangerous to health (there is evidence that supports and refutes this hypothesis), or that sugar is additive and contributes to overeating (animal models may support this claim), added sugar clearly contributes a significant amount of calories to the average diet, and in many cases displaces essential nutrients20,21.

    To read the series on Macronutrients:


    1. Fardet A. New hypotheses for the health-protective mechanisms of whole-grain cereals: what is beyond fibre? Nutr Res Rev 2010 Jun.;23(1):65–134.
    2. Engelking L. Textbook of Veterinary Physiological Chemistry. Updated 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Academic Press; 2011.
    3. Brown L, Rosner B, Willett WW, Sacks FM. Cholesterol-lowering effects of dietary fiber: a meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Jan.;69(1):30–42.
    4. Higgins JA. Whole grains, legumes, and the subsequent meal effect: implications for blood glucose control and the role of fermentation. J Nutr Metab 2012;2012:829238.
    5. North CJ, Venter CS, Jerling JC. The effects of dietary fibre on C-reactive protein, an inflammation marker predicting cardiovascular disease. Eur J Clin Nutr 2009 Aug.;63(8):921–33.
    6. Ma Y, Hébert J, Li W, Bertone-Johnson E. Association between dietary fiber and markers of systemic inflammation in the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study. Nutrition 2008;
    7. Greger J. Nondigestible carbohydrates and mineral bioavailability. J Nutr 1999.
    8. Streppel MT, Arends LR, van t Veer P, Grobbee DE, Geleijnse JM. Dietary fiber and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 2005 Jan.;165(2):150–6.
    9. Whelton SP, Hyre AD, Pedersen B, Yi Y, Whelton PK, He J. Effect of dietary fiber intake on blood pressure: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled clinical trials. J. Hypertens 2005 Mar.;23(3):475–81.
    10. Badimon L, Vilahur G, Padro T. Nutraceuticals and atherosclerosis: human trials. Cardiovasc Ther 2010 Aug.;28(4):202–15.
    11. Anderson J, Randles K. Carbohydrate and fiber recommendations for individuals with diabetes: a quantitative assessment and meta-analysis of the evidence. J Am Coll Nutr 2004.
    12. AbuMweis SS, Jew S, Ames NP. -glucan from barley and its lipid-lowering capacity: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Eur J Clin Nutr 2010 Dec.;64(12):1472–80.
    13. Baker WL, Tercius A, Anglade M, White CM, Coleman CI. A meta-analysis evaluating the impact of chitosan on serum lipids in hypercholesterolemic patients. Ann Nutr Metab 2009;55(4):368–74.
    14. Brighenti F, Casiraghi M, Canzi E. Effect of consumption of a ready-to-eat breakfast cereal containing inulin on the intestinal milieu and blood lipids in healthy male volunteers. Eur J Clin Nutr 1999; Pages 726–33.
    15. Li S, Guerin-Deremaux L, Pochat M, Wils D, Reifer C, Miller LE. NUTRIOSE dietary fiber supplementation improves insulin resistance and determinants of metabolic syndrome in overweight men: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2010 Dec.;35(6):773–82.
    16. Zhu Y, Pandya BJ, Choi HK. Prevalence of gout and hyperuricemia in the US general population: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007–2008. Arthritis Rheum 2011 Oct.;63(10):3136–41.
    17. Sun SZ, Flickinger BD, Williamson-Hughes PS, Empie MW. Lack of association between dietary fructose and hyperuricemia risk in adults. Nutr Metab 2010;7(1):16.
    18. Grotto D, Zied E. The Standard American Diet and its relationship to the health status of Americans. Nutr Clin Pract 2010 Dec.;25(6):603–12.
    19. U. S. Department of Agricuture USDOHAHS. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010. 2011 Jan.;:1–112.
    20. Avena NM, Rada P, Hoebel BG. Sugar and fat bingeing have notable differences in addictive-like behavior. Journal of Nutrition 2009 Mar.;139(3):623–8.
    21. Berner LA, Avena NM, Hoebel BG. Bingeing, self-restriction, and increased body weight in rats with limited access to a sweet-fat diet. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2008 Sep.;16(9):1998–2002.

  • Well, it’s the New Year! Perhaps you’ve made a resolution to lose weight. If so, good for you. Of course you know and I know that it’s not that simple. For those of us who have struggled with the battle of the bulge, we know for a fact that losing weight isn’t easy. Furthermore, one of the primary reasons that this is so has to do with appetite control. Simply put, if you’re not hungry it’s easy to lose weight. If you’re not hungry you can keep your calorie consumption down, feel satisfied and easily fit into your jeans. Unfortunately, that elusive sense of satiety is hard to come by for so many overweight and obese individuals.

    What would really help is something that safely and effectively helped to reduce appetite and promote satiety. Of course there are many products out there claiming to do just that. The fact is, however, that the overwhelming majority of them just don’t seem to work. The sad truth is there is no magic weight loss pill—despite marketing claims to the contrary. The good news is there are two commonly available substances that can help with appetite control and satiety. These substances are not the miracle answer to weight loss, but they may very well be able to help you with the process. These two common substances are fiber and protein—or more specifically, a certain type of fiber and protein.

    Oligofructose-enriched inulin: a preferred fiber
    In general, fiber is known for its ability to help suppress appetite. The way it works is that fiber absorbs water or other liquids and expands in the stomach, helping to create a full feeling. While this is generally true of any fiber, there are some types that perform better than others for this purpose. One such type, derived from Chicory root, is oligofructose and oligofructose-enriched inulin (OEI). Both oligofructose and inulin are soluble fibers, and oligofructose is also identified as a functional fiber, which means it has additional beneficial physiological effects in humans.1

    In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial2 thirty-six overweight and obese men and women consumed either 12g/day OEI or placebo for three weeks, as two 6g supplements dissolved in a beverage, with breakfast and lunch. The result was the subjects using the OEI consumed significantly less calories. In another randomized double-blind, cross-over study,3 31 healthy men and women received 10g oligofructose, 16g oligofructose or 16g placebo daily for 13 days. The result was that the subjects consumed significantly less calories with 16g/ day oligofructose. In a third randomized, double blind, parallel, placebo-controlled trial,4 a total of 10 healthy adults received either 16g/ day OEI or 16g/ day placebo for two weeks. Results showed that the OEI treatment lowered hunger rates and ate less calories than the placebo group. Additional studies have shown similar results.5,6,7,8 Furthermore, other research has shown that supplementation with OEI provided additional benefits: it helped improve calcium absorption9,10,11,12 and it acted as a prebiotic that promoted the growth of healthy bifidobacteria probiotic colonies in the gut.13,14,15,16

    Multiple studies17 have shown that increasing the protein content of meals without increasing total calories has resulted in subjects eating less overall calories. Furthermore, other studies18 have shown that a higher protein intake increases thermogenesis (i.e. fat burning) and satiety compared to diets of lower protein content. Some evidence suggests that diets higher in protein result in an increased weight loss and fat loss as compared to diets lower in protein.

    While almost any protein source could offer satiety enhancing benefits, whey protein (WP) has been shown to be particularly effective for this purpose, as well as providing other benefits that may help support weight loss. One of the mechanisms by which it does this is that it delays gastric emptying more effectively than other forms of protein tested. In other words, it keeps food in the stomach longer so you feel fuller for a longer period of time.19 Other research20 has shown that WP was more effective than other forms of protein tested at reducing the amount of fat in the blood stream after meals in obese individuals. This not only bodes well in helping to decrease cardiovascular disease risk, but lowering blood fats is also conducive to supporting weight loss goals.

    With regard to reducing appetite and improving satiety, there are so many studies that it is not practical to review them in this article. Instead, I’ll just provide the accompanying summary table below.

    Losing weight can be difficult, especially when your appetite gets in the way. However, if you use some fiber and protein before a meal, you may be able to “spoil” your appetite on purpose, allowing you to eat less and feel satisfied—which is likely to bode well for your weight loss efforts.

    Amount used in studyResults
    30g WP + 30g carbs21• Extended the duration of satiety
    20g WP 3X daily + Exercise22• WP + exercise reduced total and regional body fat
    • WP + exercise promoted healthy insulin sensitivity
    54g WP/day23• WP effectively promoted satiety and fullness
    60g WP24• Food intake was lower following ingestion WP
    50% WP + 40% carb25 + 10% fat meal (average protein intake was 57g/d)• Thermogenesis was greater after WP
    • Fat oxidation was greater after WP
    • Glycemic response to glucose attenuated 32% by proteins
    50g WPI26• WP meal reduced appetite and decreased food intake at a subsequent meal
    10–40g WP27• WP (20–40g) reduced food intake
    • WP (10–40g) reduced post-meal blood glucose and insulin
    Whey-protein breakfast with protein/ carbohydrate/fat balance as:
    • 10/55/35% (normal)
    • 25/55/20% (high)28
    • 10% WP decreased hunger
    • 25% WP triggered stronger responses in hormone concentrations
    50g WP taken before a meal29• Reduced calorie intake
    55g WP taken before a meal30• Appetite and calorie intake reduced
    57g WP in yogurt31• Decreased hunger more than regular yogurt


    1. Slavin J. Fiber and Prebiotics: Mechanisms and Health Benefits. Nutrients. 2013 Apr; 5(4): 1417–35.
    2. McCann MT, Livingstone MBE, Wallace JMW, Gallagher AM, Weich RW. T1:P.082 Oligofructose-enriched Inulin supplementation decreases energy intake in overweight and obese men and women. Obes Rev. 2011;12 (Suppl. 1): 86–7.
    3. Verhoef SP, Meyer D, Westerterp KR. Effects of oligofructose on appetite profile, glucagon-like peptide 1 and peptide YY3-36 concentrations and energy intake. Br J Nutr. 2011 Dec;106(11):1757–62.
    4. Cani PD, Lecourt E, Dewulf EM, Sohet FM, Pachikian BD, Naslain D, De Backer F, Neyrinck AM, Delzenne NM. Gut microbiota fermentation of prebiotics increases satietogenic and incretin gut peptide production with consequences for appetite sensation and glucose response after a meal. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Nov;90(5):1236–43.
    5. Cani PD, Joly E, Horsmans Y, Delzenne NM. Oligofructose promotes satiety in healthy human: a pilot study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006 May;60(5):567-72.
    6. Hume M, Nicolucci A, Reimer R. Prebiotic Fiber Consumption Decreases Energy Intake in Overweight and Obese Children. FASEB J. 2015;29(1):S597.3.
    7. Parnell JA, Reimer RA. Weight loss during oligofructose supplementation is associated with decreased ghrelin and increased peptide YY in overweight and obese adults. Am J Clin Nutr.2009 Jun;89(6):1751–9.
    8. Daud NM, Ismail NA, Thomas EL, Fitzpatrick JA, Bell JD, Swann JR, Costabile A, Childs CE, Pedersen C, Goldstone AP, Frost GS. The impact of oligofructose on stimulation of gut hormones, appetite regulation and adiposity. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014 Jun;22(6):1430–8.
    9. Holloway L, Moynihan S, Abrams SA, Kent K, Hsu AR, Friedlander AL. Effects of oligofructose-enriched inulin on intestinal absorption of calcium and magnesium and bone turnover markers in postmenopausal women. Br J Nutr. 2007 Feb;97(2):365–72.
    10. Abrams SA, Griffin IJ, Hawthorne KM, Liang L, Gunn SK, Darlington G, Ellis KJ. A combination of prebiotic short- and long-chain inulin-type fructans enhances calcium absorption and bone mineralization in young adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Aug;82(2):471–6.
    11. Griffin IJ, Davila PM, Abrams SA. Non-digestible oligosaccharides and calcium absorption in girls with adequate calcium intakes. Br J Nutr. 2002 May;87 Suppl 2:S187–91.
    12. van den Heuvel EG, Muys T, van Dokkum W, Schaafsma G. Oligofructose stimulates calcium absorption in adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Mar;69(3):544–8.
    13. Gibson GR, Beatty ER, Wang X, Cummings JH. Selective stimulation of bifidobacteria in the human colon by oligofructose and inulin. Gastroenterology. 1995 Apr;108(4):975–82.
    14. Rao VA. The prebiotic properties of oligofructose at low intake levels. Nutr. Res. 2001;21(6):843–48.
    15. Langlands SJ, Hopkins MJ, Coleman N, Cummings JH. Prebiotic carbohydrates modify the mucosa associated microflora of the human large bowel. Gut. 2004 Nov;53(11):1610–6.
    16. Evelyne M Dewulf, Patrice D Cani, Sandrine P Claus, et al. Insight into the prebiotic concept: lessons from an exploratory, double blind intervention study with inulin-type fructans in obese women. Gut. 2013 Aug; 62(8): 1112–21.
    17. Yang D, Liu Z, Yang H, Jue Y. Acute effects of high-protein versus normal-protein isocaloric meals on satiety and ghrelin. Eur J Nutr. 2014;53(2):493–500.
    18. Halton TL, Hu FB. The effects of high protein diets on thermogenesis, satiety and weight loss: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004 Oct;23(5):373-85.
    19. Stanstrup J, Schou SS, Holmer-Jensen J, Hermansen K, Dragsted LO. Whey protein delays gastric emptying and suppresses plasma fatty acids and their metabolites compared to casein, gluten, and fish protein. J Proteome Res. 2014 May 2;13(5):2396–408.
    20. Holmer-Jensen J, Mortensen LS, Astrup A, et al. Acute differential effects of dietary protein quality on postprandial lipemia in obese non-diabetic subjects. Nutr Res. 2013 Jan;33(1):34–40.
    21. Marsset-Baglieri A, Fromentin G, Airinei G, Pedersen C, Léonil J, Piedcoq J, Rémond D, Benamouzig R, Tomé D, Gaudichon C. Milk protein fractions moderately extend the duration of satiety compared with carbohydrates independently of their digestive kinetics in overweight subjects. Br J Nutr. 2014 Aug 28;112(4):557–64.
    22. Arciero PJ, Baur D, Connelly S, Ormsbee MJ. Timed-daily ingestion of whey protein and exercise training reduces visceral adipose tissue mass and improves insulin resistance: the PRISE study. J Appl Physiol(1985). 2014 Jul 1;117(1):1–10.
    23. Pal S, Radavelli-Bagatini S, Hagger M, Ellis V. Comparative effects of whey and casein proteins on satiety in overweight and obese individuals: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2014 Sep;68(9):980–6.
    24. Chungchunlam SM, Henare SJ, Ganesh S, Moughan PJ. Effect of whey protein and glycomacropeptide on measures of satiety in normal-weight adult women. Appetite. 2014 Jul;78:172–8.
    25. Acheson KJ, Blondel-Lubrano A, Oguey-A raymon S, et al. Protein choices targeting thermogenesis and metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Mar;93(3):525–34.
    26. Pal S, Ellis V. The acute effects of four protein meals on insulin, glucose, appetite and energy intake in lean men. Br J Nutr. 2010 Oct;104(8):1241–8.
    27. Akhavan T, Luhovyy BL, Brown PH, Cho CE, Anderson GH. Effect of premeal consumption of whey protein and its hydrolysate on food intake and postmeal glycemia and insulin responses in young adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Apr;91(4):966–75.
    28. Veldhorst MA, Nieuwenhuizen AG, Hochstenbach-Waelen A, et al. Dosedependent satiating effect of whey relative to casein or soy. Physiol Behav. 2009 Mar 23;96(4-5):675–82.
    29. Bowen J, Noakes M, Clifton PM. Appetite regulatory hormone responses to various dietary proteins differ by body mass index status despite similar reductions in ad libitum energy intake. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006 Aug;91(8):2913–9.
    30. Bowen J, Noakes M, Trenerry C, Clifton PM. Energy intake, ghrelin, and cholecystokinin after different carbohydrate and protein preloads in overweight men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006 Apr;91(4):1477–83.
    31. Vandewater K, Vickers Z. Higher-protein foods produce greater sensoryspecific satiety. Physiol Behav. 1996 Mar;59(3):579–83.
blockquote.article-intro { color: #333333; font-family: "Roboto","Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5; }