14 research outputs found

    Effect of Training on the Reliability of Satiety Evaluation and Use of Trained Panellists to Determine the Satiety Effect of Dietary Fibre: A Randomised Controlled Trial

    Get PDF
    Background: The assessment of satiety effects on foods is commonly performed by untrained volunteers marking their perceived hunger or fullness on line scales, marked with pre-set descriptors. The lack of reproducibility of satiety measurement using this approach however results in the tool being unable to distinguish between foods that have small, but possibly important, differences in their satiety effects. An alternate approach is used in sensory evaluation; panellists can be trained in the correct use of the assessment line-scale and brought to consensus on the meanings of descriptors used for food quality attributes to improve the panel reliability. The effect of training on the reliability of a satiety panel has not previously been reported. Method: In a randomised controlled parallel intervention, the effect of training in the correct use of a satiety labelled magnitude scale (LMS) was assessed versus no-training. The test-retest precision and reliability of two hour postprandial satiety evaluation after consumption of a standard breakfast was compared. The trained panel then compared the satiety effect of two breakfast meals containing either a viscous or a non-viscous dietary fibre in a crossover trial.Results: A subgroup of the 23 panellists (n = 5) improved their test re-test precision after training. Panel satiety area under the curve, “after the training” intervention was significantly different to “before training” (p < 0.001). Reliability of the panel determined by intraclass correlation (ICC) of test and retest showed improved strength of the correlation from 0.70 pre-intervention to 0.95 post intervention. The trained “satiety expert panel” determined that a standard breakfast with 5g of viscous fibre gave significantly higher satiety than with 5g non-viscous fibre (area under curve (AUC) of 478.2, 334.4 respectively) (p ≤ 0.002). Conclusion: Training reduced between panellist variability. The improved strength of test-retest ICC as a result of the training intervention suggests that training satiety panellists can improve the discriminating power of satiety evaluation

    Response to Comments by Vuksan V. et al., Nutrients 2017, 9, 398, Regarding an Article by Solah V.A. et al., Nutrients 2017, 9, 149

    Get PDF
    This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0)

    Effect of PolyGlycopleX (PGX) Consumption on Blood Lipid Profiles in Healthy, Low CVD Risk Overweight Adults

    No full text
    Raised blood lipid levels are associated with a risk of a cardiovascular disease (CVD). Moderate reductions in several CVD factors such as total, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol concentrations may be more effective in reducing overall risk than a major reduction in just one. A blind, randomised controlled trial was conducted with 120 healthy overweight (BMI 25&#8211;30) adults aged 25&#8211;70 years who were non-smokers, not diabetic and of low risk of cardiovascular disease, as assessed by the Framingham risk equation. Participants consumed 4.5 g PolyGlycopleX (PGX) as softgel capsules (PGXS) or 5 g PGX granules (PGXG) or 5 g rice flour (RF) with meals three times a day for 12 weeks. Total, LDL and non-HDL cholesterol were all significantly reduced (&#8722;6%, &#8722;5% and &#8722;3.5%, respectively) post the PGX granule treatment; however, PGX in softgel capsule form did not affect blood lipid profiles. Daily consumption of PGX granules in overweight low CVD risk adults produced lipid changes indicating a CVD preventative benefit

    The area under the curve (AUC) of the satiety response at each test-retest occasion segregated by treatment (training or no-training).

    No full text
    <p>A. Mean difference between treatments at each test or re-test occasion. B. Differences in test minus retest AUC by treatment (training vs no-training) and by test-retest occasion (pre-training = 1, post-training = 2).</p><p>The area under the curve (AUC) of the satiety response at each test-retest occasion segregated by treatment (training or no-training).</p

    Subject (panellists) characteristics.

    No full text
    <p><sup>a</sup>No significant difference between no-training and training (p < 0.05)</p><p>Subject (panellists) characteristics.</p

    Area under curve (AUC) of postprandial satiety response of “satiety expert panel” (n = 9).

    No full text
    <p>t1SEP and t2SEP = control (inulin) breakfast; t3SEP = PGX breakfast.</p><p>Area under curve (AUC) of postprandial satiety response of “satiety expert panel” (n = 9).</p

    Training LMS descriptors with definitions.

    No full text
    <p>GIH = Greatest Imaginable Hunger; MH = Moderately Hungry; SH = Slightly Hungry; NHNF = Neither Hungry Nor Full; SL = Slightly Full; MF = Moderately Full; VF = Very Full; EF = Extremely Full; GIF = Greatest Imaginable Fullness.The scale was anchored with words to describe the feeling of hunger from “Greatest Imaginable Hunger” to “Greatest Imaginable Fullness”. The left 95mm (9.5cm) of the LMS had descriptors relating to hunger and right 95mm (9.5cm) of the LMS related to fullness (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0126202#pone.0126202.g002" target="_blank">Fig 2</a>). The line scale marks were enumerated by measuring their distance (mm) from the centre point; therefore a maximum score of 95mm (9.5cm) equated to “Greatest Imaginable Fullness” and minus 95mm (-9.5cm) to “Greatest Imaginable Hunger”.</p><p>Training LMS descriptors with definitions.</p
    corecore