Effects of two different types of fast food on postprandial metabolism in normal and overweight subjects

6Citations
Citations of this article
65Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES:The aim was to investigate the effects of a conventional and an unconventional fast-food meal on postprandial metabolism in normal and in overweight subjects.SUBJECTS/METHODS:Twenty-five healthy normal (n12) and overweight (n13) volunteers (2139 years) participated in this randomized, dietary cross-over study and received two test meals (matched in energy and energy giving nutrients) after an overnight fast with 1 week between test days. The conventional fast-food meal was a hamburger meal (hamburger, bacon, cola drink, calculated glycemic load48.7), the unconventional fast food was a salmonburger meal (fiber-rich sourdough rye bread, salad with vinegar, orange juice, glycemic load46.0). Blood samples were taken before and after the meal and analyzed for glucose (before 20, 40, 60 and 80 min) and insulin (before 1, 2 and 3 h).RESULTS:Postprandial increases in glucose and insulin were 44% lower after the unconventional meal (P0.001 and P0.003, respectively). The difference between meals in insulin response (that is, conventional meal higher than unconventional) correlated with body mass index (BMI) (r0.538, P0.006).CONCLUSIONS:Unconventional fast food can have less effect on blood insulin and glucose postprandially compared with conventional fast food matched in energy and energy giving nutrients. The difference between meals in insulin response is associated with higher BMI. Thus, improvement in food quality might help to control postprandial increases in blood glucose and blood insulin. © 2012 Macmillan Publishers Limited.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ramel, A., Gudmundsdottir, F. D., & Thorsdottir, I. (2012). Effects of two different types of fast food on postprandial metabolism in normal and overweight subjects. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 66(11), 1193–1198. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2012.125

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free