Hyperglycemia
Conditions
Interventions
10 healthy adults will participate in this crossover study, being the intervention groups: foods rich in (1) carbohydrates (10 individuals), (2) lipids (10 individuals), and (3) proteins (10 individua
D002241
D004044
D004041
Sponsors
Universidade Federal de Viçosa
Universidade Federal de Viçosa
Eligibility
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Normal-weight individuals (body mass index ranging from 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m² and body fat percentage from 12 to 20% for males and 20 to 30% for females) (Sociedad Española para el Estudio de la Obesidad, 2000); non-smokers; non-pregnant women or lactating women; and who present fasting glucose ranging from 70 to 99 mg/dl.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Type 1 or 2 diabetes; family history of first-degree diabetes mellitus; recent digestive, liver, kidney, cardiovascular, thyroid, or inflammatory diseases; alcohol intake greater than two doses (greater than 20 ml) per day; weight instability (gain or loss of more than 3 kg in the last 3 months); being on a diet to control weight; use medications that affect metabolism and have an allergy or aversion to the tested foods.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| We verified similar values for the glycemic response between the groups (chicken: mean 982.6 and standard error 152.06 milligram times minute per deciliter (mg.min/dl); tuna: mean 836.78 and standard error 297.39 mg.min/dl; control: mean 815.47 and standard error 203.53 mg.min/dl), statistical significance value greater than or equal to 0.05.;The group that consumed chicken protein-rich foods reduced hunger sensations (mean 2912.77 and standard error 805.36 millimeter times minute (mm.min) compared to the control group (mean 1306.97 and standard error 576.41 mm.min), statistical significance value of less than 0.05. The consumption of protein-rich foods also reduced the feeling of prospective consumption (chicken: mean 3081.98 and standard error 704.55 mm.min; tuna: mean 2701.33 and standard error 528.33 mm.min) compared to the control group (mean 855.66 and standard error 358.26 mm.min), statistical significance value of less than 0.05. There was no difference between the groups regarding the sensation of fullness (chicken: mean 3280.11 and standard error 968.31 mm.min; tuna: mean 2922.34 and standard error 681.42 mm.min; control: mean 2683.76 and standard error 884.16 mm.min).;We verified similar values for food intake after the groups (chicken: mean 2885.55 and standard error 222.79 kilocalories per day (kcal/day); tuna: mean 2551.50 and standard error 221.08 kcal/day; control: mean 2354.84 and standard error 131.63 kcal/day), statistical significance value greater than or equal to 0.05. | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Secondary outcomes are not expected. | — |
Countries
Brazil
Contacts
Public ContactJulia Oliveira
Universidade Federal de Viçosa
Outcome results
None listed