Effects of dietary fibre on subjective appetite, energy intake and body weight: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Dietary fibres are believed to reduce subjective appetite, energy intake and body weight. However, different types of dietary fibre may affect these outcomes differently. The aim of this review was to systematically investigate the available literature on the relationship between dietary fibre types, appetite, acute and long-term energy intake, and body weight. Fibres were grouped according to chemical structure and physicochemical properties (viscosity, solubility and fermentability). Effect rates were calculated as the proportion of all fibre-control comparisons that reduced appetite (n = 58 comparisons), acute energy intake (n = 26), long-term energy intake (n = 38) or body weight (n = 66). For appetite, acute energy intake, long-term energy intake and body weight, there were clear differences in effect rates depending on chemical structure. Interestingly, fibres characterized as being more viscous (e.g. pectins, β-glucans and guar gum) reduced appetite more often than those less viscous fibres (59% vs. 14%), which also applied to acute energy intake (69% vs. 30%). Overall, effects on energy intake and body weight were relatively small, and distinct dose-response relationships were not observed. Short- and long-term effects of dietary fibres appear to differ and multiple mechanisms relating to their different physicochemical properties seem to interplay. This warrants further exploration.

Towards a satiety map of common foods: Associations between perceived satiety value of 100 foods and their objective and subjective attributes

“…This is in line with laboratory studies which highlight the role of specific fibres on satiety (Wanders et al, 2011). Interestingly, no relationship was observed between fibre content (g/100g) and perceived satiety value in the univariate analysis, but there was a strong effect in the final multivariate model.…”

“…low energy density, corresponds with the established literature from laboratory studies using objectively measured indices of satiety (Rolls, Roe, & Meengs, 2004;Stubbs et al, 1996;Wanders et al, 2011). Low energy density was the strongest correlate of perceived satiety value, followed by high fibre content and low percentage fat.…”

“…In addition to energy density, laboratory studies have demonstrated a macronutrient hierarchy of food, in which proteins are most satiating, followed by carbohydrates then fats (Holt, Miller, Petocz, & Farmakalidis, 1995;Stubbs, vanWyk, Johnstone, & Harbron, 1996). Moreover, specific fibres have received special attention (Wanders et al, 2011) due to their pre-and post-absorptive actions with the potential to mediate satiety.…”

Effects of alginate and resistant starch on feeding patterns, behaviour and performance in ad libitum-fed growing pigs

“…Dietary fibre is a generic term for a range of non-starch polysaccharides (Topping and Clifton, 2001) that vary considerably in their physicochemical properties and may affect energy intake by different mechanisms (Wanders et al, 2011). Viscous and gelling fibres have been associated with earlier satiation, that is, meal termination (Georg Jensen et al, 2013), which is related to a reduced rate of gastric emptying and to a reduced postprandial glucose response .…”

Dietary fibre in Europe: current state of knowledge on definitions, sources, recommendations, intakes and relationships to health

“…These studies utilised β-glucan, lupin kernel fibre, rye bran, whole grain rye, or a mixed high-fibre diet. Wanders et al (54) also conducted a thorough systematic review of dietary fibre intervention studies assessing appetite, acute and long-term energy intake or body weight, with interventions grouped according to chemical structure and physicochemical properties (viscosity, solubility and fermentability). Overall, they reported that the effects of fibre interventions were relatively small (average reduction in energy intake and body weight was 0·15 MJ/d, and 0·4 % per 4 weeks, respectively) and there was little evidence of any dose-response relationships.…”