Hunger is a potential problem for compliance with an energy-restricted diet. Relatively high-protein meal-replacement products have been shown to diminish this problem; they are available as liquid and solid meals, yet their physical state can affect hunger suppression. The objective was to investigate the differences in appetite profile and physiological parameters after consumption of a single-macronutrient, subject-specific, high-protein meal in liquefied vs. solid form, controlled for energy density, weight, and volume. Ten male subjects (age: 21.1 +/- 3.9 years; BMI: 22.4 +/- 1.2 kg/m(2)) were offered lunch subject-specifically as 15% of daily energy requirement (DER), consisting of solid (steamed chicken breast + 750 ml water) or liquefied protein (steamed chicken breast blended in 500 ml water + 250 ml water). Appetite profiles, insulin, glucose, and ghrelin were measured over 3 h. Comparing the solid vs. liquefied condition, oral exposure time did not differ between conditions (19.2 +/- 0.4 and 18.8 +/- 0.6 min, respectively; P = 0.13). Area under the curve (AUC) effects were observed for thirst; statistically significant condition x time interactions and statistically significant differences at several time points were observed for desire to eat (condition x time P < 0.05; 31 +/- 6 mm vs. 53 +/- 8 mm; P < 0.04 at 115 min) and thirst (condition x time P < 0.01; 27 +/- 8 mm vs. 41 +/- 8 mm; P < 0.05 at 30 min and 23 +/- 6 mm vs. 41 +/- 8 mm; P < 0.02 at 70 min) to be lower, while hunger suppression (79 +/- 3 mm and 52 +/- 10 mm; P < 0.03 at 20 min and 61 +/- 7 mm and 44 +/- 8 mm; P < 0.03 at 115 min) was higher in the solid condition. Glucose, insulin, and ghrelin concentration curves were similar for both conditions. In conclusion, solid protein evokes a stronger suppression of hunger and desire to eat than liquefied protein.
Martens, M., Lemmens, S. G., Born, J. M., & Westerterp-Plantenga, M. S. (2011). A solid high-protein meal evokes stronger hunger suppression than a liquefied high-protein meal. Obesity, 19(3), 522-527. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2010.258