Satiety and Structure Modification Charlotte Holmes

MFR Project 135659

January 2015 - December 2017

Why? - need for the project

• Obesity & public health concerns

• Industry commitment/PHE to reduce

calories

• Capitalise on ‘protein’ trend

• Tackle consumer perception &

responses to reduced energy products

What? – objectives of the work

• Demonstrate commercially viable

ingredients and processing solutions

– Apply solutions to the development of

satiating, energy reduced products

• Assess efficacy of one developed

product to decrease appetite ratings, and

subsequent energy intake

– In an acute setting

Approaches- Year 1

• Review research and generate a literature

review on approaches to create satiating

products

• Investigate protein sources including novel

sources

• Development of non-bakery product using

manipulated food structure

Identification protein sources

Review on

approaches to create

satiating products

1. Food

structure

2. Composition

3. Protein

content

Aeration Alginate bead incorporation

Freeze-drying

Development of

non-bakery

product using

manipulated

food structure

Development of non-bakery product using

manipulated food structure

Approaches- Year 2

• Development of bakery product containing a

higher protein content

• Development of bakery product with

manipulate food structure

• Assess the utility of two analytical methods

(Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) and

Rapid Visco-Analysis (RVA)) in the

prediction of protein behaviour in pasteurised

milk-based beverages.

Development of bakery product

containing a higher protein content

Protein Flour Substitution

Bakers %

Total energy from

protein %

Control - 12

Pea 6.7 16

Pea 13.3 20

Oat 10.7 16

Oat 24.0 20

Hydrolysed Chicken 6.7 16

Hydrolysed Chicken 11.7 20

Beef 5.3 16

Beef 10.7 20

Milk Protein Isolate 6.7 16

Milk Protein Isolate 13.3 20

Brown Rice 6.7 16

Brown Rice 13.3 20

Fava Bean 6.7 16

Fava Bean 23.3 20

Whey 6.7 16

Whey 12.0 20

Lentil 11.7 16

Lentil 23.3 20

Soya 6.7 16

Soya 13.3 20

Development of bakery product containing

protein – Scoping experiment

Development of bakery product containing

protein – Gluten maintained experiment Sample Name Protein Dough Condition

Bowl Rest Comments

Control Control 2 1 Good consistency

Pea (16% of energy) Pea 1 1 Nice consistency

Pea (20% of energy) Pea 3 2

Beef (20% of energy) Beef 5 4

Brown rice (16% of energy) Brown rice 1 0 Good handling

Brown rice (20% of energy) Brown rice 0 0 Tough, little elasticity

Hydrolysed chicken (16% of energy) Chicken 3 2 Starts off mozzarella like, but recovers after resting

Hydrolysed chicken (20% of energy) Chicken 2 1 As with control, good consistency

Fava bean (16% of energy) Fava 1 1

Fava bean (20% of energy) Fava 3 2

Lentil (16% of energy) Lentil 1 1 Unclean bowl

Lentil (20% of energy) Lentil 2 3 Unclean bowl

Oat (16% of energy) Oat 1 0 Good handling, better than control

Oat (20% of energy) Oat 0 0 Good handling, better than control

Milk (isolate) (16% of energy) Milk 2 1

Milk (isolate) (20% of energy) Milk 2 0 Tough after resting

Whey (16% of energy) Whey 0 0 Hot

Whey (20% of energy) Whey 0 0 Hot, was tough after resting

Soy (isolate) (16% of energy) Soy 1 0

Soy (isolate) (20% of energy) Soy 2 1 Unclean bowl

Gluten (16% of energy) Gluten 1 0 Better than control

Gluten (20% of energy) Gluten 1 0 Better than control

Bowl indicates the stickiness in the bowl after the 2:8 mixing cycle and rest indicates the condition after a 5 minute rest

period. The ratings go from 0 – not sticky to 5 – very sticky (but still processable).

Development of bakery product containing

protein – Gluten maintained

Farinograph (500BU line)

based on CCAT method no.

04 TES-CM-127 (non UKAS)

Water Absorption (%)

Development of bakery product containing

protein – Gluten maintained

Development of bakery product containing protein

– Gluten maintained Sample Name Protein Sensory observation

Hue (visual) Texture Flavour

Control Control 3 Open, fluffy Sweet, yeasty

Pea (16% of energy) Pea 4 Open, less fluffy, drier Similar to control

Pea (20% of energy) Pea 5 More tough Strong after note

Beef (20% of energy) Beef 7 Soft, open ‘Beefy’ aroma and flavour

Brown rice (16% of energy) Brown rice 4 Open structure, tough, dry As control, slightly chalky

Brown rice (20% of energy) Brown rice 4 Less tough, soft open crumb As with control

Hydrolysed chicken (16% of energy) Chicken 6 Soft open crumb Off note of burnt cheese, acidic, umami

(meaty)

Hydrolysed chicken (20% of energy) Chicken 10 Bagel like density, moist, sweet Off note of burnt cheese, acidic, umami

(meaty)

Fava bean (16% of energy) Fava 6 Open, fluffy, Mild taste

Fava bean (20% of energy) Fava 7 More dense than Fava bean (16% of

energy). As with Fava bean (16% of energy)

Lentil (16% of energy) Lentil 6 Open, fluffy Rancid oil aroma, chewy

Lentil (20% of energy) Lentil 5 Open, thick crust Strong lentil taste, chemical back notes

Oat (16% of energy) Oat 4 Grey colour, gritty, dry Rancid olive oil

Oat (20% of energy) Oat 5 Very tight crumb, as above Rancid olive oil, cardboard note

Milk (isolate) (16% of energy) Milk 4 As with control Closest to control

Milk (isolate) (20% of energy) Milk 4 More dense than control Rounded flavour

Whey (16% of energy) Whey 5 Slightly more open, fluffy Less sweet, rounded

Whey (20% of energy) Whey 7 Tougher, drier Nutty and sweet

Soy (isolate) (16% of energy) Soy 4 Softer (marginally) Less sweet, more bread like

Soy (isolate) (20% of energy) Soy 6 Crumpet like, thick crust Cloying mouthfeel,

Gluten (16% of energy) Gluten 3 Light, fluffy, soft Mild and sweet flavour, slightly chewy,

Gluten (20% of energy) Gluten 4 Light, fluffy, soft Mild and sweet flavour, slightly chewy

• Un-ripened Banana Flour has been shown to

have a satiety-enhancing effect via down-

regulation of Ghrelin production, an

orexigenic (appetite-promoting) hormone,

and stimulation of the release of Peptide YY

(an anorexigenic hormone) involved in the

suppression of appetite. This effect is most

likely to be due to the high content of RS in

UBF.

Development of bakery product with

manipulate food structure

Development of bakery product with

manipulate food structure

Unripe bananas Sliced into antioxidant Air dried (55°C, 18 h)

Dried chips Hammer milled

250 µm particle-size

9.6% Unripe banana

flour

(c. 5% resistant starch)

Control

Control Un-ripened Banana flour

Assess the utility of two analytical methods DSC

and RVA in the prediction of protein behaviour in

pasteurised milk-based beverages.

No. Protein-rich ingredient

Source

material Supplier

Protein

content

g/100g

1 Nutralys® Pea S85F Pea Roquette 79

2 PrOatein™ Oat Protein Oat Tate & Lyle 54

3 Solanic® 300 potato protein Potato AVEBE U.A. 93.5

4 HydroCHX chicken protein Chicken

muscle Essentia Protein Solutions 88

5 BeefISO+ Bovine muscle Essentia Protein Solutions 99

6 Chlorella vulgaris Powder Chlorella Allma Natural benefits 55

7 Solmiko MPI (Milk Protein Isolate 85%) Milk Glambia Nutritionals 90

8 GABIOTEIN-F90+, 300mesh Rice grain Golden Agriculture Biotech Co. Ltd. 87

9 Complex 12 Wheat grain Ulrick & Short 80

10 Whey (BiPRO) protein Milk whey Davisco 95

11 VITESSENCETM pulse 2550 Lentil Ingredion 55

12 SUPRO XT 219D IP Soya bean Solae 90

13 Cricket Flour Cricket JR Unique Foods Ltd. 70

DSC= Differential Scanning Calorimetry

RVA= Rapid Visco-Analysis

Potato

Beef

Whey

Lentil

Approach- Year 3 • Run an acute study investigating the impact of on

perceived rated satiety using on of the products

developed in year 1&2- Un-ripened banana flour

An acute study investigating the impact of

resistant starch on perceived rated satiety

Method

Test Day 1

Respondents in group 1- control muffin

Test Day 2

Respondents in group 2- test muffin

Test Day 2

Respondents in group 2- control muffin

Test Day 4

Respondents in group 1- test muffin

Wash out period- 7 days

An acute study investigating the impact of

resistant starch on perceived rated satiety

Method Nutrient Control muffin Test muffin

Energy (kJ) 1535 1514

Energy (kCal) 366.5 362

Fat (g) 16.2 17.1

Carbohydrate (g) 49.7 49.65

of which is sugars (g) 20.3 17.9

Dietary Fibre (g) 2.6 4.3

Protein (g) 6.65 4.4

Salt (g) 0.945 1.085

Resistant starch (%

w/w) 0.3 6.3

VAS on hunger, feelings of

fullness, desire to eat and

ability/willingness to eat

An acute study investigating the impact of

resistant starch on perceived rated satiety

Significance

• Whist no significant difference was seen during this

trial, the data does suggest that there maybe an

effect if monitored over a longer period of time.

• A lot of current research into the use of banana flour

for a satiating effect has been based on long term

exposure (weeks), however this trial indicates there

may be a short term effect

• Outcomes;

– Possible to use alginate beads to create less energy dense

pasta

– Can use ingredient characterisation method to intelligently

design protein enriched bakery formulations

– DSC and RVA can provide time- and cost-saving step in the

process of selecting protein-rich ingredients for high-protein

beverage formulations

– Possible to develop high resistant starch bakery products

using natural ingredients whilst maintaining acceptability.

• Next steps

– Further research required to define exact time point at

which satiating effect of resistant starch is needed

– Further explore satiation drivers to reduce consumers

calorie intake

– Innovate UK application

– Explore the potential impact of resistant starch with protein