The emulsified lipid Fabuless (Olibra) does not decrease food intake but suppresses appetite when consumed with yoghurt but not alone or with solid foods: A food effect study

• Published in: Physiology & behavior 2012-02, Vol.105 (3), p.742-748
• Main Authors: Chan, Y.-K, Strik, C.M, Budgett, S.C, McGill, A.-T, Proctor, J, Poppitt, S.D
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Analysis of Variance; Appetite; Appetite - drug effects; Behavioral psychophysiology; Biological and medical sciences; breakfast; Cross-Over Studies; Dietary Fats - administration & dosage; Eating - drug effects; eating habits; Emulsions; Energy intake; Energy Intake - drug effects; Fabuless; Feeding Behavior - drug effects; food intake; Food Preferences - drug effects; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Humans; ileum; Lipid emulsion; Lipids - administration & dosage; lunch; Male; men; Middle Aged; muffins; Pain Measurement; Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Satiety; Time Factors; VAS; Yogurt; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0031-9384; 1873-507X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.08.042

Abstract The lipid emulsion Fabuless (Olibra) has been shown in some studies to decrease short/medium term energy intake (EI) and prevent weight regain. The purported mechanism is the ileal brake. Whether Fabuless is efficacious under a range of dietary conditions is unknown since studies have administered the emulsion within a fermented, semi-liquid dairy yoghurt, and outcomes have been inconsistent. To determine whether Fabuless suppresses post-ingestive satiety and short-term food intake under a range of dietary conditions and forms we administered the emulsion co-presented with 185 mL water, stirred into a semi-liquid dairy yoghurt, and co-presented with a solid food breakfast muffin. This was a cross-over study in 18 lean men randomised to 6 treatments: (i) lipid emulsion, LE (15 g Fabuless, containing 4.2 g lipid, 0.2 MJ) + water, (ii) lipid control, LC (15 g non-emulsified lipid/water, containing 4.2 g lipid, 0.2 MJ) + water, (iii) lipid emulsion + yoghurt, LE + Y (1.2 MJ), (iv) lipid control + yoghurt, LC + Y (1.2 MJ), (v) lipid emulsion + muffin, LE + M (1.2 MJ), (vi) lipid control + muffin, LC + M (1.2 MJ), each given as a test breakfast at 8.30 am. Participants rated postprandial appetite sensations using visual analogue scales (VAS), and ad libitum energy intake was measured at a lunch meal 3.5 h later. The lipid emulsion increased fullness compared with an energy-matched lipid control but only when administered within the semi-liquid fermented yoghurt (P < 0.05). There were no effects on satiety ratings when co-presented with water or with the solid food muffin. Energy and macronutrient intake were not significantly decreased by any of the emulsion treatments. We conclude that effects are small, the format in which lipid emulsions are consumed influences postprandial satiety, and there is no evidence that this emulsion alters eating behaviour at the subsequent meal.