<%BANNER%>

Influence of Chia Seeds on Satiety

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044269/00001

Material Information

Title: Influence of Chia Seeds on Satiety
Physical Description: 1 online resource (101 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Balakrishnan, Gayathri
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: chia -- glms -- satiety -- vas
Food Science and Human Nutrition -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food Science and Human Nutrition thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Chia, an annual herbaceous plant of genus Salvia, is a rich source of dietary fiber and n-3 poly unsaturated fatty acids to humans. This study mainly looked at the satiety effects of chia seeds (Salvia hispanica) in human subjects when consumed in the form of a baked food product. Forty two subjects, who participated in the study, came in a fasting state for muffins, where they were fed muffins with or without chia seeds. After consumption of the muffins, subjects recorded their hunger and fullness response in two different sensory scales, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and generally Labelled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) for every 10 minutes, over a period of 90 minutes. Baseline measurement of hunger and fullness before eating the muffins was also given by the subjects in both the scales. Subjects also rated the sensory attributes of muffins (overall acceptability, sweetness and texture) in gLMS scale. One-way ANOVA was performed to find significant differences between chia and control muffins in terms of satiety and sensory attributes. The study results showed that chia seeds may enhance satiety as the subjects felt fuller with chia than control muffins. The study also showed that gLMS scale is more sensitive in measuring satiety than VAS. Significant difference was not found in the sensory attributes of chia and control muffins, which proved that palatability does not influence satiety and addition of chia seeds does not affect the sensory attributes of muffins.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Gayathri Balakrishnan.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Goodrich, Renee M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2012-11-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044269:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044269/00001

Material Information

Title: Influence of Chia Seeds on Satiety
Physical Description: 1 online resource (101 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Balakrishnan, Gayathri
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: chia -- glms -- satiety -- vas
Food Science and Human Nutrition -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food Science and Human Nutrition thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Chia, an annual herbaceous plant of genus Salvia, is a rich source of dietary fiber and n-3 poly unsaturated fatty acids to humans. This study mainly looked at the satiety effects of chia seeds (Salvia hispanica) in human subjects when consumed in the form of a baked food product. Forty two subjects, who participated in the study, came in a fasting state for muffins, where they were fed muffins with or without chia seeds. After consumption of the muffins, subjects recorded their hunger and fullness response in two different sensory scales, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and generally Labelled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) for every 10 minutes, over a period of 90 minutes. Baseline measurement of hunger and fullness before eating the muffins was also given by the subjects in both the scales. Subjects also rated the sensory attributes of muffins (overall acceptability, sweetness and texture) in gLMS scale. One-way ANOVA was performed to find significant differences between chia and control muffins in terms of satiety and sensory attributes. The study results showed that chia seeds may enhance satiety as the subjects felt fuller with chia than control muffins. The study also showed that gLMS scale is more sensitive in measuring satiety than VAS. Significant difference was not found in the sensory attributes of chia and control muffins, which proved that palatability does not influence satiety and addition of chia seeds does not affect the sensory attributes of muffins.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Gayathri Balakrishnan.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Goodrich, Renee M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2012-11-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044269:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 INFLUENCE OF CHIA SEEDS ON SATIETY By GAYATHRI BALAKRISHNAN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Gayathri Balakrishnan

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my parents and brother for their constant support and encouragement throughout my graduate studies. I thank my advisors Dr. Goodrich and Dr. Percival for their valuable guidance and support that helped me to complete the thesis successfully. I take this opportunity to thank my committee members Dr. Sims and Dr. Rowland for their valuable comments that improved the contents of my thesis. I am also grateful to Eric Dreyer and Dr. Asl i who helped me with designing experiments for my project Finally, I thank everyone who directly or indirectly helped me to complete my thesis.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 Specific Aims ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 12 Obesity: Backg round and Significance ................................ ................................ ... 12 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 13 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ .................... 15 Scienc e behind Satiety ................................ ................................ ........................... 15 Effect of Fiber and PUFA on Satiety ................................ ................................ ....... 16 Salvia Hispanica (Chia Seeds) ................................ ................................ ............... 18 Studies on Effect of Chia on Human Health ................................ ............................ 20 Satiety Measurement Scales ................................ ................................ .................. 22 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................ ................................ ................ 25 Preliminary Work ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 25 Study Protocol ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 25 Muffin Prepara tion ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 26 4 DATA ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 28 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ............... 30 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 31 Generally Labelled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) ................................ .......................... 31 Visual Analog Sc ale (VAS) ................................ ................................ ..................... 32 Difference in gLMS and VAS scale ................................ ................................ ......... 33 Sensory analysis of Chia and Control Muffins ................................ .................. 34 Prolonged Satiety Effects of Control and Chia Muffins ................................ ..... 34 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE STUDY ................................ ................................ 47 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 47

PAGE 5

5 Future Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 47 APPENDIX A PART ICIPANT RECRUITMENT DOCUMENTS AND MUFFIN RECIPE ................ 49 B RESULTS OF EACH PANELIST ................................ ................................ ............ 54 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 97 BIOGRAPHIC AL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 101

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 5 1 Average hunger difference for all 37 panelists at time points 0 90 minutes in gLMS scale ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 36 5 2 Average fullness difference for all 37 panelists at time points 0 90 minutes in gLMS scale ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 37 5 3 Average hunger difference for all 37 panelists at time points 0 90 minutes in VAS scale ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 38 5 4 Average fullness difference for all 37 panelists at time points 0 90 minutes in VAS scale ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 39 5 5 Results from analysis of variance bet ween chia and control muffins. ................. 40 5 6 Mean for the sensory attributes (overall acceptability (likeability), sweetness and texture) in control and chia muffins ................................ .............................. 40 5 7 Number of panelist responses for control and chia muffin for the question ................................ ................................ ........ 41

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 5 1 Control is marked in blue. ................................ ................................ ................... 42 5 2 Graph of data from T able 5 1 gLMS ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 43 5 3 Graph of the data from T able 5 gLMS ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 44 5 4 Graph of data from T able 5 ... 45 5 5 Graph of data from T able 5 ................ 46 B 1 .......................... 55 B 2 .......................... 56 B 3 .......................... 57 B 4 .......................... 58 B 5 .......................... 59 B 6 .......................... 60 B 7 .......................... 61 B 8 .......................... 62 B 9 .......................... 63 B 10 .......................... 64

PAGE 8

8 B 11 .......................... 65 B 12 .......................... 66 B 13 .......................... 67 B 14 .......................... 68 B 15 .......................... 69 B 16 (Bottom) scale .......................... 70 B 17 MS (Top) and VAS (Bottom) scale .......................... 71 B 18 .......................... 72 B 19 .......................... 73 B 20 .......................... 74 B 21 .......................... 75 B 22 .......................... 76 B 23 .......................... 77 B 24 .......................... 78 B 25 (Bottom) scale .......................... 79 B 26 (Top) and VAS (Bottom) scale .......................... 80

PAGE 9

9 B 27 .......................... 81 B 28 .......................... 82 B 29 (Bottom) scale .......................... 83 B 30 MS (Top) and VAS (Bottom) scale .......................... 84 B 31 .......................... 85 B 32 .......................... 86 B 33 tom) scale .......................... 87 B 34 p) and VAS (Bottom) scale .......................... 88 B 35 .......................... 89 B 36 .......................... 90 B 37 ottom) scale .......................... 91 B 38 op) and VAS (Bottom) scale .......................... 92 B 39 .......................... 93 B 40 (Bottom) scal ........................... 94 B 41 (Top) and VAS (Bottom) scale .......................... 95 B 42 .......................... 96

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Flor ida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science INFLUENCE OF CHIA SEEDS ON SATIETY By Gayathri Balakrishnan May 2012 Chair: Ren e Goodrich Schneider Major: Food Science and Human Nutrition Chia, an annual herbaceous plant of genus Salvia is a rich source of dietary fiber and n 3 poly unsaturated fatty acids to humans. This study mainly looked at the satiety effects of chia seeds ( Salvia hispanica ) in human subjects when consumed in the form of a baked food product. Forty two subjects, who participated in the study, came in a fasting state for muffins, where they were fed muffin s with or without chia seeds. After consumption of the muffins, s ubjects recorded their hunger and fullness response in two different sensory scales, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and generally Labelled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) for every 10 minut es, over a period of 90 minutes. Baseline measurement of hunger and fullness before eating the muffins was also given by the subject s in both the scales. Subjects also rated the sensory attributes of muffins (overall acceptability, sweetness and texture ) in g LMS scale. One way ANOVA was performed to find significant differences between chia and control muffins in terms of satiety and s ensory attributes. The study results showed that chia seeds may enhance satiety as the subjects felt fuller with chia than control muffins. The study also showed that gLMS scale is more sensitive in measuring satiety than VAS. Significant difference was not found in the

PAGE 11

11 sensory attributes of chia and control muffins, which proved that palatability does not influence satiety and addition of chia seeds does not affect the sensory attributes of muffins.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Specific Aims Prevalence of obesity is increasing drastically throughout the world due to life style changes. According to the recent statistics report, estimated occurrence of overweight and obesity includes 66.3% of the overall U.S. adult population ( Flegal and others 2010). Rise in obesity increases the risk of medical problems such as cardiovascular diseases, stroke, diabetes and cancer. Changes in life style such as balanced diet and proper physical exercise can help to reduce the incidence of obesity. The seeds of Salvia hispanica, commonly known as chia seeds, contain high amount of dietary fiber and omega 3 fatty acids and h ave shown to decrease obesity and illnesses associated with it (Vuksan and others 20 10) Previous research utilizing chia seeds was performed using traditional visual analog scale (VAS); this research suggested that chia muffins create feeling of fullness and hence might help to reduce food intake The present study aims to feed particip ants with two types of muffin: control and muffin containing specified amount of chia seeds and to determine the effects of the muffins on satiety. The study also aims to determine the differences in the use of sensory scales such Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Labelled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) in measuring satiety. Positive results from the study may prove chia to lower appeti te and may aid in weight reduction. Obesity: Background a nd Significance Obesity, a condition where there is excess accumulation of bod y fats that exerts adverse effects on health, is increasing dramatically in the U.S. in the past few decades. According to a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

PAGE 13

13 prevalence of obesity has constantly increased after 1998 in all the 50 states of the U.S. and across the population of all age groups ( Pi Sunyer and others 2002). It is based on the Body Mass Index (BMI), which is defined as weight (kg) by height (m 2 ). A BMI value between 25 and 30 is considered overweight and great er than 30 is c onsidered obese. Approximately 68 % of the US adults were reported to be overweight (BMI >25) or obese (BMI >30) in the year 2007 2008 (Wing 2010). Among children, Ogden and others documented in the year 2002 that obesity occurrence increase d from 10.5% to 15.5% in 12 to 19 year olds, from 11.3% to 15.3% in 6 to 11 year olds, 7.2% to 10.4% in 2 to 5 year olds (Ogden and others 2002). Further report showed that prevalence of overweight has risen from 13.8% to 16.0% for female children and from 14.0% to 18.2% for male children during 2004 2006 (Wofford 2008). Both overweight and obesity are associated with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol level, asthma, arthritis and premature coronary heart disease (Mokdad and others 2003). E ating unhealthy food, energy imbalance and physical inactivity are the three important factors that lead to obesity. Most dietary approaches for obesity treatment or prevention attempt to limit intake of high fat, low nutrient dense foods (Epstein and othe rs 2001). Whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables are diets that promote healthy life style due to their nutritional content. These foods have high dietary fiber and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), which may be effective i n regulating body weight. Objectives The first objective is to determine if chia seeds when incorporated into muffins have a significant effect on reducing appetite. It is hypothesized that due to high amount of fiber and omega 3 fatty acids, consumptio n of chia muffin will increa se satiety in

PAGE 14

14 human subjects compared to control muffins. A s econd objective of the study is to determine efficiency of different sensory scales in measuring satiety. The research aims at utilizing the Visual Analog s cale and generally Labelled Magnitude S cale to measure the intensity of hunger and fullness perceived by human subjects. Comparison between gLMS and VAS scales will help to determine if gLMS scale is more efficient in measuring the satiety response over VAS scale. The third objective of the stu dy is to evaluate the sensory characteristics of chia muffins such as sweetness, texture and overall acceptability of the muffin using gLMS scale in order to know if addition of chia seeds to muffins has an effect on palatability of the product.

PAGE 15

15 CH APTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Science b ehind Satiety The appetite rise prior to meals involves a complex interplay between exogenous Number of mechanisms has been proposed to determine the onset and duration of hunger. At early times, it was believed that depletion of energy producing substance such as carbohydrates, protein and fats, initiated the feeling of hunger (Ritter 2004). Rece nt research on food intake and energy balance has discovered that increase in appetite is mainly because of hormones present in the gut. Ghrelin, a GI peptide hormone, primarily produced in the stomach, plays a key role in meal initiation. Plasma ghrelin p eaks before a regular meal, and then decreases within 1 hour of a meal, to progressively increase to another peak just before the next meal suggesting that ghrelin may be a meal initiator ( Nslund and others 2007). It is produced at a higher concentration during fasting and is suppressed by re feeding of nutrients. Production of ghrelin stimulates gastric motility and acid secretion, both of which cau se increase in anticipation of a meal (Cummings and others 2004). Intravenous injection of ghrelin in rats increased fasting motility and the rate of gastric emptying. (Edholm and others 2004). In a cross sectional study, higher levels of ghrelin secretion were observed among teenagers and they reported a greater food intake compared to lean counterparts. Earl y obesity is due to higher plasma ghrelin levels which stimulates hunger and increases energy intake (Langlois and others 2011). Action of ghrelin on eating behavior is controlled by regions in hypothalamus of the brain.

PAGE 16

16 Satiation is the physiological pro cess that ceases a person from eating further. Satiation is referred as negative control process as it is initiated by the food that is being ingested and prevents further eating. It is a short term phenomenon that begins early in a meal and terminates whe n eating ends. This is the process that controls the meal size. Satiation is also known as intra meal satiety. While satiation is a temporary process, satiety is a permanent non eating state that begins at the end of one meal, lasting until the next occur rence of hunger (Nicolaidis and others 1985). It leads to inhibition of further eating, decline in hunger, increase in fullness after a meal has finished. Satiety is also known as post ingestive satiety or inter meal satiety. It is controlled by two mechan isms, one occurring at brain level and the other at gastrointestinal tract. Gastro intestinal tract is innervated with sensory neurons that send signals to hypothalamus regions in brain which regulates satiety. When nutrients enter the intestine, several ho rmones and regulatory factors from the gut are released into intestine. GI tract produces several peptides that act as primary mediators of satiety Cholecystokinin (CCK) is a majo r hormone secreted by gut endocrine cells that regulates gastric intestinal motility and act as potential satiety factor (Rogers and others gives fullness sensation. Mechanism involved in regulation of satiety by CCK hormone is not fully understood. Effect of F iber and PUFA on S atiety Satiation and satiety sensation given by fibers and PUFA can be described as the feelings that lead to cessation of a meal and inhibit t he desire to eat between meals (Willis and others 2009).There is no standard accepted definition for dietary fiber.

PAGE 17

17 American Association of Cereal Chemists defined dietary fibers as Dietary fiber is the edible parts of plants or analogous carbohydrates t hat are resistant to digestion and absorption in the human small intestine with complete or partial fermentation in the large Legumes, oats, nuts, fruits and vegetables, grains are the food sources that contain high amount of dietary fiber. The benefits of consuming foods rich in fiber are numerous, ranging from improved large bowel function to slowed digestion and absorption of carbohydrate and fat and reduced risk for certain diseases ( Bourdon and others 2001) Foods rich in fiber lower obesity by promoting the feeling of satiety. Though the mechanism for this relationship is unclear, following are the postulated reasons: In the gut, certain soluble fibers form a viscous gel matrix that is believed to slow gastric emptying and prolongs ci rculation of nutrients (Howarth and others 2001; Hoad and others 2004). A vailability of circulating nutrient substrates may signal hunger and/or satiety, and thus the ability of fiber to extend the period during which nutrients are absorbed may reduce hun ger and/or increase satiety (Howarth and others 2001). Fiber rich foods may influence satiety through increased mastication or changes in gut hormones (i.e., ghrelin or glucagon like peptide 1) (Willis and others 2009) Higher fiber diets may directly reduc e digestible energy intake and in this way may contribute to satiety and long term weight management ( Kritchevsky and others 198 8 ; Bonfield 1995) peptide, glucagon like peptide 1 and cholecystokinin (Slavin 2005). Holt and others observed a direct correlation between subjective satiety scores and level of CCK in

PAGE 18

18 blood after ingestion of foods with different amount of fiber (Holt and others 2001). CCK levels increased on administ ration of beans, as a source of dietary fiber in males. (Bourdon and others 2001). The recommended daily intake of fiber for healthy adults is between 20 and 35 grams per day ( Burton 1999 ). Consuming the above mentioned amount of fiber may help in managin g body weight. The other important component in human diet that creates satiety is unsaturated fatty acids. Satiating effects depend upon the physiochemical properties of fats such as fatty acid chain length and degree of saturation (Maljaars and others, 2 009). The fatty acid profile of healthful diets can be improved by substituting monounsaturated and 3 long cid (EPA) and decosa hexanoic acid (DHA) (Nettleton and Katz 3 PUFAs are walnuts, flax seed, fish oil and canola. The dietary recommendation of approximately 500 mg/d of EPA and DHA is suggested for cardiovascular disease risk reducti on (Gebauer and others 2006). Salvia Hispanica (Chia Seeds) Chia is an annual herbaceous plant that belongs to genus Salvia of Lamiacea family. Salvia includes more than 1000 species. It has radiated extensively in three regions of the world: Central and South America (500 spp.), western Asia (200 spp.) and eastern Asia (100 spp.) (Alziar 19 88 ). Chia was first cultivated by the Aztecs. They are native crops of Mexico and northern Guatemala and are still consumed as a functional food in parts of South America. The plant produces small oval shaped white or black seeds, measuring 2.0 mm x 1.5 mm ( I xta in a and others 2008). Chia seeds

PAGE 19

19 (also known as Sage seeds, Spanish Sage) are often used as food additives in fruit drinks. Recent studies have shown that ch ia gel can be used instead of eggs in cakes to formulate a nutritious snack. (Borneo and others 2010). Chia seeds have an oil content of 25% to 35%, are rich in n 3 polyunsaturat ed fatty acids (Taga and others 1984 ). They also have a protein content of 17% and others 200 1 ). Dry fractionation of chia seeds (oil extracted) yielded a fiber rich others (2009) estimated t otal dietary fiber (TDF) in defatted chia flour obtained using gravimetric method as 56.45 g/100g. Reyes Caudillo and others (2008) also measured the total dietary fiber in two dif ferent chia seeds using the same method though he used dialysis instead of ethanol precipitation. TDF estimated was 39.94 g/100 g and 36.97 g/100 g. It is good source for minerals like calcium, phosphorus, potassium, zinc and copper (Ayerza 2001). Chia see d does not have the antinutritional components such as Vitamin B6 antagonistic factors, linamarin, linustatin, and neolinustatin that are reported in flax seeds (Ayerza 200 8 ). Sodium content in chia seeds is 37% lower than flax seed (Ayerza 2005). With its rich nutrient composition, compared with most whole grains currently recommended, chia represents the highest known whole food source of dietary fiber and the n linolenic acid (ALA), in nature. (Vukson and others 200 7). Food and Drug Administration has not offered GRAS (Generally Regarded a s chia is considered a food and hence is

PAGE 20

20 of time promotes the stability of nutrients in food. It has been used to enrich the omega 3 fatty acid content in foods such as egg, milk and poultry. Ayerza in the year 200 8 found the s tability of these acids to be higher in animals fed with chia compared to flax seeds. The study showed that higher availability of omega 3 fatty acids in the animals fed with chia was because of the antioxidants present in the seeds that prevent fatty acid degradation. The literature available on chia seeds suggests that it has beneficial components such as higher amount of 3 fatty acids, antioxidant compounds and fibers that exerts positive effects on human health. The beneficial effects of chia seeds ha ve not been explored to a greater extent. Because of the aforementioned nutritional properties, these seeds are gaining importance among the food industries for formulation of healthy foods Studies on E ffect of C hia on H uman H ealth Vuksan and others, in t he year 2007 showed that consuming 37g/ day of chia seeds reduces blood pressure. The research was a single blinded crossover study that evaluated blood glucose, blood pressure, and other cardiovascular risk factors in 20 people with type 2 diabetes. Chia was administered to the subjects as bread that contained ground seeds. The results showed that systolic and diastolic blood pressure declined in the individuals from 129 to 123 mmHg and 81 to 78 mmHg respectively. linolenic acid increased the level of Eicosopentanoic acid (EPA).Hence the study showed high amount of ALA and dietary fibers are the components of chia that are responsible for attenuating cardiovascular risk factors.

PAGE 21

21 The same author observed the effect of escalating doses of chia seeds on glycemia and satiety. The study was conducted on 11 health individuals ( 6 males and 5 females; age 303.6 years; body mass index 22.21.3 kg/m2) using 0, 7, 15 and 24g of chia mixed with white bread. Effects on glycemia were investigated by analyzing the blood samples using glucose oxidase method. The effect of satiety was measured using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for four questions. The results of the study showed that increasing doses of chia lowered glycemia and also t here was prolonged satiety feeling on consumption of the white bread containing chia (Vuksan and others 2010). The prolonged satiety effect of chia seeds that was observed in the study is due to reduction in the nutrient delivery rate from stomach to the i ntestine that provides extended satiety signal to gut receptors (Read and others 1994). The slower digestion rate is because of the high fiber of chia seeds. Reyes Caudillo and others in 2008 studied the antioxidant activity and dietary fiber content of t wo chia seeds (Jalisco and Sinalao) grown in different parts of Mexico. SDF (Soluble dietary fiber) and IDF (Insoluble dietary fiber) content of Jalisco seeds were 6.84 and 34.9 g/100 g, respectively, while in Sinaloa seeds, it was 6.16 and 32.87 g/100 g, respectively. This result was in accordance to the ratio mentioned by American Dietetic Association which recommends the fiber intake for adults as 25 30g/day with IDF/SDF ratio 3:1. The antioxidant compounds determined includes caffeic acid, chlorogenic acid and quercitin, kaempferol. The results of the study proved that chia seeds are important source of dietary fiber and antioxidants. Another study investigated the difference in effects of chia and flax seeds on postprandial glycemia and appetite (Vuksa n and others 2010). The study was

PAGE 22

22 performed on 9 health individuals who consumed a glucose drink alone or the drink with either chia or flax seeds. The study showed that Chia is 3 times more viscous than flax seeds and reduces glucose level significantly compared to control. The satiety scores were measured using hunger questionnaire for 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 mins after post consumption of products containing chia and flax seeds. Chia and flax consumption increased 2hr satiety scores compared to contr ol by 83% and 55% respectively. Therefore chia seeds seem to be more effective than flax seeds in increasing satiety among human adults due to the increased viscosity Satiety Measurement Scales There are several factors such as psychological, environmental and social that affects the eating habit of an individual. It is suggested that satiety, desire to eat a food, intention to restrict diet are the three main factors that influence eating (Bruns trom 2008). Satiety is based on knowledge about the food and the extent of feeling of fullness it gave in the past. This often decides the amount of food to be eaten to gain fullness. The second factor is likability of the food. Foods that are more appeal ing and tastier are often eaten in higher amounts than required. The third factor involves restricting the diet in order to lose weight. Any food that satisfies these factors when included in diet will help to minimize the incidence of obesity. There is no standard method to measure satiety. Measurement of satiety is often done either by rating satiety related sensation before and after consuming a meal or by measuring the calorie intake before and after test meal. VAS (Visual Analog Scale) is the measureme nt tool used to determine satiety. Flint and others (2000) examined the reproducibility and validity of visual analog scales (VAS) for measurement of appetite sensations. VAS is a horizontal scale that is generally 100 or 50 mm in length.

PAGE 23

23 Endpoints of the scale have phrases that denote extreme sensations related to appetite. The participants mark the scale corresponding to their subjective feeling at th e particular time point (Flint 2000). Satiety sensations are measured at regular intervals for 2 to 3 hour s after ingestion of a meal. For analyzing the results, a graphical curve can be drawn from the assessments done at different time points and the area under the curve be calculated ( Flint 2000 ). Though this is the widely used technique for measuring satiet y, it cannot be used for measuring satiety response between different panelists. In 199 6 measuring the intensity of oral sensations. They are used commonly for intensity estimates of exte rnal sensations of a food product. gLMS extends from 0 to 100 in case of intensity rating scale, and 100 to 100 in hedonic rating scale. It is a continuous line sensatio n. Use of such verbal anchors gives the subjects a similar idea of intensity of the experience suggested by those phrases, and thus be placed on the same subjective scale (Lawless and others 2009). Since it is a continuous scale, it enables the subjects to indicate even the subtle difference in intensity among stimuli they experience (Lim and others 2010). Values from gLMS scale have ratio properties that could be used to make statements such as one product was twice as intense as the other. gLMS was proven to be the most effective for application to chemosensory stimuli that include extremely intense (painful) sensations (Green and others 1996). gLMS scale wa s used to measure satiety by Car d e llo and others in 2005. The study compared use of gLMS scale to VA S scale on measuring satiety response to foods by human subjects. It was concluded that gLMS was more sensitive, reliable to

PAGE 24

24 measure satiety compared to VAS. gLMS allows greater discrimination of satiety sensations, especially at higher levels of hunger or fullness, and enables ratio statements to be made about differences in the intensity of satiety sensations, e.g.

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHOD S Preliminary Work A propos the In stitutiona l Review Board (IRB 02) for approval in June 2011. After the approval, to recruit participants, flyers were hung on campus notice boards, and emails were sent out through lists erve. The number of p articipants required to find significance difference in sati ety was determined using Power Analysis. People were recruited based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Only the subjects who are above 18 years of age, generally hea l th y did not take medication that affects appetite, did not have food allergy were considered for the stud y All those who volunteered to participate in the study were told about the study protocol and were asked to sign an informed consent. The consent form a nd flyer used for subject recruitment can be found in Appendix A. Study Protocol Once the consent form was signed, each participant was instructed to come early in the morning, in fasting state (8 to 12 hours of fasting), to eat muffins. The study was single blinded, crossover study; hence the participants were not given information on the type of muffin they consumed. On the first day of study, each panelist was assigned a panelist number that was used by them throughout the study. In order to indicat e the feeling of hunger and fullness, computer ballots ( Compusense software) were used. Each panelist was asked questions on his/her age, gender, height and weight. After collecting these information, they were asked to indicate how hungry or full they are before eating the muffin. Then each panelist w as provided with two muffins (either the muffins without chia or with chia) and instructed to eat them within 10 minutes. Out of

PAGE 26

26 the two muffins, panelists were required to eat the first muffin, while the seco nd muffin was optional. The satiety effect of muffins was indicated by the panelists in two different scales, namely Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and generally Labelled Magnitude Scale (gLMS), for every ten minutes, for a total time of 90 minutes. In the fir st two sessions, VAS scale was used for indicating satiety. Instructions on the use of VAS scale were given. VAS was a continuous horizontal line scale, subjects marked where they were on the scale based on how hungry or full they felt. After complet ing th e study using VAS, training was given to the subjects to get acquainted with gLMS. During t he training, participants were told how to use the two types of gLMS scale (hedonic and intensity) and questions pertaining to use of both the scales were given to t hem. In the third and fourth sessions, procedure same as the first two sessions was followed, but instead of VAS, panelists gave their hunger/fullness sensation usi ng intensity gLMS scale. In these session s questions on how much they like the muffins wer e rated in hedonic gLMS. Additional questions on when do they think they can have their next meal was also asked. Both VAS and gLMS scale used in the study can be found in Appendix A. All the tests were conducted in private booths to avoid panelist discuss ion about the muffin. Panelists remained in the lab for entire duration of the study period. They were allowed to do sedentary activities like reading books, working on laptops during the study. After completion of the four sessions, all the panelists wer e compensated for their participation. Muffin Preparation The muffins were prepared according to the recipe developed by Devin Lewis, a UF graduate student in Food Science. The recipe was modified by excluding almond extract and raisin puree. The ingredie nts used for muffin preparation is given in

PAGE 27

27 Appendix A The difference between the chia muffins and the control muffins was 40% of flour used for making chia muffin was substituted with ground chia seeds. In terms of nutritional properties, chia muffin con tains 5.9g of fiber and 3.6g ALA compared with control muffin which has 1g of fiber and <1g ALA. All the ingredients required for muffin preparation was purchased from a local grocery stores. Muffins were prepared the night before the day of study accordin g to the muffin method. First, all the dry ingredients are sifted and mixed together. Then the wet ingredients (milk, egg, butter, vegetable oil and sugar) were combined separately. Chia seeds were ground into powder and sifted to remove the hull. Finally, the wet and dry ingredients were blended together until all the components were completely incorporated into the batter. Muffin pans sprayed with canola oil were filled 3/4 th with muffin batter. The oven was preheated to 325F. After introducing the muffi ns, a good uniform flow of heat to the bottom of muffin pans, at 350F for 20 mins was applied. Muffins were then cooled to room and held in Ziploc bags, marked with three digit random number (120 for control and 374 for chia) until the time of study.

PAGE 28

2 8 CHA PTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS Two different types of scales, visual analog scale and generally Labelled Magnitude Scale were used for measurement of hunger ad fullness. The visual analog scale used in the study was a continuous horizontal line scale (100 mm) with the ends anchored with extreme states. The VAS scales ha d yo that were asked for every ten minutes for 90 minutes, and horizontal line at a point on the scale of 0 100. In case of gLMS, for assessing hunger and fullness, intensity scale was used. Participants were first asked to think about the most intense s ensation they have fullness intensity by comparing it with the most intense sensation they defined to 100 in the ir scale. Additional questions on overall acceptance, sweetness and texture of the muffins were asked using the hedonic gLMS. For the hedonic scale, panelist s defined 100 and 100, 100 being most unpl easant experience in life and 100 being pleasant experience in life. They rated how much they like the sensory attributes of the muffin s based on the extreme ends of their own hedonic gLMS scale. The results were collected using compusense software and the data for each participant in each session was placed in an excel sheet. The difference between the initial value (before eating the muffin) and value at each time point after eating the

PAGE 29

29 muffin was calculated for all 42 panelists. Average value of the diff erence, for the entire group at every time point was determined. Analysis of variance was performed on th is data to decide if there is a significant difference in the hunger and fullness provided by chia and control muffins. Additional analysis on comparis on of VAS and gLMS scale based on ANOVA results for hunger and fullness difference in palatability of two muffins was also performed in ANOVA The graphs for the results and analysis of variance to determine the significant difference were done using MS E xcel and JMP software.

PAGE 30

30 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Forty two panelists (28 female and 14 male) attended all four sessions of the study. The age of the panelists was in the range of 18 30, with average BMI 22.36 3.22. Each panelist had 10 data points, for each session, where they tasted either chia or control muffin and used either VAS or gLMS scale. Graphs were created for each h VAS and gLMS scale. Sample individual graphs are given in F igure 5 1 The graphs of for all the 42 panelists from VAS and gLMS for chia and control muffin, can be found in Appendix B These graphs gave a visual idea on difference in panelist response fo r the two muffins in two different scales. From the graph, any panelist whose response showed aberrant behavior (data that showed varied illogical trend) was eliminated from data analysis. Out of forty two panelists, data of 5 panelists (Panelist 1, 6, 10 44 and 51) were not considered for the result analysis due to non specific, irregular pattern in their response for the two questions in VAS and gLMS scale. After discarding the outliers, difference between the initial value (hunger/fullness before eatin g the muffin) and value at each time point (0 to 90 mins) was calculated for each panelist. The average difference across the panelists at each time point was determined. One way ANOVA was performed on the overall mean difference of control and chia muffin s for both hunger/fullness in VAS and gLMS scale Comparison of means for control and chia at an alpha level of 0.05 In order to determine the overall acceptability, sweetness and texture of muffins questio n s related to these sensory attributes were asked to panelists in hedonic gLMS.

PAGE 31

31 One way ANOVA was performed in the means of control and chia muffins to determine statistical significant difference between the two muffins. To evaluate if chia has prolonged satiety effec ts, even after study period, panelist s were asked when they would like to eat next. Table summarizing the results of this question is presented in T able 5 7. The results pertaining to each question in VAS and gLMS scale is presented below: Discussion The a nalysis to determine the treatment effect (chia vs control) in both gLMS and VAS was accomplished by change from baseline calculations. Instead of plotting the raw data at each time, computing the change in value at each time point from baseline, helps to minimize the standard error and reduces the confidence interval, hence making the estimation of treatment effect more accurate. Performing ANOVA on the mean change from baseline values is more sensitive than ANOVA on the average of raw data (Vickers 2001). Generally Labelled Magnitude Scale ( gLMS) ned by panelists were mostly related to physical pain a person experienced from surgery, or external sensations such as sound or light. Response given to hunger or fullness was based on this strongest sensation given by the panelist for 100 in the scale. The average difference between the initial hunger before eating and the hunger response at each time point for chia and control muffin, for all 37 panelists is s hown in Table 5 1 and F igure 5 2 The values are negative number because after eating the

PAGE 32

32 muff in, panelists felt less hungry compared to the hunger they experienced before eating the muffin (Initial). Hence subtraction of the hunger response at each time point from initial yields negative results. Based on the values in T able 5 1, panelists were le ss hungry with chia till 30 minutes compared to control muffin. Hunger felt by panelists was slightly greater or the same for chia compared to control after 30 mins till 90 mins. Based on ANOVA results, there are no significant differences (p=0.95) in the hunger experienced by chia and control muffin. In case of fullness, f rom T able 5 2 and F igure 5 3 there is a notable difference between the fullness given by chia and control muffin in gLMS scale. The average difference between the initial value (fullne ss before eating the muffin) and the fullness value at each time point is greater for chia muffin than control muffin for the entire duration of study. This shows that panelists felt fuller with chia muffin than with con trol muffin. From F igure 5 3 the ch ange in fullness before and after eating the muffin is consistently higher for chia than control at every time point. One way analysis of variance of the average difference in fullness from initial showed that fullness given by chia muffin is significantly higher than fullness given by control muffin (p< 0.05). Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at all 4 shows the average difference from initial hunger (hunger before eating) per time point for the entire group for both control and chia muffin. F rom the Graph 5 3 and F igure 5 4 in VA S, the values for group average difference for chia is lesser than control, from immediately after eating the muffin (0 min) till 50 minutes, which implies panelists felt less hungry till

PAGE 33

33 50 mins with chia compared to control muffin. At 60 and 90 minutes, hunger experienced after eating control muffin is slightly lesser than chia, while their responses are the same at 70 and 80 mins. One way ANOVA to determine the overall treatment effect showed no statistically significant difference between the two muffi ns, though the mean val u e for chia ( 35.08) was lesser than control ( 33.85). n that both chia and control mad e them fuller to the same extent (Graph 5 4 and F igure 5 5 ). Average change in fullness from the initial value show ed no noticeable difference in the fullness given by both the muffins at each time points (i.e.) change in fullness before and after eating the muffins at each time point is almost the same for chia and control muffins. According to one way ANOVA there is no significant treatment effect in fullness felt by panelists after eating control and chia muffins. Difference in gLMS and VAS scale The satiety response given by the panelists f or chia and control muffin showed statistical significant difference in gLMS scale, for fullness while there are no notable differences for both hunger and fullness between the two muffins in VAS scale. Although VA S scale shows difference in the satiety response between the two muffins, the difference is much more pronounced in gLMS for fullness than VAS. Though both scales are proven to work well for making within subject comparison (i.e. to determine the treatment effects, without seeing differences across the groups), gLMS seems to be more sensitive and captures more differences than VAS. This is because the absolute intensities associated with a given descriptor can vary across individuals depending on differences in experience or

PAGE 34

34 physiology (Bartoshuk and others 2003). The extreme hunger or fullness sensation as sociated with one individual ma y not be the same for another individual gLMS accounts for this heterogene ous nature of human subject s In gLMS, since the anchors same way by all the panelists, which makes it more sensitive in finding differences. The response given by a sub ject for the same question in gLMS scale is more reliable than Sensory analysis of C hia and C ontrol M uffins In order to determine how much panelists liked chia and control muffins, sensory analysis was performed using hedonic gLMS scale ( 100 and 100 in the scale were most unpleasant and pleasa nt experience). Three questions t elists. One way analysis of variance was performed on the mean scores of the three sensory attributes of chia and control muffins (Table 5 6). Though the mean for overall acceptability of chia was slightly more than control, there was no statistical signif icant difference in the overall acceptability. Similarly, in sweetness and texture both the muffins were accepted by the panelists to the same extent. Panelists liked both the muffins equally, which implies that, positive effects of chia on satiety compare d to control were not influenced by palatability of muffins i.e. satiety did not change with respect to panelist likeability for the given muffin. It also shows that adding chia to muffins does not affect the acceptability of the muffins. Prolonged S atiety E ffects of Control and C hia M uffins Table 5

PAGE 35

35 prolonged satiety effects, even after the stu dy period. Subjects were given fo u r options for the eat again question: Immediately, within an hour, within two hours, after two hours. For chia muffin, out of 37 panelists, 26 (70%) of them answered that they would like to eat again after an hour or two hours. Within the 26 subjects, 15 answered they can have their next meal after 2 hours, while 11 opted for eating within next two hours. Number of subjects who wanted to eat again within an hour was 11. In case of control muffin, 11 subjects preferred to have their next meal after 2 hours, which is slightly lower compared to chia. Response for within an hour for control muffin was same as chia muffin (2 subjects chose immediately, 9 chose within an hour). Statistical analysis on difference in fullness and hunger across the group who varied in gender and BMI was performed. But due to unequal sample sizes for each group, significant conclusions cannot be drawn from the analysis.

PAGE 36

36 Table 5 1. Average hunger difference for all 37 panelists at time points 0 90 minutes in gLMS scale Time (mins) Average hunger difference per time point Chia gLMS Average hunger difference per time point Control gLMS 0 31.53 29.54 10 34.77 33.39 20 34.09 31.51 30 33.11 30.89 40 30.55 32.55 50 31.74 32.89 60 30.3 31.77 70 30.93 31.94 80 28.93 30.24 90 29.19 29.95 Values were obtained by subtracting from initial value (before consuming the muffin). A more negative value means a greater difference from zero and therefore LESS hungry

PAGE 37

37 T able 5 2. Average fullness difference for all 37 panelists at time points 0 90 minutes in gLMS scale Time (mins) Average fullness difference per time point Chia gLMS Average fullness difference per time point Control gLMS 0 36.18 28.57 10 35.67 25.65 20 34.12 25.3 30 32.5 26.88 40 31.35 24.8 50 31.04 23.55 60 30.38 23.13 70 28.68 22.86 80 26.08 21.64 90 24.72 21.89 Values were obtained by subtracting from initial value (before consuming the muffin). A more positive value indicates a greater difference from zero and therefore more full

PAGE 38

38 Table 5 3. Average hunger difference for all 37 panelists at time points 0 90 minutes in VAS scale Values were obtained by subtracting from initial value (before consuming the muffin). A more negative value indicates a greater difference from zero and therefore less hungry Time (mins) Average hunger difference per time point Chia VAS Average hunger difference per time point Control VAS 0 41.72 39.69 10 40.06 39.26 20 39.37 35.98 30 38.69 35.39 40 36.3 34.24 50 31.22 32.76 60 34.96 31.92 70 31.86 31.22 80 29.68 29.97 90 26.92 28.05

PAGE 39

39 Table 5 4 Average fullness difference for all 37 panelists at time points 0 90 minutes in VAS scale Values were obtained by subtracting from initial value (before consuming the muffin). A more positive value indicates a greater difference from zero and therefore more full Time (mins) Average fullness difference per time point Chia VAS Average fullness difference per time point Control VAS 0 48.08 49.92 10 47.85 46.46 20 45.92 46.81 30 44.34 45.32 40 41.7 44.62 50 40.36 41.08 60 38.6 38.68 70 35.55 38.62 80 34.49 33.41 90 32.76 32.36

PAGE 40

40 Table 5 5 Results from analysis of variance between chia and control muffins. Scale used Question Muffin Type Mean p value gLMS How hungry are you? Chia 31.514 a 0.9503 Control 31.467 a How full do you feel? Chia 31.0720 a 0.0002* Control 24.4270 b VAS How hungry are you? Chia 35.078 a 0.5428 Control 33.848 a How full do you feel? Chia 40.9650 a 0.7695 Control 41.7280 a *indicates significant difference between the muffins. Table 5 6. Mean for the sensory attributes (overall acceptability (likeability), sweetness and texture) in control and chia muffins Attributes Chia Control Overall acceptability 39.49 a 36.35 a Sweetness 34.89 a 34.22 a Texture 27.54 a 28.73 a

PAGE 41

41 Table 5 7 : Number of panelist responses for control and chia muffin for the question When do you like to eat again? Chia Control Immediately 4 2 Within an hour 7 9 Within 2 hours 11 14 After two hours 15 12

PAGE 42

42 Figure 5 1 and Control is marked in blue.

PAGE 43

43 Figure 5 2. Graph of data from T able 5 in gLMS -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Average hunger difference per time point in gLMS Time (mins) Group average difference per time point for "How hungry are you?" in gLMS Avg hunger difference per time pointControl-GLMS Avg hunger difference per time pointChia GLMS

PAGE 44

44 Figu re 5 3. Graph of the data from T able 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Average fullness difference per time point in gLMS Time (mins) Group average difference per time point for "How full do you feel?" in gLMS Avg fullness difference per time pointChia-GLMS Avg fullness difference per time pointControl-GLMS

PAGE 45

45 Figure 5 4. Graph of data from T able 5 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Average hunger difference per time point in VAS Time (mins) Group average difference per time point for "How hungry are you?" in VAS Avg hunger difference per time pointControl-VAS Avg hunger difference per time pointChia VAS

PAGE 46

46 Figure 5 5. Graph of data from T able 5 2 for the 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Average fullness difference per time point in VAS Time (mins) Group average difference per time point for "How full do you feel?" in VAS Avg fullness difference per time pointControl-VAS Avg fullness difference per time pointChia-VAS

PAGE 47

47 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE STUDY Conclusions The study was successful as there were positive results pertaining to the effect of chia on satiety level and use of gLMS scale for measuring satiety response. This study showed that incorporating chia in food products may promote satiet y by increasing ful lness for a longer time after a meal. Based on the results, most of the panelists felt fuller with chia muffins for a time period of 90 minutes compared to control muffin. High fiber content and omega 3 fatty acids of chia seeds have several health and nu tritional benefits on humans. Since fiber is an essential constituent of diet, t his study has shown chia can serve as a source of fiber and it might also have an effect to enhance satiety in human subjects by reducing the appetite for long period of time. Another important aspect of this study was the evaluation of different sensory scales in measuring satiety. Two types of scales, VAS and gLMS were used in the study to record satiety response. gLMS proved to be more sensitive than VAS and served as a bet ter tool for determining difference in satiety respo nse given by chia and control muffins This is the first study to use gLMS to determine difference in satiety between two muffins. The results from the study are encouraging and lay the basis for future studies that evaluate the use of gLMS to determine internal sensations. Future Study Though this study was d one using considerable number of panelists, there were not enough number of subjects to determine the difference in satiety response between populat ions varying in age, gender, body mass index. Since gLMS facilitates comparison across groups, further research on influence of chia seeds in regulating

PAGE 48

48 satiety in the above mentioned groups have to be carried out. Obesity is rising among children and ado lescents; hence studies to test increased satiety given by chia in these age groups can also be p e rformed Objective analysis of satiety should be done by measuring satiety related hormones such as glucagon like peptide 1, peptide YY, ghrelin, and cholecystokinin after chia consumption.

PAGE 49

49 APPENDIX A PARTICIPANT RECRUITM ENT DOCUMENTS AND MU FFIN RECIPE The documents included in the appendix are the IRB 02 approved flyer advertising this study, the informed consent, muffin recipe, visual analog scale, generally labelled magnitude scale, and individual graphs of the results. Flyer for recruiting participants

PAGE 50

50 Informed consent document signed by all the panelists INFORMED CONSENT Protocol title: INFLUENCE OF CHIA PRODUCTS ON SATIETY Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The main purpose of this study is to determine whether chia seeds ( Salvia hispanica) will exert an effect on satiety. Chia seeds will be administered as muffins. What will you be asked to do in the study: The study requires your participation for 4 days for a time period of two hours each day. There will be a training session in order to get you acquainted with the measurement technique used in the study. During the study, you will be asked to come to the test location in a fasting state. Two muffins will be provided and you will be instructed to eat the muffins at your own pace within ten minutes and rate the feeling of fullness on gene rally Labelled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 10 minutes intervals for next 90 minutes. Information about the type of muffin that was given will not be revealed. No other food will be provided during the study period. You will als o be asked to rate the sensory properties (sweetness, texture and overall liking) of the muffins. Out of four days, for the first two days, you will be asked to give the rating for fullness on VAS and the next two days will be allotted for gLMS. Time requi red : 4 days. Two hours per day.

PAGE 51

51 Risk and benefits: There is no direct benefit from the study. You may experience minor stomach discomfort if you have any gastrointestinal dis orders or diabetes. If you are pregnant, please do not participate in the study. Compensation: $ 10 per session Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number. The list connecting your name to this number will be kept in a locked file in my faculty supervisor's office. When the study is completed and the data have been analyzed, the list will be destroyed. Your name will not be used in any report. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Dr. Renee Goodrich, 352 Food Science and Human Nutrition Building PO Box 110370, Newell Drive, University of Florida, Gainesville, F L 32611 0370 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 392 0433.

PAGE 52

52 Agreemen t: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant:_________________________________________Date: ________________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: _________________ Muffin recipe Muffin Weight (g) Chia Flour 187.5 Milk 187.5 Sugar 150 Egg 60.9 Salt 2.55 Baking Powder 3.45 Baking Soda 1.72 Vegetable Oil 10.95 Vanilla Extract 3 Almond Extract 2.25 Raisin Puree 23.55 Nutmeg 1.5

PAGE 53

53 Cinnamon 2.25 Allspice 2.25 Brown Sugar 37.5 Butter 70.12 The above Muffin recipe shown is for the control muffin. It was developed by raisin puree and almond extract were excluded from the muffin in this study. All other ingre dients were used in the amounts mentioned in the muffin recipe For chia muffin 40% of the flour was substituted with 40% chia seeds ground into flour. 2% low fat milk was used in this study.

PAGE 54

54 APPENDIX B RESULTS OF EACH PANELIST The individual results for the study were kept in an excel spreadsheet for both the VAS and gLMS scale. Graphs were question of the VAS and gLMS over the 90 minutes duration of the study The individual graphs of the raw data of each subject for each question in VAS and gLMS scale is given in this appendix.

PAGE 55

55 Graphs for Panelist 1 Panelist 1 was a female of age range 21 Fig ure B 1

PAGE 56

56 Graphs for Panelist 3 Panelist 3 was a female of age range 21 Fig ure B 2.

PAGE 57

57 Graphs for Panelist 4 Panelist 4 was a fe male o f age range 21 5 pounds. Fig ure B 3.

PAGE 58

58 Graphs for Panelist 6 Panelist 6 was a male of age range 25 pounds. Fig ure B 4.

PAGE 59

59 Graphs for Panelist 7 Panelist 7 was a male of age range 21 pounds. Fig ure B 5.

PAGE 60

60 Graphs for Panelist 8 Panelist 8 was a female of age range 25 2 9 pounds. Fig ure B 6.

PAGE 61

61 Graphs for Panelist 9 Panelist 9 was a fe male of age range 18 poun ds. Fig ure B 7.

PAGE 62

62 Graphs for Panelist 10 Panelist 10 was a male of age range 21 p ounds. Fig ure B 8.

PAGE 63

63 Graphs for Panelist 11 Panelist 11 was a fe male of age range 21 4 weight 1 4 5 pounds. Fig ure B 9.

PAGE 64

64 Graphs for Panelist 12 Panelist 12 was a male of age range 30 3 7 wei ght 130 pounds. Fig ure B 10.

PAGE 65

65 Graphs for Panelist 13 Panelist 13 was a female of age range 30 3 pounds. Fig ure B 11.

PAGE 66

66 Graphs for Panelist 15 Panelist 15 was a fe male of age range 2 5 29, of height 5 5 pounds. Fig ure B 12.

PAGE 67

67 Graph s for Panelist 17 Panelist 17 was a male o f age range 21 24, of 5 pounds. Fig ure B 13.

PAGE 68

68 Graphs for Panelist 18 Panelist 18 was a fe male o f age range 21 24, pounds. Fig ure B 14.

PAGE 69

69 Graphs for Panelist 20 Panelist 20 was a male o f age range 25 29 5 pounds. Fig ure B 15.

PAGE 70

70 Graphs for Panelist 21 Panelist 21 was a male o f age range 18 pounds. Fig ure B 16

PAGE 71

71 Graphs for Panelist 23 Panelist 23 was a female of age range 25 pounds. Fig ure B 17.

PAGE 72

72 Graphs for Panelist 24 Panelist 24 was a male o f age range 30 34 9 6 5 pounds. Fig ure B 18

PAGE 73

73 Graphs for Panelist 26 Panelist 26 was a fe male of age range 18 20 9 3 pounds. Fig ure B 19.

PAGE 74

74 Graphs for Panelist 27 Panelist 27 was a fe male of age range 21 3 43 pounds. Fig ure B 2 0.

PAGE 75

75 Graphs for Panelist 28 Paneli st 28 was a fe male of age range 18 20 3 4 pounds. Fig ure B 21.

PAGE 76

76 Graphs for Panelist 2 9 P anelist 2 9 was a fe male of age range 21 pounds. Fig ure B 22.

PAGE 77

77 Graphs for Panelist 30 Panelist 30 was a fe male of age range 18 20 4 07 pounds. Fig ure B 23

PAGE 78

78 Graphs for Panelist 31 Panelist 31 was a fe male of age range 18 20 12 pounds. Fig ure B 24

PAGE 79

79 Graphs for Panelist 32 Panelist 32 was a male of age range 21 5 pounds. Fig ure B 2 5

PAGE 80

80 Graphs for Panelist 36 Panelist 36 was a fe male of age range 21 24, of hei pounds. Fig ur e B 26.

PAGE 81

81 Graphs for Panelist 37 Panelist 37 was a fe male of age range 21 5 pounds. Fig ure B 27.

PAGE 82

82 Graphs for Panelist 38 Panelist 38 was a fe male of age range 21 5 pounds. Fig ure B 28.

PAGE 83

83 Graphs for Panelist 3 9 Panelist 3 9 was a fe male o f age range 21 5 po unds. Fig ure B 2 9.

PAGE 84

84 Graphs for Panelist 4 0 Panelist 4 0 was a fe male o f age range 21 12 5 pounds. Fig ure B 30.

PAGE 85

85 Graphs for Panelist 4 1 Panelist 4 1 was a male of age range 21 weight 232 pounds. Fig ure B 31.

PAGE 86

86 Graphs for Panelist 4 2 Panelist 42 was a male of age range 2 5 29, of height 6 eight 1 64 pounds. Fig ure B 32.

PAGE 87

87 Graphs for Panelist 44 Panelist 4 4 was a male of age range 21 weight 120 pounds. Fig ure B 33.

PAGE 88

88 Graphs for Panelist 4 5 Panelist 4 5 was a male of age range 18 20 nd weight 160 pounds. Fig ure B 34

PAGE 89

89 Graphs for Panelist 4 6 Panelist 4 6 was a fe male of age range 21 24, of height 00 pounds. Fig ure B 35

PAGE 90

90 Graphs for Panelist 4 7 Panelist 4 7 was a fe male of age range 21 24, of height 5 pounds. Fig ure B 36 Series of data for panelist 47

PAGE 91

91 Graphs for Panelist 48 Panelist 48 was a male of age range 18 20, of heig Fig ure B 37 Series of data for panelist 48

PAGE 92

92 Graphs for Panelist 49 Panelist 49 was a male of age range 21 24, of he Fig ure B 38

PAGE 93

93 Graphs for Panelist 50 Panelist 50 was a female of age range 18 20, Fig ure B 39

PAGE 94

94 Graphs for Panelist 51 Panelist 51 was a female of age range 18 Fig ure B 40 Series of data for panelist 5 1 scale

PAGE 95

95 Graphs for Panelist 5 2 Panelist 52 was a female of age ra nge 25 3 35 pounds. Fig ure B 4 1 Series of data for panelist 52

PAGE 96

96 Graphs for Panelist 53 Panelist 53 was a male of age range 25 Fig ure B 42

PAGE 97

97 LIST OF REFERENCES Alfredo VO, Gabriel RR, Luis CG, David BA. 2009. Physicochemical properties of a fibrous fraction from chia (Salvia hispanica L.). LWT Food Science and Technology 42(1):168 73. Alziar G. 1988. Catalogue synonymique des Salvia L. du monde (Lamiaceae): 1. B iocosme Mesogen 5(3 4):87 136. Ayerza R, Coates W. 2005. Ground chia seed and chia oil effects on plasma lipids and fatty acids in the rat. Nutr.Res. 25(11):995 1003. Ayerza R, Coates W. 2001. Chia Seeds: New Source of Omega 3 Fatty Acids, Natural Antio xidants and Dietetic Fiber. Southwest Center for Natural Products Research and Commercialization, Office of Arid Lands Studies, Tucson, Arizona, USA Ayerza R, Coates W, Meester F, Watson R. 2008. Chia seeds and the Columbus concept: bakery and animal prod ucts. Wild type food in health promotion and disease prevention: the Columbus Concept 377 92. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Fast K, Green BG, Prutkin J, Snyder DJ. 2003. Labeled scales ( e.g. category, Likert, VAS) and invalid across group comparisons: what w e have learned from genetic variation in taste. Food Quality and Preference 14(2):125 38. Bonfield C. 1995. Dietary fiber and body weight management. Dietary Fiber in Health and Disease. D.Kritchevsky and C. Bonfield eds. Eagan Press: St. Paul MN 459 65 Borneo R, Aguirre A, Len AE. 2010. Chia (< i> Salvia hispanica L) Gel Can Be Used as Egg or Oil Replacer in Cake Formulations. J.Am.Diet.Assoc. 110(6):946 9. Bourdon I, Olson B, Backus R, Richter BD, Davis PA, Schneeman BO. 2001. Beans, as a sourc e of dietary fiber, increase cholecystokinin and apolipoprotein B48 response to test meals in men. J.Nutr. 131(5):1485. Brunstrom JM, Shakeshaft NG, Scott Samuel NE. 2008. Measuring [] expected satiety'in a range of common foods using a method of constant stimuli. Appetite 51(3):604 14. Burton Freeman B. 1999. Dietary fiber and energy regulation. Journal of Nutrition Baltimore and Springfield then B ethesda 130272 5. Cardello AV, Schutz HG, Lesher LL, Merrill E. 2005. Development and testing of a labeled magnitude scale of perceived satiety. Appetite 44(1):1 13.

PAGE 98

98 Cummings D, Frayo RS, Marmonier C, Aubert R, Chapelot D. 2004. Plasma ghrelin levels and hunger scores in humans initiating meals voluntarily without time and food related cues. American Journal of Physiology Endocrinology And Metabolism 287(2):E297. D'Alessio D. 2008. Intestinal hormones and regulation of satiety: the case for CCK, GLP 1, PYY, and Apo A IV. J.Parenter.Enteral Nutr. 32(5):567. Edholm T, Levin F, Hellstrom PM, Schmidt PT. 2004. G hrelin stimulates motility in the small intestine of rats through intrinsic cholinergic neurons. Regul.Pept. 121(1 3):25 30. Epstein LH, Gordy CC, Raynor HA, Beddome M, Kilanowski CK, Paluch R. 2001. Increasing fruit and vegetable intake and decreasing fa t and sugar intake in families at risk for childhood obesity. Obesity 9(3):171 8. Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, Curtin LR. 2010. Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999 2008. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 303(3):2 35. Flint A, Raben A, Blundell J, Astrup A. 2000. Reproducibility, power and validity of visual analogue scales in assessment of appetite sensations in single test meal studies. Int.J.Obes. 24(1):38 48. Gebauer SK, Psota TL, Harris WS, Kris Etherton PM. 2006. n 3 Fatty acid dietary recommendations and food sources to achieve essentiality and cardiovascular benefits. Am.J.Clin.Nutr. 83(6):S1526. Green BG, Dalton P, Cowart B, Shaffer G, Rankin K, Higgins J. 1996. Evaluating the Chem.Senses 21(3):323. Hoad CL, Rayment P, Spiller RC, Marciani L, Alonso BC, Traynor C, Mela DJ, Pete rs HPF, Gowland PA. 2004. In vivo imaging of intragastric gelation and its effect on satiety in humans. J.Nutr. 134(9):2293. Holt SHA, Brand Miller JC, Stitt PA. 2001. The effects of equal energy portions of different breads on blood glucose levels, feeli ngs of fullness and subsequent food intake. J.Am.Diet.Assoc. 101(7):767 73. Howarth NC, Saltzman E, Roberts SB. 2001. Dietary fiber and weight regulation. Nutr.Rev. 59(5):129 39. Ixtaina VY, Nolasco SM, Tomas MC. 2008. Physical properties of chia (Salvia hispanica L.) seeds. Industrial Crops and Products 28(3):286 93 Kritchevsky D. 1988. Dietary fiber. Annu.Rev.Nutr. 8(1):301 28

PAGE 99

99 Langlois F, Langlois MF, Carpentier AC, Brown C, Lemieux S, Hivert MF. 2011. Ghrelin levels are associated with hunger as measured by the Three Factor Eating Questionnaire in healthy young adults. Physiol.Behav. Lim J, Fujimaru T. 2010. Evaluation of the Labeled Hedonic Scale under different experimental conditions. Food Quality and Preference 21(5):521 30. Maljaars J, Romeyn EA, Haddeman E, Peters HPF, Masclee AAM. 2009. Effect of fat saturation on satiety, hormone release, and food intake. Am.J.Clin.Nut r. 89(4):1019. Mokdad AH, Ford ES, Bowman BA, Dietz WH, Vinicor F, Bales VS, Marks JS. 2003. Prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and obesity related health risk factors, 2001. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 289(1):76. Nslund E, Hells trm PM. 2007. Appetite signaling: from gut peptides and enteric nerves to brain. Physiol.Behav. 92(1 2):256 62. Nettleton JA, Katz R. 2005. n 3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in type 2 diabetes: a review. J.Am.Diet.Assoc. 105(3):428 40. Nicolaid is S, Even P. 1985. Physiological determinant of hunger, satiation, and satiety. Am.J.Clin.Nutr. 42(5):1083. Ogden CL, Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Johnson CL. 2002. Prevalence and trends in overweight among US children and adolescents, 1999 2000. JAMA: the jou rnal of the American Medical Association 288(14):1728. Pi Sunyer FX. 2002. The obesity epidemic: pathophysiology and consequences of obesity. Obesity 1097S 104S. Read N, French S, Cunningham K. 1994. The role of the gut in regulating food intake in man. Nutr.Rev. 52(1):1 10. Reyes Caudillo E, Tecante A, Valdivia Lpez M. 2008. Dietary fibre content and antioxidant activity of phenolic compounds present in Mexican chia (Salvia hispanica L.) seeds. Food Chem. 107(2):656 63. Ritter RC. 2004. Gastrointestin al mechanisms of satiation for food. Physiol.Behav. 81(2):249 73. Rogers RC, Hermann GE. 2008. Mechanisms of action of CCK to activate central vagal afferent terminals. Peptides 29(10):1716 25. Shils ME, Olson JA, Shike M. 1994. Modern nutrition in healt h and disease. Lea & Febiger Philadelphia, PA. Slavin JL. 2005. Dietary fiber and body weight. Nutrition 21(3):411 8.

PAGE 100

100 Taga MS, Miller E, Pratt D. 1984. Chia seeds as a source of natural lipid antioxidants. J.Am.Oil Chem.Soc. 61(5):928 31. Vickers A. 200 1. The use of percentage change from baseline as an outcome in a controlled trial is statistically inefficient: a simulation study. BMC medical research methodology 1(1):6. Vuksan V, Jenkins A, Dias A, Lee A, Jovanovski E, Rogovik A, Hanna A. 2010. Reduct ion in postprandial glucose excursion and prolongation of satiety: possible explanation of the long term effects of whole grain Salba (Salvia Hispanica L.). Eur.J.Clin.Nutr. 64(4):436 8. Vuksan V, Whitham D, Sievenpiper JL, Jenkins AL, Rogovik AL, Bazinet RP, Vidgen E, Hanna A. 2007. Supplementation of conventional therapy with the novel grain salba (Salvia hispanica L.) Improves major and emerging cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 30(11):2804 10. Willis HJ, Eldridge AL, Beisei gel J, Thomas W, Slavin JL. 2009. Greater satiety response with resistant starch and corn bran in human subjects. Nutr.Res. 29(2):100 5. Wing RR. 2010. Treatment Options for Obesity. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 304(16):1837. Wofford LG. 2008. Systematic review of childhood obesity prevention. J.Pediatr.Nurs. 23(1):5 19.

PAGE 101

101 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Author did her undergraduate work in Anna University India in the field of food t echnology, receiving a d egree. After the com pletion of b she joined University of Florida for cience program. After graduation, Gayathri hopes to purs ue her studies in the field of food s cience to obtain her doctoral degree in the same field.