Over 50% of U.S. adults today use some form of dietary supplementation to obtain their nutrient intake (Bailey et al., 2011). Previous research has shown that certain nutritional supplements may produce varying metabolic and thermogenic (calories burned) responses, when compared to other food sources (Acheson et al., 2011). The difference in thermogenic response may also suggest that there is a difference between a whole food meal and its supplemental equivalent. If there is a difference in thermogenic response, this may indicate that a meal-replacing supplement, such as a ready-to-drink-shake and/or food bar may not induce the same health benefits as a whole food meal in terms of nutrient digestion, absorption, metabolism and storage. There has not been extensive research on the thermic effect and metabolic differences of a complete supplemental meal in comparison to a whole food meal. The purpose of our study is to analyze the differences in thermogenic and metabolic response post-consumption of a meal consisting of whole foods compared to its supplemental, engineered equivalent. We hypothesize that energy expenditure and satiety will be greater in the whole food meal compared to the supplement meal, whereas, there will be no difference in levels of glucose between the two conditions.
There is limited research on the amount of calories burned and metabolic differences of a complete supplemental meal in comparison to a whole food meal. The purpose of this study is to analyze the differences in calories burned and metabolic response post-consumption of a meal consisting of whole foods compared to its nutritionally engineered equivalent. We hypothesize that energy expenditure and satiety will be greater in the whole food meal compared to the supplement meal, whereas, there will be no difference in levels of glucose between the two conditions.