Weight Control and Slimming Ingredients in Food Technology (Cho/Weight Control and Slimming Ingredients in Food Technology) || The Effects of a Novel Fat Emulsion (Olibra ®/ Fabuless™)

P1: SFK/UKS P2: SFKc04 BLBS044-Cho October 15, 2009 21:14 Printer Name: Yet to Come

CHAPTER 4

The Effects of a Novel FatEmulsion (Olibra R©/FabulessTM) on EnergyIntake, Satiety, WeightLoss, and WeightMaintenance

Rick Hursel, MSc, and Prof. Dr. MargrietWesterterp-Plantenga, PhD

Abstract

As obesity is becoming a major problem in the developed countries, sci-ence tries to find strategies for weight loss and weight maintenance. Olibra r©/FabulessTM is an example of such a strategy. This fat emulsion can replace milkfat, and through its physicochemical properties, it may increase satiety. Short-term studies have shown that Olibra r©/FabulessTM has a suppressive effect on theappetite ratings and that it enhances satiety. Only the studies from Burns et al. re-ported an actual lowering effect on energy intake. They also showed that there is adose-response effect of Olibra r©/FabulessTM on energy intake. No effect was seenconsidering energy intake on the long term, but the fat emulsion did contributeto weight maintenance in a long-term study by Diepvens et al., due to decreasedfeelings of hunger. The observed satiating effect of Olibra r©/FabulessTM has beensuggested to be the result of the ileal brake mechanism. This ileal brake initiatesa feedback loop that inhibits upper gut motility (to slow gastric emptying and

55Weight Control and Slimming Ingredients in Food Technology Susan S. Cho© 2010 Blackwell Publishing. ISBN: 978-0-813-81323-3


56 Lipid based ingredients

intestinal transit) in response to nutrients in the distal small intestine, which causesatiety signals. The Olibra r©/FabulessTM components are entirely natural and nostudy recorded any side effects.

Introduction

The prevalence of obesity has increased worldwide during the past fewdecades (Seidell, 1998). Obesity is a major causative factor for a numberof diseases, including coronary heart disease, hypertension, noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, pulmonary dysfunction, and certain types ofcancer (Stunkard, 1996). Obesity develops when the equilibrium betweenenergy intake (EI) and energy expenditure (EE) shifts toward a positive en-ergy balance. Treatment of obesity is beneficial in that weight loss reducesthe risk for mortality and morbidity. Even modest weight loss, such as5–10% of the initial body weight, has beneficial health effects (Goldstein,1992). Body weight loss and prevention of body weight (re)gain can beachieved by reducing EI and/or increasing EE, or promoting fat oxidation.

Olibra r© is a novel fat emulsion consisting of a mixture of fractionatedpalm oil (40%) and fractionated oat oil (2.5%) in water. The emulsioncan be incorporated into yogurts, whereby 5 g of Olibra r© corresponds toabout 2 g of milk fat, the common fat in yogurts (Diepvens et al., 2007).Fats with different physicochemical properties, such as Olibra r©, may havedifferent effects on satiety (Burns et al., 2000).

Olibra r© is an example of an active ingredient that aims to promotereduction of EI by promoting and maintaining satiety.

Efficacy of Olibra R©

Short-Term Experiments

Burns et al. were the first to report the effects of a novel fat emulsion, alsoknown as Olibra r©. In their initial study, they investigated the short-termeffects of Olibra r© on the dietary intakes of nonobese subjects, especiallyenergy and macronutrient intakes (Burns et al., 2000). Subjects receivedeither yogurt with the novel fat emulsion or yogurt that contained normaldairy fat. Results showed that EI was significantly decreased (13.9% re-duction in EI, p > 0.001; EI: 6.67 ± 2.1 MJ after test yogurt compared to7.75 ± 1.8 MJ after placebo yogurt) at a meal, 4 hours postconsumption ofthe yogurt with Olibra r© compared to the control yogurt. Fat (18.9%), car-bohydrate (10.1%), and protein (12.1%) intake were significantly reduced


The Effects of a Novel Fat Emulsion 57

after the test yogurt compared to the placebo yogurt, with the strongestreduction in fat intake. Subjects also ate a smaller amount of food afterthe intervention with the novel fat emulsion (Burns et al., 2000). Theseresults indicate that subjects were more satiated 4 hours postconsumptionof the test yogurt compared to the control yogurt. Appetite was rated withvisual analogue scales (VASs, in mm). Subjects reported that they feltmore satiated after the Olibra r© containing yogurt and that they ate lessfor the remainder of the day (till 21:00 hour) following the control yogurt(Burns et al., 2000). Whether these obtained results are also applicable inobese subjects remained unknown from this study. It was expected thatobese subjects would respond differently because they have an increasedpreference for high-fat foods, although these foods are less satiating inobese subjects (Lawton et al., 1993).

In a subsequent study, Burns et al. conducted a study that was compara-ble to the first one. In addition to the nonobese subjects participating in theprevious study, they also included overweight and obese subjects. Theyextended the observation of the subjects from 4 to 8 hours postconsump-tion. It was shown that, in comparison with a yogurt containing normalmilk fat, consumption of a 200-g yogurt containing Olibra r© significantlydecreased EI in normal weight and overweight subjects, at a meal 4 and8 hours later, and in obese subjects 8 hours postconsumption, and that thedecreased intake persisted for the rest of the day (Burns et al., 2001). How-ever, the magnitude of the responses observed 4 hours postconsumptionwere not as significant in the overweight (27.6% reduction in EI, p < 0.05;EI: 4.43 ± 0.38 MJ after test yogurt compared to 6.12 ± 0.47 MJ afterplacebo yogurt) and obese group (13.1% reduction in EI, ns; EI: 4.56 ±0.41 MJ after test yogurt compared to 5.25 ± 0.44 MJ after placeboyogurt) compared to the nonoverweight group (30.2% reduction in EI,p < 0.05; EI: 3.82 ± 0.29 MJ after test yogurt compared to 5.38 ± 0.34 MJafter placebo yogurt). Furthermore, despite reduced subsequent EI, con-tradictory results were seen in hunger and satiety recordings (Burns et al.,2001). It was speculated by Burns et al. that the lower response of the obesesubjects to the yogurt containing Olibra r© may have been caused becauseof a lower dose (expressed relative to body weight) (Burns et al., 2001).

The same research group investigated this hypothesis and they revealedthat relative to the control yogurt, mean EIs (2 g: 21% reduction in EI,EI: 5.83 ± 1.91 MJ; 4 g: 25% reduction in EI, 5.60 ± 1.89 MJ; 6 g: 30%reduction in EI, 5.24 ± 1.91 MJ compared to control yogurt 7.42 ± 1.89MJ, p > 0.05) were reduced with an increasing dose of Olibra r© in subjectswith normal weight and overweight (Burns et al., 2002). A larger effectafter the test yogurt was seen in females in contrast to males, which can



be explained by higher body weight in male subjects. Males received alower dose relative to their body weight (Burns et al., 2002). There wereno significant differences regarding satiety and appetite ratings betweencontrol and different dosages (Burns et al., 2002).

Diepvens et al. also studied the short-term effects of Olibra r© on appetiteand food intake (Diepvens et al., 2008), since results, as obtained by Burnset al., had not been confirmed by other studies, thus far (Burns et al., 2000,2001, 2002). Consequently, the aim of this study was to assess the effectof Olibra r© versus placebo in the short term by investigating the possibleeffects of Olibra r© in junior-normal weight and senior-overweight groups,on appetite ratings and EI 4 hours later, in similar groups as in the Burnsstudies. No difference was seen in food intake (test: 467.6 ± 114.3 g;placebo: 450.1 ± 90.7 g) between the test yogurt and the placebo yogurt,at lunch 4 hours postconsumption. However, the Olibra r© emulsion didexert a suppressive effect on appetite ratings in the short term (Diepvenset al., 2008). Nevertheless, this was not sufficient to reduce EI. Less foodwas eaten in the junior-normal weight group compared to the senior-overweight group, which can be subscribed to the higher bodyweight ofthe latest. As explained before, the dosage may have been insufficient forthis group.

There might be a possibility that the emulsion prevents overeating, butthis could not be confirmed by this study (Diepvens et al., 2008).

Long-Term Experiments

After the positive effects of the short-term studies by Burns et al., itwas time to reveal whether Olibra r© has any long-term effects as well.Logan et al. investigated the effects of the Olibra r© emulsion during3 weeks. Subjects received either 200 g yogurt, containing 5 g Olibra r©,or the control that was 5 g of milk fat. On day 1, 8, and 22, food intake4 hours postconsumption of the yogurts was assessed (Logan et al., 2006).In contrast to some short-term studies, no long-term effects were foundafter consuming the Olibra r© containing yogurt (day 1, EI: 5.04 ± 1.54MJ after test yogurt compared to control yogurt EI: 5.06 ± 1.54 MJ, ns;day 8, EI: 4.92 ± 1.40 MJ after test yogurt compared to control yogurtEI: 5.22 ± 1.67 MJ, ns; day 22, EI: 5.02 ± 1.57 MJ after test yogurtcompared to control yogurt EI: 5.06 ± 1.46 MJ, ns). There was neitheron day 1, 8, or 22 a significant difference in mean energy, macronutri-ents, or amounts of food eaten 4 hours postconsumption. The appetiteratings also failed to result in any significant effects (Logan et al., 2006).



Logan et al. came up with several explanations for the results of theirstudy. The eating environment during lunch, for instance, was more so-ciable compared to the results of previous studies, which can influencefood intake. People tend to overeat when the ambience is more sociable(Stroebele and De Castro, 2004). Another reason may be the period inwhich the study was conducted, August and November. People are moreprone to overeat during autumn and winter compared to summer and spring(Shahar et al., 2001).

In another long-term study, Diepvens et al. assessed a possible weightmaintenance (after a very low energy diet) by consumption of Olibra r©

up till 18 weeks. Hunger ratings, satiety-related hormones, resting en-ergy expenditure (REE), and body composition were assessed as well(Diepvens et al., 2007). After the weight-loss period, the subjects in thetest group, who ate the Olibra r© containing yogurt, showed no significantincrease in weight (1.2 kg (15.5%) regain, ns) in contrast with the subjectswho ate the control yogurt (3.0 kg (40.3%) regain, p > 0.05) (Figs. 4.1and 4.2) Glugacon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) values were significantly in-creased at 180 minutes postconsumption of the test yogurt at week 25compared to week 1. In week 25, a significant difference was found be-tween both groups, in that the test group was less hungry 4 hours afterthe yogurt compared with the placebo group (Diepvens et al., 2007). REE

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

Week

Bo

dy

wei

gh

t (k

g)

OlibraPlacebo

2 8 26

*

Figure 4.1. During weight maintenance, there was significant body weightregain in the placebo group (p < 0.001), but not in Olibra r© group. * indicates p <

0.001 regain (kg) in placebo group (ANOVA repeated measures). (After Diepvenset al., 2007.)



0

10

20

30

40

50

60P

erce

nta

ge

of

wei

gh

t re

gai

n

p=0.05

Olibra Placebo

Figure 4.2. Regain as percentage of weight loss was lower with Olibra r© ascompared to placebo yogurt. Two-factor ANOVA repeated measures. (AfterDiepvens et al., 2007.)

was significantly increased in the test group in week 25 compared to week7, but the same occurred in the placebo group as well. The increased REEin both groups might be a consequence of the increase in fat-free mass(FFM), as FFM is the main determinant of REE. For this reason, REE wascorrected for FFM and results showed that the increase in REE could notfully be attributed to the increase in FFM, but also to the effect of Olibra r©.After the correction, where REE was expressed as a function of FFM, REEwas significantly increased in the test group and not in the placebo group.An FFM sparing effect occurred that prevented a lowered REE as fat mass(FM) decreased more in the test group compared to the placebo group,which was also shown by a decreased weight circumference in the testgroup (Diepvens et al., 2007). Eventually, this group did not regain asmuch weight as the placebo group, after the period of weight loss, due to adecreased feeling of hunger and an increase in REE. Another explanationfor the weight-maintenance effect of Olibra r© might be that participants inthe weight-maintenance study had to eat the yogurt twice a day instead ofonce, as in the other long-term study where the effect on EI was assessed(Diepvens et al., 2007). The dose of consumed Olibra r© was higher here,which had been proven to be of influence by Burns et al. (Burns et al.,2002).



Mechanisms of Action

The observed effect of Olibra r© has been suggested to be the resultof the ileal brake mechanism (Burns et al., 2000, 2001, 2002). This ilealbrake, for which fat is the most important trigger, initiates a feedback loopthat inhibits upper gut motility (to slow gastric emptying and intestinaltransit) in response to nutrients in the distal small intestine (Maljaarset al., 2007). The ability of Olibra r© to increase satiety can be attributed tothe physicochemical properties of the emulsion. The palm oil core of therelatively small emulsion particles is covered by hydrophilic galactolipidsderived from the fractionated oat oil. Due to this particular combinationof triglyceride oils, resulting in delayed digestion compared to the milkfat particles, (partly) undigested particles may penetrate more distal partsof the small intestine, where sensors will detect unabsorbed fat and sendsatiety signals (e.g., GLP-1, CCK, PYY) to the brain. This delayed gastricemptying may evoke an indirect satiety effect (Welch et al., 1985, 1988)whereby possible inhibition of food intake is not preceded by differencesin appetite ratings. However, a direct satiating effect of ileal fat perfusionwithout a preceding meal (Maljaars et al., 2007) was also observed; so theappetite pattern after consumption of the palm oil and fractionated oat oilmay not be completely predictive for EI thereafter.

Safety

The FabulessTM components are entirely natural and no study recordedany side effects. Burns et al. measured the adverse effects and gastroin-testinal complaints in their subjects. They reported that the subjects didnot experience any adverse effects or discomfort after the consumptionof the novel fat emulsion, even not with increasing dosages (Burns et al.,2000, 2001, 2002).

Food/Supplement Applications

FabulessTM (formerly known as Olibra r©) has many applications indairy products, as the structure and composition of dairy are particu-larly suited to this ingredient. When administered to dairy products, thenovel fat emulsion appears to enhance texture as dairy products containingFabulessTM are perceived as creamier and fuller. FabulessTM has also beenlaunched in the form of a supplement concept. A small bottle containing the



effective daily dose of FabulessTM offers a convenient solution for weightmanagement, as it is supposed to reduce EI.

Patent Activities

Document ID: U.S. Patent 6517883European Patent EP0994655

Title: Satiety productAssignee: LTP Lipid Technologies Provider AB

Information on Global Suppliers

After DSM (The Netherlands) gained a main interest in LTP LipidTechnologies Provider AB (Sweden), and with this the exclusive rightfor the production of Olibra r©, they introduced the first dairy productwith FabulessTM, “ActifControl,” in Italy. Subsequently, a dairy productwith FabulessTM was launched in Portugal under the brand name “AdagioVersus.” Campina launched “Optimel Control” with FabulessTM in TheNetherlands. Supplements with FabulessTM are also launched in Belgium,Spain, United Kingdom (Slimthru), United States, and Turkey.

References

Burns AA, Livingstone MB, Welch RW, Dunne A, Reid CA, RowlandIR. The effects of yoghurt containing a novel fat emulsion on energyand macronutrient intakes in non-overweight, overweight and obesesubjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001;25:1487–1496.

Burns AA, Livingstone MB, Welch RW, Dunne A, Robson PJ, LindmarkL, Reid CA, Mullaney U, Rowland IR. Short-term effects of yoghurtcontaining a novel fat emulsion on energy and macronutrient intakesin non-obese subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000;24:1419–1425.

Burns AA, Livingstone MB, Welch RW, Dunne A, Rowland IR. Dose-response effects of a novel fat emulsion (Olibra) on energy andmacronutrient intakes up to 36 h post-consumption. Eur J Clin Nutr2002;56:368–377.



Diepvens K, Soenen S, Steijns J, Arnold M, Westerterp-Plantenga M.Long-term effects of consumption of a novel fat emulsion in relation tobody-weight management. Int J Obes (Lond) 2007;31:942–949.

Diepvens K, Steijns J, Zuurendonk P, Westerterp-Plantenga M. Short-term effects of a novel fat emulsion on appetite and food intake. PhysiolBehav 2008,95:114–117.

Goldstein DJ. Beneficial health effects of modest weight loss. Int J ObesRelat Metab Disord 1992;16:397–415.

Lawton CL, Burley VJ, Wales JK, Blundell JE. Dietary fat and appetitecontrol in obese subjects: weak effects on satiation and satiety. Int JObes Relat Metab Disord 1993;17:409–416.

Logan CM, McCaffrey TA, Wallace JM, Robson PJ, Welch RW, DunneA, Livingstone MB. Investigation of the medium-term effects of Oli-bratrade mark fat emulsion on food intake in non-obese subjects. Eur JClin Nutr 2006;60:1081–1091.

Maljaars J, Peters HP, Masclee AM. Review article: the gastrointestinaltract: neuroendocrine regulation of satiety and food intake. AlimentPharmacol Ther 2007;26(Suppl 2):241–250.

Seidell JC. Dietary fat and obesity: an epidemiologic perspective. Am JClin Nutr 1998;67:546S–550S.

Shahar DR, Yerushalmi N, Lubin F, Froom P, Shahar A, Kristal-BonehE. Seasonal variations in dietary intake affect the consistency of dietaryassessment. Eur J Epidemiol 2001;17:129–133.

Stroebele N, De Castro JM. Effect of ambience on food intake and foodchoice. Nutrition 2004;20:821–838.

Stunkard AJ. Current views on obesity. Am J Med 1996;100:230–236.

Welch I, Saunders K, Read NW. Effect of ileal and intravenous infusionsof fat emulsions on feeding and satiety in human volunteers. Gastroen-terology 1985;89:1293–1297.

Welch IM, Sepple CP, Read NW. Comparisons of the effects on satietyand eating behaviour of infusion of lipid into the different regions ofthe small intestine. Gut 1988;29:306–311.

Documents

Weight Control and Slimming Ingredients in Food Technology (Cho/Weight Control and Slimming Ingredients in Food Technology) || The Effects of a Novel Fat Emulsion (Olibra ®/ Fabuless™)