Effect of 100% Orange Juice and a Volume-Matched Sugar-Sweetened Drink on Subjective Appetite, Food Intake, and Glycemic Response in Adults

Abstract

Dietary recommendations to reduce the consumption of free sugars often group 100% fruit juice with other sugar-containing beverages. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of consuming 100% orange juice compared to an orange drink on next-meal food intake (FI), glycemic response, average appetite, emotions, and sensory characteristics in normal-weight adults. Thirty-six normal-weight adults (age: 26.8 ± 0.9 years) consumed, in random order and at least 5 days apart, three 240 mL test beverages as follows: (a) 100% orange juice, (b) orange drink, or (c) water. Subjective sweetness and pleasantness were determined immediately after test beverage consumption. Glycemic response, average appetite, and subjective emotions were measured every 15 min for 60 min. Food intake was determined at a pizza lunch 60 min later. Rest-of-day glycemic response and energy intake (EI) were determined using a continuous glucose monitor and food record, respectively. Lunch FI (p = 0.054) and total EI (p = 0.01) were both lower after 100% orange juice compared with the orange drink. Caloric compensation was 84% after 100% orange juice and -25% after the orange drink (p = 0.047). Average appetite was not significantly different between the test beverages (p > 0.05). Blood glucose iAUC adjusted for available carbohydrate was lower after 100% orange juice compared with the orange drink (p < 0.001). Rest-of-day blood glucose concentrations were lower after 100% orange juice compared with the orange drink (p = 0.03) and water control (p < 0.001). In conclusion, consumption of 100% orange juice as a preload resulted in higher caloric compensation, lower total daily EI, and lower blood glucose concentrations compared to the orange drink.

Keywords: 100% orange juice; appetite; blood glucose; food intake; glycemic response; normal-weight adults; satiety; sugar-sweetened beverages; sugars.

Figure 1

(A) Effect of treatment on change from baseline blood glucose (mmol/L) over 60 min. Blood glucose was affected by treatment (p < 0.001), time (p < 0.001), and treatment-by-time interaction (p < 0.001). Blood glucose concentrations were lower after 100% orange juice compared with orange drink at 15 min (p = 0.001), 30-min (p < 0.001), and 45 min (p = 0.005), but not at 60-min (p > 0.05). (B) Effect of treatment on blood glucose incremental area under the curve (iAUC) (mmol/L * min) over 60 min. Blood glucose iAUC was affected by treatment (p < 0.001). Blood glucose iAUC was lower after 100% orange juice (p < 0.001) and water (p < 0.001) compared with orange drink. Different letters represent significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05). (C) Effect of treatment on change from baseline blood glucose per gram of available carbohydrate (mmol/L/g) from test beverages over 60 min. Blood glucose per gram of available carbohydrate was affected by treatment (p = 0.004), time (p < 0.001) and treatment-by-time interaction (p = 0.015). Blood glucose concentrations per gram of available carbohydrate were lower after 100% orange juice compared with orange drink at 30 min (p = 0.003), but not at 15, 45, or 60 min (p > 0.05). (D) Effect of treatment on blood glucose iAUC per gram of available carbohydrate (mmol/L * min/g) from test beverages over 60 min. Blood glucose iAUC per gram of available carbohydrate was affected by treatment (p < 0.001). Blood glucose iAUC was lower after 100% orange juice (p < 0.001) compared with orange drink. Asterisks represent significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05). All values are means ± SEM, n = 34.

Figure 2

Effect of treatment on rest-of-day blood glucose (mmol/L) over 11 h. Blood glucose was affected by treatment (p < 0.001), but not time or treatment-by-time interaction (p > 0.05). Rest-of-day blood glucose was lower after 100% orange juice compared with the orange drink (p = 0.03) and water (p < 0.001), and lower after orange drink compared with water (p = 0.002). All values are means ± SEM, n = 31.

Figure 3

Effect of treatment on change from baseline subjective appetite scores (mm) over 60 min (two-factor ANOVA with Tukey–Kramer’s post-hoc test to account for multiple comparisons). Subjective appetite scores were affected by time (p < 0.001), but not treatment or treatment-by-time interaction (p > 0.05). All values are means ± SEM, n = 36.

Figure 4

Effect of treatment on subjective pleasantness scores (mm) post-treatment consumption. There was a main effect of treatment on subjective pleasantness of the test beverage (p < 0.001). Subjective pleasantness was higher after 100% orange juice compared with orange drink (p = 0.009) and water (p < 0.001). All values are means ± SEM, n = 36. Different letters represent significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05).