Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-17T02:46:23.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thermic effect of glucose in obese subjects studied by direct and indirect calorimetry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2008

Ph. Pittet ,
Ph. Chappuis ,
K. Acheson ,
F. De Techtermann  and
E. JÉquier
Ph. Pittet
Affiliation:
Division of Clinical Physiology and Institute of Physiology, University of Lausanne, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland
Ph. Chappuis
Affiliation:
Division of Clinical Physiology and Institute of Physiology, University of Lausanne, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland
K. Acheson
Affiliation:
Division of Clinical Physiology and Institute of Physiology, University of Lausanne, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland
F. De Techtermann
Affiliation:
Division of Clinical Physiology and Institute of Physiology, University of Lausanne, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland
E. JÉquier
Affiliation:
Division of Clinical Physiology and Institute of Physiology, University of Lausanne, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The thermic effect of a glucose load (50 g) was studied in ten control and eleven obese female subjects, using both direct and indirect calorimetry simultaneously. Experiments were done under conditions of thermal equilibrium (28° and 30% relative humidity)..

2. Thermal balance (heat production measured by indirect calorimetry minus heat losses measured directly) was negative in the control group during the fasting period (heat deficit – 14.2 ± 5.0 kJ/m2 per h), whereas that of the obese group was in equilibrium (+ 1.4 ± 4.8 kJ/m2 per h)..

3. After the glucose load, metabolic rate increased 13.0 ± 1.5 and 5.2 ± 1.3% in the control and obese groups respectively..

4. In contrast to the metabolic rate, total heat losses were not significantly altered in either group after the glucose load. Total heat losses of the obese group were significantly lower than those of the control group throughout the experimental period..

5. During the experiments the amount of heat stored was increased in both groups. Thermal balance in the control group became positive while that of the obese group remained positive..

6. During the fasting period, the control subjects oxidized more carbohydrates (90.4 mg/min) than lipids (68.8 mg/min), whereas obese subjects oxidized more lipids (103.7 mg/min) than carbohydrates (50.2 mg/min). After the glucose load, the oxidation rate of carbohydrates was increased in both groups to 158.1 mg/min in control subjects and 95.6 mg/min in obese subjects..

7. The mean skin temperature of the control subjects was significantly higher than that of the obese subjects and remained higher throughout the postprandial period..

8. These results indicate that: (a) during the fasting period, the energy sources utilized and the thermal balance of the two groups were different; (b) the thermic effect of glucose was less in the obese subjects and, therefore, might be a factor contributing to their low energy expenditure.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , March 1976 , pp. 281 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1976

References

Ball, E. G. (1965). Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 131, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, E. G. & Jungas, R. L. (1964). Recent Prog. Horm. Res. 20, 183.Google Scholar
Bjöntorp, P. (1966). Acta med. scand. 179, 229.Google Scholar
Cabanac, M. & Duclaux, R. (1970). Science, N. Y. 168, 496.Google Scholar
Du Bois, E. F. (1924). Basal Metabolism in Health and Disease, 1st ed., p. 23. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.Google Scholar
Felber, J.-P., Moody, A. J. & Vannotti, A. (1965). Helv. med. Acta 32, 323.Google Scholar
Galton, D. J. & Bray, G. A. (1967). J. clin. Endocr. Metab. 27, 1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, F., Jéquier, E., Chabot, V., Biiber, V. & Felber, J.-P. (1972). Metabolism 21, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gygax, P.-H., Pittet, Ph. & Jtquier, E. (1972). Experientia 28, 728.Google Scholar
Hardy, J. D. & Du Bois, E. F. (1937). J. Nutr. 15, 5.Google Scholar
Jéquier, E., Gygax, P.-H., Pittet, Ph. & Vannotti, A. (1974). J. appl. Physiol. 36, 674.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.-L., Burke, B. S. & Mayer, J. (1956). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 4, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linton, P.-H., Conley, M., Kuechenmeister, C. & McClusky, H. (1972). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 25, 368.Google Scholar
Lusk, G. (1924). J. biol. Chem. 59, 41.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Mumford, P. (1966). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 25, 100.Google Scholar
Pittet, Ph., Gygax, P.-H. & Jéquier, E. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 343.Google Scholar
Randle, P. J., Hales, C. N., Garland, P. B. & Newsholme, E. A. (1963). Lancet i, 785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinnler, G., Jéquier, E., Favre, R., Dolivo, M. & Vannotti, A. (1973). J. appl. Physiol. 35, 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanik, P.-A., Heald, F.-P. & Mayer, J. (1959). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 7, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stirling, J. L. & Stock, M. J. (1968). Nature, Lond. 220, 801.Google Scholar