| Title |
Effectual comparison of quinoa and amaranth supplemented diets in controlling appetite; a biochemical study in rats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Food Science and Technology, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13197-014-1691-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. V. Mithila, Farhath Khanum |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of two current cynosure protein substitutes; quinoa and amaranth in controlling short term food intake and satiety in rats. Experimental rats were allotted to three groups (n = 8 per group) and fed with diets containing casein, quinoa and amaranth as major protein sources, with casein diet kept as control. At the end of the experiment it was observed that the rats ingesting quinoa and amaranth supplemented diets exhibited lesser food intake (p < 0.01) and lesser body weight gain significantly in amaranth (p < 0.05) as compared to control. They seemed to bring down plasma ghrelin levels while meliorating plasma leptin and cholecystokinin (CCK) levels postprandially (p < 0.01). Although both quinoa diet and amaranth diet were effective in improving blood glucose response and maintaining plasma free fatty acids (FFA) and general lipid profiles subsequently after the meal, amaranth diet showed significant effects when compared to control and amaranth diets. There was 15 % improvement in blood glucose profile in the amaranth group with respect to the control at 90 min, where as there was only 3.4 % improvement in the quinoa group. These findings provide a scientific rationale to consider incorporation of these modest cereals in a diet meant to fight against growing obesity and poverty. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 13 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 27% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,825,907
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#580
of 1,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,311
of 352,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#19
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.