Journal of Functional Foods 104 (2023) 105547

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Functional Foods

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jff

Daily ingestion of protein bars (with or without added fiber) increased

energy intake and body fat mass after one week in healthy adults: A
crossover trial
Minghan Pang , Catherine Trier , Christy Alexon , Carol S. Johnston *
Nutrition Program, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Background: Although the global protein bar market is rapidly escalating, there is a scarcity of controlled trials
Nutrition bar examining their dietary impact. This cross-over study examined the impact of protein bar ingestion (with or
Protein without added fibre) on energy intake.
Fibre
Methods: Adults (n = 21; 21.9 ± 2.6 y) recorded food and beverage consumption using a smartphone application
Appetite
Energy intake
and appetite ratings using 100-mm VAS scales. Body composition was recorded at baseline and following each
Body composition one-week feeding phase.
Results: Average 24-hour energy intakes during the weeks bars were consumed were elevated significantly
(7–13%) from control weeks with no difference between bars. Postprandial appetite scores were significantly
below fasting scores but did not differ between bars. Body fat mass was significantly elevated (+3%) at the end of
each feeding period compared to the control week.
Conclusion: These results suggest that the daily ingestion of protein bars increased overall energy intakes and may
impact body mass over time.

1. Introduction meta-analysis (68 qualifying trials; 3899 participants) demonstrated

Between 1999 and 2017, the prevalence of obesity among adults in
the U.S. increased considerably from 31% to 42% (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2021), and survey data from the same period
revealed that 25–34% of adults striving to lose weight sought the aid of
dietary supplements, which are perceived as inexpensive, safe, and
effective (Pillitteri et al., 2008; Coherent Market Insights, 2022; Laddu
et al., 2011). In 2015, protein was the most consumed weight manage­
ment product in the U.S. according to the Council for Responsible
Nutrition (Market Insights, 2022). In support of this trend, research has
linked protein-induced appetite suppression to the enhanced release of
gut hormones that signal satiety (e.g., cholecystokinin and glucagon-like
peptide 1) (Giezenaar et al., 2017; Chungchunlam et al., 2015).
The clinical evidence for the role of dietary protein in appetite
control has been documented in several recent systematic reviews.
Mollahosseini et al. (2017) compiled data from eight qualifying inter­
vention trials in 2017 (209 participants) and concluded that dietary
protein significantly reduced appetite in the long-term (daily ingestion
for 1–12 weeks) but not acutely during the postprandial period. A 2020
that markers of appetite (hunger, desire to eat, prospective food con­
sumption) decreased significantly up to three hours following con­
sumption of protein; however, markers of appetite were not significantly
impacted in long-term trials (daily protein ingestion for 3 days to 9
weeks) (Kohanmoo et al., 2020).
Although data support a role for protein in appetite suppression,
there is a scarcity of randomized controlled trials that have specifically
examined the dietary impact of commercial protein bar consumption.
Frestedt et al. (2008) examined the weight-reduction potentiating effect
of a protein supplement (20 g whey protein with milk peptides and
minerals) ingested daily during a 12-week weight loss trial in U.S. adults
(n = 59; body mass index, 30–42 kg/m2). Similarly, a protein supple­
ment (10 g) was ingested daily by slightly overweight Japanese adults
(n = 17) participating in a 12-week weight reduction program consisting
of food restriction and resistance exercise (Doi et al., 2001). In both
trials, the degree of weight loss for participants taking the protein sup­
plement did not differ significantly from that observed for their
respective control groups. These trials indicate that protein supple­
mentation did not have an independent, long-term dietary impact in

* Corresponding author at: 550 N. 3rd Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.

E-mail addresses: mpang2@asu.edu (M. Pang), agcmt@asu.edu (C. Trier), calexon@asu.edu (C. Alexon), carol.johnston@asu.edu (C.S. Johnston).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2023.105547
Received 14 December 2022; Received in revised form 3 April 2023; Accepted 15 April 2023
Available online 21 April 2023
1756-4646/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Pang et al.
individuals adhering to energy restricted diets under controlled condi­
tions. However, Williams et al. (2006) demonstrated that protein bar
ingestion (180 kcal; 10 g protein) mid-morning significantly reduced
energy intake 3 h later at the lunch meal (-58 kcal) in comparison to an
isocaloric high fat, high carbohydrate bar. Yet, total energy intake over
the entire test day did not differ between groups.
Soluble fibre ingestion has been demonstrated to enhance satiety
under controlled conditions, particularly viscous and resistant fibre
(Willis et al., 2009). Although the data are not consistent, soluble fibre
may reduce appetite by increasing levels of satiety hormones and/or
promoting gastric extension (Kristensen & Jensen, 2011). To date, a
single study has investigated the long-term impact of a snack bar high in
protein and fibre on appetite and energy intake in free-living individuals
(Astbury et al., 2014). Snack bar ingestion (composition: 13 g protein,
17 g carbohydrate, 14 g fat, and 6 g soluble fibre in the form of poly­
dextrose) was related to lower total energy intake both on day 1 and day
15 of the study in comparison to an isocaloric control bar devoid of
protein and polydextrose (Asbury et a., 2014). The authors also reported
higher glucagon-like peptide 1 responses associated with protein/fibre
ingestion; however, body composition was not measured in this study.
Furthermore, the study did not include a ‘no-snack’ study arm, and it
could not be determined whether total daily EI was lower than if no
snack was consumed. Given the rapidly rising market for protein bars
(Fortune Business Insights, 2022), many with high fibre, there is a need
to assess the dietary impact of these commercial bars among free-living,
healthy individuals consuming ad libitum diets. Such empirical evidence
will further delineate the health attributes of protein bar ingestion for
the general population.
The present study examined whether the ingestion of protein bars
(180 kcal, 20 g protein; consumed daily for seven consecutive days),
with or without added soluble corn fibre (14 g versus 2 g respectively),
altered 24-h energy intakes in free-living healthy adults in the Phoenix
metropolitan area. It was hypothesized that ingestion of the protein bar
high in fibre bar would result in greater reductions in 24-h energy in­
takes as compared to the protein bar low in fibre. Energy intake was
recorded in real-time using the MyFitnessPal smartphone application
(app). Appetite sensations were also measured using visual analogue
scales (VAS) to assess hunger, satiety, fullness, prospective food con­
sumption, and desire to eat. Changes in body composition were assessed
as secondary outcomes.
Fig. 1. Study flow chart.
2
Journal of Functional Foods 104 (2023) 105547
2. Methods
2.1. Participants and study design
Adult volunteers were recruited from a campus community in the
Phoenix metropolitan area through posters, listservs, and class an­
nouncements (n = 21). Participants (18–35 years of age; body mass
index [BMI], 18.5–30 kg/m2) were healthy by self-report and free of
chronic or acute disease, not pregnant or lactating, not dieting in the
recent three months, and not participating in intensive training or
competition sports. The study was conducted between February and
April 2022 following COVID 19 protocols (including masking and
symptoms checks). All participants provided written informed consent
(managed by MP), and the study was approved by the Arizona State
University Institutional Review Board (STUDY00015151). Participants
were financially compensated in the amount of $50.
This study was a double-blind, crossover trial that spanned a total of
28 days. Week 1 was a control week, and the following two 7-d interven­
tion phases were separated by a 7-d washout period (Fig. 1). Participants
made three visits to the laboratory, scheduled for the 1st.
or 2nd day of weeks 1 and 3 and the 1st or 2nd day after study
completion. There were two test foods in the study: a protein (HP) bar
and a protein/ high fibre (HPHF) bar. The test food composition and
ingredients are shown in Table 1. The bars were purchased online,
repackaged in Ziplock bags, and placed in small paper bags with
randomly assigned codes: A or B. The study coordinator was blind to the
code, and the study was not unblinded until the study was completed
and all data analyzed.
2.2. Study Protocol
Participants recorded all foods and drinks each week during the
study on non-consecutive days, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday, using a
commercial smartphone app, MyFitnessPal.
MyFitnessPal utilizes the USDA food database for dietary analyses
(Myfitnesspal, 2022). All participants received verbal and written in­
structions for using MyFitnessPal and sent the study coordinator
screenshots of completed 24-hour data for each recording day. At the
start of the study, participant pairs were randomly assigned by coin flip
(investigator MP) to one of two test foods: HP bar or HPHF bar. For the
first week of the study (a control week) participants were instructed to
follow their regular diet for seven days, and no bars were consumed. For
the next 7 days (week 2), the assigned bar was consumed within one
hour of waking, and participants were instructed to refrain from
consuming any other energy-containing food or beverage at that time
M. Pang et al. Journal of Functional Foods 104 (2023) 105547

Table 1 using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS V27, IBM Cor­
Composition of Nutrition Bars. poration, Somers, NY) with significance ≤ 0.05. Data were normally
HP1 HPHF2 distributed (Shapiro-Wilk test), and comparisons of variable means for
weeks 1 and 3 for the two sequences were conducted to examine the
Energy (kcal) 180 180
Protein (g) 21 20 effectiveness of the washout period for returning the two groups to
Total Carbohydrate (g) 17 24 approximately a baseline state. Since these means were not significantly
Total Sugars (g) 3 <1 different for energy intakes or appetite ratings, these values were
Non-nutritive sweetener (g) 4 6 collapsed into an ‘averaged’ control value prior to analyses using the
Fibre (g) 2 14
Fat (g) 4.5 7
one-way repeated measures MANOVA with least significant difference
Saturated fat (g) 3.5 2.5 post-hoc test. Effect sizes are reported as partial eta squared.
Sodium (mg) 90 220
1
HP: high protein bar (Pure Protein®, Worldwide Sport Nutritional Supple­
3. Results
ments, Inc., Bayport, NY)); ingredients: protein blend (milk protein isolate, whey
protein isolate, whey protein concentrate), hydrolyzed collagen, glycerin, cocoa, There were 79 responses to the online screener: 26 did not meet the
water, maltitol, maltitol syrup, fractionated palm kernel oil, sugar, whey protein study criteria and 15 did not respond. Of the remaining qualifying re­
concentrate, milk, unsweet chocolate, cocoa butter, cocoa (processed with al­ spondents, 30 agreed to enroll in the study. Nine participants were lost
kali), natural flavor (include annatto and turmeric added for color), partially to follow-up (reason unknown) or withdrew since could not follow the
defatted peanut flour, calcium carbonate, soy lecithin, butterfat, almond butter, protocol. Twenty-one participants completed the study, and these data
sucralose. are reported herein. No adverse events were reported during the study;
2
HPHF (Quest®, Nutrition, LLC., El Segundo, CA): high protein and high fibre gender, age, and BMI did not differ significantly between completers and
bar; ingredients: protein blend (milk protein isolate, whey protein isolate),
non-completers. Participant ages ranged from 19 to 30 y (21.9 ± 2.6 y)
soluble corn fibre, water almonds, erythritol, unsweetened chocolate, natural
and BMI ranged from 19.8 to 29.4 kg/m2 (23.9 ± 2.7 kg/m2); none of
flavors, cocoa processed with alkali, cocoa butter, contain less than 2% of the
following: sea salt, sunflower lecithin, stevia sweetener. the participants classified as obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), and 30% of
participants classified as overweight (24.9 < BMI < 29.9 kg/m2)
(Table 2). Self-reported compliance for daily bar consumption was 99%
and for an additional hour after consuming the bars. The participants
with two participants reporting incomplete bar consumption on a single
consumed their regular diet ad libitum for the remainder of the day and
occasion during the 14-day feeding period.
were instructed to not alter their typical physical activity during the
On three days each week of the study (Wednesday, Friday, and
study. For week 3, participants were instructed to follow their regular
Sunday), all foods and beverages were recorded in the MyFitnessPal app,
diet for seven days as a washout control period, and no bars were
and 24-hour energy intake data were compiled as weekly averages
consumed. During week 4, participants were provided with alternative
(Fig. 2a). The average daily energy intakes during the weeks the protein.
bars and followed the same procedures as week 2.
bars were consumed were elevated significantly (7–13%) in com­
Subjective appetite ratings were measured using a sliding curser on
parison to the averaged control value (1902 ± 634, 1998 ± 534, and
five 100-mm VAS scales with anchor statements on the left/right: very
1776 ± 566 kcals for the HP, HPHF, and averaged control weeks
weak/very strong (How strong is your desire to eat?); not hungry at all/
respectively; p = 0.007; effect size, 0.407); however, averaged weekly
as hungry as I have ever felt (How hungry do you feel?); not full at all/
energy intakes did not differ between the HP and HPHF bars. The dif­
totally full (How full do you feel?); completely empty/cannot eat
ferences in energy intake in comparison to the control value remained
another bite (How satisfied do you feel?); not at all/ a large amount
significant when gender and/or body mass were added as covariates.
(How much do you think you could eat right now?) (Flint et al., 2000).
Averaged weekly intakes from carbohydrate did not differ during the
The VAS scales were sent to participants in a text message containing an
trial; however, protein intakes were significantly elevated the weeks the
online survey link to be completed upon receipt. The participants
protein bars were consumed in comparison to the control weeks
measured appetite ratings upon waking each Wednesday, Friday, and
(+20–35%, p < 0.001) (Table 3). Furthermore, fibre and fat intakes
Sunday during the trial, and during study weeks 2 and 4, appetite ratings
were significantly elevated the week the HPHF bar was consumed in
were also measured each day one hour after consuming the protein bar.
comparison to the other study weeks.
Weekly appetite scores were averaged, and a composite score (mm) was
Five subjective appetite ratings were recorded upon waking each
calculated to reflect the fasting appetite scores and the overall effect of
Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday during the 4-week study, and the
the protein bars on appetite ratings: [(hunger + desire to eat + pro­
average composite scores for these ratings were computed weekly
spective consumption + (100 − fullness) + (100 - satisfied)]/5 (Au-
(Fig. 3). The weekly composite scores at waking did not differ between
Yeung et al., 2018).
the averaged control, HP, and HPFP weeks (58.3 ± 11.6, 57.9 ± 15.5,
Body composition measures (non-fasting) were collected at each
and 55.6 ± 13.0 mm respectively (Fig. 3). For the weeks the protein bars
laboratory visit (scheduled at the same time of day for individual par­
were consumed, appetite ratings were also recorded one hour after bar
ticipants): body mass in light clothes and body fat mass based on
consumption, and the composite scores for these postprandial ratings
bioelectrical impedance technology (Tanita DC-430U Dual Frequency
were significantly reduced from all fasting composite scores but did not
Full Body Composition Monitor, Tanita Corporation of America,
differ between protein bars (36.0 ± 11.0 and 35.6 ± 15.0 mm for the HP
Arlington Heights, IL; maintenance protocol followed prior to each use).
and HPFP bars respectively) (Fig. 3).
The waist was measured at the smallest circumference using a flexible
tension tape, and height was measured using a free-standing
stadiometer.
Table 2
Baseline characteristics.
2.3. Statistical analysis Mean ± SD

Gender (M/F)Age 6/15

Power analyses were based on change in the composite score for the (y) 21.9 ± 2.6
appetite measures, a total of 20 participants provided > 90% power to Weight (kg) 68.2 ± 12.4
detect a treatment difference at a two-sided 0.05 significance level BMI (kg/m2) 23.9 ± 2.7
(Cohen’s d = 0.56; see Au-Yeung et al., 2018). Data were reported as Waist Circumference (cm) 77.6 ± 9.6
Fat Mass (kg) 17.2 ± 6.8
mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated, and all analyses were completed

3
M. Pang et al. Journal of Functional Foods 104 (2023) 105547

Fig. 2. Participant characteristics compiled weekly during the study [control (weeks 1 and 3 averaged) and protein bar feeding week: protein bar (HP); protein bar
plus fibre (HPHF)]. (a) 24-h energy intake; (b) body mass; (c) body fat mass; and (d) waist circumference. Bars without a common superscript differ significantly (p
< 0.05, one-way repeated measures MANOVA with least significant difference post-hoc test).

Table 3
Macronutrient intake at baseline and during the HP and HPHF feeding weeks1.
Baseline HP HPHF

Carbohydrate (g) 196.6 ± 71.9a 221.2 ± 63.5b 216.2 ± 63.5b

Fat (g) 64.3 ± 24.2a 67.5 ± 28.0a 78.3 ± 26.0b
Protein (g) 83.4 ± 40.6a 102.0 ± 43.9b 108.2 ± 35.9b
Fibre (g) 16.7 ± 10.9a 18.4 ± 11.6a 29.1 ± 8.9b
1
Data are 3-day averages (Wednesday, Friday, Sunday). HP, high-protein bar;
HPHF, high-protein high-fibre bar. Means without a common superscript differ
significantly (p ≤ 0.05, one-way repeated measures MANOVA with least sig­
nificant difference post-hoc test).

Anthropometric data were collected at the control week and at the

end of the 7-day feeding periods for the HP and HPHF bars (Fig. 2b-d).
Total body mass and waist circumference did not differ between study
weeks; however, body fat mass was significantly higher at the end of the
7-day feeding periods for the HP and HPHF bars compared to control
(18.8 ± 6.8, 18.8 ± 6.8, and 18.3 ± 6.7 kg respectively, p = 0.039; ef­
fect size, 0.333). Lean body mass did not change significantly over the
course of the study (p = 0.320; data not shown).
Fig. 3. Composite scores (mean ± SE) for appetite ratings each week upon
waking [control (weeks 1 and 3 averaged) and protein bar feeding week: pro­
tein bar (HP); protein bar plus fibre (HPHF)] and at one-hour post bar ingestion.
Bars without a common letter differ significantly (p < 0.001, effect size, 0.782,
one-way repeated measures MANOVA with least significant difference post-
hoc test).

compensation for the energy in the HP and HPHF bars averaged under
4. Discussion
20%. Whybrow et al. (2007) fed high caloric snacks (350–700 kcals/d)
to free-living participants (n = 72) and reported higher compensation
The data indicate that the average total 24-h energy intakes for the
rates, 54% to 64%. The snacks were high carbohydrate or high fat and
weeks the protein bars were consumed were raised an average of 170
were consumed mid-morning and mid-afternoon each day for 14 days.
kcals above that noted for the averaged control week. Both protein bars
Although compensation rates were high in comparison to the present
reduced short-term appetite in an equal manner one-hour after inges­
study, the extra energy ingested by these participants was greater than
tion; yet the short-term appetite effects noted at one hour following bar
the 150 kcals/d reported herein. Using national survey data (n = 3777),
consumption did not extend across the entire day, and the daily

4
M. Pang et al.
Kant and Graubard (2019) compared dietary recall data for a snack day
versus no snack day and estimated that adults compensate for 39–52% of
the energy in snacks. The snacks averaged 360–493 kcals; hence, an
extra 220–240 kcals were ingested on the days that snacks were
consumed. Together, these data suggest that the daily compensation for
the energy in snacks is incomplete and that the degree of compensation
may be relative to the amount of extra energy ingested daily from snacks
(e.g., the greater the caloric value of the snack, the greater the
compensation).
There is consensus that diets rich in protein benefit weight man­
agement by curbing appetite (Doi et al., 2001; Hansen et al., 2021;
Zhang et al., 2022); however, as indicated in this study, protein provided
as a supplement outside of mealtime may not offer the same benefits for
appetite reduction as mealtime protein. A snack can add to daily caloric
intake if consumed in addition to the foods typically ingested, or a snack
can ‘replace’ meals or another snack item and not impact daily caloric
intakes. In the present study, participants were not told to substitute the
protein bar for other food items; rather, the only instruction participants
received was to consume the protein bar within one hour of waking and
to not consume other foods or caloric beverages for one hour following
bar ingestion. Navas-Carretero et al. (2011) fed high protein snacks to
participants with type 2 diabetes, with specific instructions to substitute
these snacks for breakfast or for their typical mid-morning or mid-
afternoon snacks and noted modest reductions in both body mass (-1
kg) and fat mass (− 0.8 kg) after four weeks. However, appetite ratings
did not differ between the high protein breakfast and habitual breakfast,
and 24-hour energy intakes did not differ between the control weeks and
feeding periods of the study. Hence, to promote consciousness of caloric
intakes, consumers should be specifically instructed to substitute protein
bars for other foods typically ingested over the course of a 24-hour
period. In support of such instruction, research suggests that con­
sumers separate foods as ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’, and they tend to
underestimate the caloric content of ‘healthy’ snacks and consume more
calories when eating what they perceive as ‘healthy’ snacks in com­
parison to ‘unhealthy’ snacks (Carels et al. 2006; Provencher et al.,
2009).
The HPHF bar provided 14 g fibre (37–56% of the recommended
daily intake for young adults) but did not produce greater reductions in
caloric intake in comparison to the HP bar containing 2 g fibre as was
anticipated. Some research suggests that dietary fibre regulates appetite
by augmenting the production of gut hormones involved in appetite
regulation (Hughes et al., 2022; Esmaeili et al., 2022). Yet, like the data
reported herein, several recent feeding trials did not observe an effect of
fibre supplementation on acute or long-term subjective ratings of satiety
or on physiological markers of appetite [Fuglsang-Nielsen et al., 2021).
This dichotomy may be linked to differing physical–chemical properties
of extrinsic and intrinsic fibres. Reverri et al. (2017) fed adults with
metabolic syndrome three isocaloric breakfasts containing no fibre,
added fibre (e.g., extrinsic fibre), or intrinsic fibre (bean fibre) in a
randomized, crossover trial. The intrinsic fibre meal significantly
elevated the GI hormones cholecystokinin (CCK) and peptide tyrosine
tyrosine (PYY) in comparison to the extrinsic fibre meal suggesting that
intrinsic fibre may have greater influence on appetite in comparison to
commercially produced fibre.
Body weight did not vary significantly across study weeks, but a
modest, yet significant, increase in body fat mass (+3%) was noted
following the protein bar feeding periods compared to the control week.
Others have also documented that mandatory between meal snacking
has a minimal effect on body weight in free-living adults for up to 8
weeks [Whybrow et al., 2007; Kant and Graubard, 2019; Viskaal-van
Dongen et al., 2010), but a significant increase in body fat mass (+3–4%)
was reported in one of these studies (Viskaal-van Dongen et al., 2010). In
addition, Whybrow et al. (2007) reported a non-significant trend for
weight gain and increased fat mass with increasing energy intake from
snacks during two weeks of mandatory snacks consumption among free-
living adults. In their systematic review, Leaf and Antonio (2017)
5
Journal of Functional Foods 104 (2023) 105547
reported that fat mass gains averaged 53% of weight gain in adults
participating in strictly controlled overfeeding studies, whereas in the
present report this percentage was 70–130%. Importantly, in the data
compiled by Leaf and Antonio (study count, 25; total participant count,
305), there was a negative correlation between total weight gain and fat
mass gains (r = -0.611, p < 0.001), and for the trials reporting ≤ 1 kg
weight gain (as was reported herein), body fat mass represented 100% of
the total weight gain. Hence, the degree of fat mass increase noted in the
present study is consistent with fat mass gains noted in other studies
using controlled overfeeding protocols. Furthermore, in one report this
degree of change in fat mass was considered to have physiological
relevance (Hochkogler et al., 2017).
Consumption of protein bars may favorably impact nutrient intake
among free-living adults. During the weeks the HP and HPHF bars were
consumed, the average protein intake increased by an average of
26–35%; whereas on the week HPHF bars were consumed, the average
fibre intake increased by 70%. Thus, protein bars may be considered a
strategy to improve nutritional health among free-living adults. The
global protein bar market was valued at 4.7 billion in 2021 and is esti­
mated to reach 7.1 billion by 2029 (Fortune Business Insights, 2022).
Consumers may perceive protein bars as convenient, healthy, or
nutrient-rich, but they may not consider protein bars as energy-dense.
Consumers should consider protein bar consumption as a meal
replacement or snack replacement based on the caloric density of the
bar.
Study limitations include participant bias resulting from self-
reported health history and dietary data. Also, although participants
reported that they did not engage in intensive exercise or competitive
sports, physical activity was not monitored during the study. The
appetite recordings were conducted at the participants’ homes, and
timing accuracy cannot be verified. The data were collected using one-
week feeding periods, and studies with longer feeding periods will
need to be conducted to determine if these results persist long-term.
Furthermore, for female participants controlling for the menstrual
cycle should be considered to reduce potential confounding effects of
hormonal fluctuations on appetite and food intake. The use of bioelec­
trical impedance for assessing body fat mass limits data interpretation
due to possible changes in hydration status. The commercial protein bars
utilized in this study may not generalize to other protein bar products in
the market. Participants were healthy, non-athlete, non-obese adults
from a campus population, and these results cannot be generalized to
other populations. However, the study was adequately powered, and the
crossover design reduced the influence of confounding by fixed char­
acteristics and is reflective of free-living conditions.
5. Conclusions
These results suggest that the daily ingestion of protein bars
increased overall energy intakes and may impact body mass over time.
Since the daily compensation for the energy in the HP and HPHF bars
averaged under 20%, protein bars may not be perceived by consumers as
a significant energy source. Protein bars should be viewed as a snack
replacement or meal replacement to facilitate compensation for their
caloric content. Future studies are necessary to determine the long-term
effects of commercial protein bar ingestion.
Ethical Statement
This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of
Helsinki and obtained institutional ethical approval from the Institu­
tional Review Board at Arizona State University (STUDY00015151).
Funding
This work was partially funded by a grant from the Arizona State
University Graduate and Professional Student Association’s Graduate
Research Support Program.
M. Pang et al.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Minghan Pang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Investigation. Catherine
Trier: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Christy Alexon: Su­
pervision, Writing – review & editing. Carol S. Johnston: Conceptual­
ization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original
draft, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Astbury, N. M., Taylor, M. A., French, S. J., & Macdonald, I. A. (2014). Snacks containing
whey protein and polydextrose induce a sustained reduction in daily energy intake
over 2 wk under free-living conditions. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 99
(5), 1131–1140. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.113.075978
Au-Yeung, F., Jovanovski, E., Jenkins, A. L., Zurbau, A., Ho, H. V. T., & Vuksan, V.
(2018). The effects of gelled konjac glucomannan fibre on appetite and energy intake
in healthy individuals: A randomised cross-over trial. The British Journal of Nutrition,
119(1), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114517003233
Carels, R. A., Harper, J., & Konrad, K. (2006). Qualitative perceptions and caloric
estimations of healthy and unhealthy foods by behavioral weight loss participants.
Appetite, 46(2), 199–206. https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1016/j.appet.200
5.12.002.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Adult obesity facts. (2021). https://www.cd
c.gov/obesity/data/adult.html [accessed 11 April 2022].
Chungchunlam, S. M., Henare, S. J., Ganesh, S., & Moughan, P. J. (2015). Dietary whey
protein influences plasma satiety-related hormones and plasma amino acids in
normal-weight adult women. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 69(2), 179–186.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2014.266
Coherent Market Insights. Whey Protein Isolates Market Analysis. https://www.
coherentmarketinsights.com/market-insight/whey-protein-isolates-market-1786;
2022 [accessed 26 June 2022].
Doi, T., Matsuo, T., Sugawara, M., Matsumoto, K., Minehira, K., Hamada, K., …
Suzuki, M. (2001). New approach for weight reduction by a combination of diet,
light resistance exercise and the timing of ingesting a protein supplement. Asia
Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 10(3), 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-
6047.2001.00247.x
Esmaeili, M., Ajami, M., Barati, M., Javanmardi, F., Houshiarrad, A., & Mousavi
Khaneghah, A. (2022). The significance and potential of functional food ingredients
for control appetite and food intake. Food Science & Nutrition, 10(5), 1602–1612.
https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2783
Flint, A., Raben, A., Blundell, J. E., & Astrup, A. (2000). Reproducibility, power and
validity of visual analogue scales in assessment of appetite sensations in single test
meal studies. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 24(1),
38–48. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0801083
Fortune Business Insights. Protein bar market size, share & Covid-19 impact analysis, by
source (plant-based and animal-based), by type (sports nutritional bars, meal-
replacement bars, and others), by distribution channel (mass merchandisers,
specialty stores, convenience stores, online channels, others), and regional forecast,
2022-2029, https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/protein-
bar-market-100805; 2022 [accessed 5 December 2022].
Frestedt, J. L., Zenk, J. L., Kuskowski, M. A., Ward, L. S., & Bastian, E. D. (2008). A whey-
protein supplement increases fat loss and spares lean muscle in obese subjects: A
randomized human clinical study. Nutrition & Metabolism, 5, 8. https://doi.org/
10.1186/1743-7075-5-8
Fuglsang-Nielsen, R., Rakvaag, E., Langdahl, B., Knudsen, K. E. B., Hartmann, B.,
Holst, J. J., … Gregersen, S. (2021). Effects of whey protein and dietary fiber intake
on insulin sensitivity, body composition, energy expenditure, blood pressure, and
appetite in subjects with abdominal obesity. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 75
(4), 611–619. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-020-00759-4
Journal of Functional Foods 104 (2023) 105547
Giezenaar, C., Trahair, L. G., Luscombe-Marsh, N. D., Hausken, T., Standfield, S.,
Jones, K. L., … Soenen, S. (2017). Effects of randomized whey-protein loads on
energy intake, appetite, gastric emptying, and plasma gut-hormone concentrations
in older men and women. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 106(3),
865–877. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.117.154377
Hansen, T. T., Astrup, A., & Sjödin, A. (2021). Are Dietary Proteins the Key to Successful
Body Weight Management? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies
Assessing Body Weight Outcomes after Interventions with Increased Dietary Protein.
Nutrients, 13(9), 3193. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13093193
Hochkogler, C. M., Lieder, B., Rust, P., Berry, D., Meier, S. M., Pignitter, M., Riva, A.,
Leitinger, A., Bruk, A., Wagner, S., Hans, J., Widder, S., Ley, J. P., Krammer, G. E., &
Somoza, V. (2017). A 12-week intervention with nonivamide, a TRPV1 agonist,
prevents a dietary-induced body fat gain and increases peripheral serotonin in
moderately overweight subjects. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, 61(5),
10.1002/mnfr.201600731. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201600731.
Hughes, R. L., Horn, W. F., Wen, A., Rust, B., Woodhouse, L. R., Newman, J. W., &
Keim, N. L. (2022). Resistant starch wheat increases PYY and decreases GIP but has
no effect on self-reported perceptions of satiety. Appetite, 168, Article 105802.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105802
Kant, A. K., & Graubard, B. I. (2019). Within-person compensation for snack energy by
US adults, NHANES 2007–2014. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 109(4),
1145–1153. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqy349
Kohanmoo, A., Faghih, S., & Akhlaghi, M. (2020). Effect of short- and long-term protein
consumption on appetite and appetite-regulating gastrointestinal hormones, a
systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Physiology &
Behavior, 226, Article 113123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.113123
Kristensen, M., & Jensen, M. G. (2011). Dietary fibre in the regulation of appetite and
food intake. Importance of viscosity. Appetite, 56(1), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.appet.2010.11.147
Laddu, D., Dow, C., Hingle, M., Thomson, C., & Going, S. (2011). A review of evidence-
based strategies to treat obesity in adults. Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 26(5),
512–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0884533611418335
Leaf, A., & Antonio, J. (2017). The Effects of Overfeeding on Body Composition: The Role
of Macronutrient Composition - A Narrative Review. International Journal of Exercise
Science, 10(8), 1275–1296.
Mollahosseini, M., Shab-Bidar, S., Rahimi, M. H., & Djafarian, K. (2017). Effect of whey
protein supplementation on long and short term appetite: A meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials. Clinical nutrition ESPEN, 20, 34–40. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.clnesp.2017.04.002
Myfitnesspal. Good health starts with what you eat, https://www.myfitnesspal.com/ ;
2022 [accessed 11 April 2022].
Navas-Carretero, S., Abete, I., Zulet, M. A., & Martínez, J. A. (2011). Chronologically
scheduled snacking with high-protein products within the habitual diet in type-2
diabetes patients leads to a fat mass loss: A longitudinal study. Nutrition Journal, 10,
74. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-10-74
Pillitteri, J. L., Shiffman, S., Rohay, J. M., Harkins, A. M., Burton, S. L., & Wadden, T. A.
(2008). Use of dietary supplements for weight loss in the United States: Results of a
national survey. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), 16(4), 790–796. https://doi.org/
10.1038/oby.2007.136
Provencher, V., Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2009). Perceived healthiness of food. If it’s
healthy, you can eat more! Appetite, 52(2), 340–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
appet.2008.11.005
Reverri, E. J., Randolph, J. M., Kappagoda, C. T., Park, E., Edirisinghe, I., & Burton-
Freeman, B. M. (2017). Assessing beans as a source of intrinsic fiber on satiety in
men and women with metabolic syndrome. Appetite, 118, 75–81. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.appet.2017.07.013
Viskaal-van Dongen, M., Kok, F. J., & de Graaf, C. (2010). Effects of snack consumption
for 8 weeks on energy intake and body weight. International Journal of Obesity
(2005), 34(2), 319–326. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2009.243.
Williams, G., Noakes, M., Keogh, J., Foster, P., & Clifton, P. (2006). High protein high
fibre snack bars reduce food intake and improve short term glucose and insulin
profiles compared with high fat snack bars. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
15(4), 443–450.
Willis, H. J., Eldridge, A. L., Beiseigel, J., Thomas, W., & Slavin, J. L. (2009). Greater
satiety response with resistant starch and corn bran in human subjects. Nutrition
Research (New York, N.Y.), 29(2), 100–105. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nutres.2009.01.004.
Whybrow, S., Mayer, C., Kirk, T. R., Mazlan, N., & Stubbs, R. J. (2007). Effects of two
weeks’ mandatory snack consumption on energy intake and energy balance. Obesity
(Silver Spring, Md.), 15(3), 673–685. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2007.567
Zhang, Y., Chen, X., Allison, D. B., & Xun, P. (2022). Efficacy and safety of a specific
commercial high-protein meal-replacement product line in weight management:
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Critical Reviews in Food Science and
Nutrition, 62(3), 798–809. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1829539