Metabolic and satiating effects and consumer acceptance of a fibre-enriched Leberkas meal: a randomized cross-over trial



The Western diet is poor in dietary fibre and previous efforts to increase fibre intake were not successful. The aim of this study was to develop sensorically appealing, fibre-enriched convenience foods. As a showcase, we prepared a fibre-enriched, fat-reduced Leberkas served in a roll and compared the reformulated product with the standard product.


The design was a randomized, single-blinded cross-over study. A Leberkas meal enriched with 19.2 g of wheat fibre and resistant dextrin as well as fat- and energy-reduced (30% less calories) was served to 20 middle-aged healthy volunteers (10 male, 10 female) and compared to the standard product in a random order. Blood was repeatedly taken over a 4 h period to measure metabolic parameters as well as satiety hormones, such as glucagon-like-peptide 1, cholecystokinin, peptide YY. Satiety and consumer acceptance of the fibre-enriched meal were assessed by visual analogue scales and a questionnaire.


The fibre-enriched meal showed very small significant effects at only single time points in postprandial blood glucose (at 120 min, p = 0.050) and glucoseAUC fibre 22,079 ± 2819, standard 22,912 ± 3583 (p = 0.030). The profiles of satiety hormones were comparable between both meals. No differences in subjective satiation, taste and consumer acceptance were observed between the two products, despite a marked reduction in fat and energy content of the reformulated product.


It is possible to enrich a popular convenience product with dietary fibre and to markedly reduce energy content without loss of sensory qualities or satiety suggesting that development and promotion of healthier convenience foods may be a useful strategy to tackle obesity and other diet-related diseases.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3


  1. 1.

    Mozaffarian D (2016) Dietary and policy priorities for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity: a comprehensive review. Circulation 133:187–225.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Mozaffarian D, Hao T, Rimm EB et al (2011) Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N Engl J Med 364:2392–2404.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Global BMCI, Di Angelantonio E, Bhupathiraju S et al (2016) Body-mass index and all-cause mortality: individual-participant-data meta-analysis of 239 prospective studies in four continents. Lancet 388:776–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Mozaffarian D, Fahimi S, Singh GM et al (2014) Global sodium consumption and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med 371:624–634.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Yang Q, Zhang Z, Gregg EW et al (2014) Added sugar intake and cardiovascular diseases mortality among US adults. JAMA Intern Med 174:516–524.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Schnabel L, Kesse-Guyot E, Allès B et al (2019) Association between ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of mortality among middle-aged adults in France. JAMA Intern Med 179:490–498.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hauner H, Bechthold A, Boeing H et al (2012) Evidence-based guideline of the German Nutrition Society: carbohydrate intake and prevention of nutrition-related diseases. Ann Nutr Metab 60(Suppl 1):1–58.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Reynolds A, Mann J, Cummings J et al (2019) Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet 393:434–445.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Gose M, Krems C, Heuer T, Hoffmann I (2015) Trends in food consumption and nutrient intake in Germany between 2006 and 2012: results of the German National Nutrition Monitoring (NEMONIT). Br J Nutr 115:1498-1507.

  10. 10.

    Stephen AM, Champ MM-J, Cloran SJ et al (2017) Dietary fibre in Europe: current state of knowledge on definitions, sources, recommendations, intakes and relationships to health. Nutr Res Rev 30:149–190.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Shan LC, Henchion M, de Brún A et al (2017) Factors that predict consumer acceptance of enriched processed meats. Meat Sci 133:185–193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Sajdakowska M, Gębski J, Żakowska-Biemans S et al (2019) Willingness to eat bread with health benefits: habits, taste and health in bread choice. Public Health 167:78–87.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Brandl B, Skurk T, Rennekamp R et al (2020) A phenotyping platform to characterize healthy individuals across four stages of life—the enable study. Front Nutr 7:215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Slavin J, Green H (2007) Dietary fibre and satiety. Nutr Bullet 32:32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Livesey G, Tagami H (2009) Interventions to lower the glycemic response to carbohydrate foods with a low-viscosity fiber (resistant maltodextrin): meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr 89:114–125.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Clark MJ, Slavin JL (2013) The effect of fiber on satiety and food intake: a systematic review. J Am Coll Nutr 32:200–211.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Poutanen KS, Dussort P, Erkner A et al (2017) A review of the characteristics of dietary fibers relevant to appetite and energy intake outcomes in human intervention trials. Am J Clin Nutr 106:747–754.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Archer BJ, Johnson SK, Devereux HM et al (2004) Effect of fat replacement by inulin or lupin-kernel fibre on sausage patty acceptability, post-meal perceptions of satiety and food intake in men. Br J Nutr 91:591–599.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    GBD (2017) Diet Collaborators (2019) Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet 393:1958–1972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank Julia Ashton, Sandra Eckardt, Irmgard Sperrer and Margot Maier for assistance in taking care of the volunteers and data collection, and Manuela Hubersberger for technical assistance. We would also like to thank Jürgen Sieg and Anne Fischer from Rettenmaier & Sons for providing the Leberkas rolls.


This work was funded by a grant of the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF, 01EA1409C). The preparation of this paper was supported by the enable Cluster and is catalogued by the enable Steering Committee as enable 050 (

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Hauner.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The funders (BMBF) had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 19 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rennekamp, R., Brandl, B., Giesbertz, P. et al. Metabolic and satiating effects and consumer acceptance of a fibre-enriched Leberkas meal: a randomized cross-over trial. Eur J Nutr (2021).

Download citation


  • Fibre-enrichment
  • Convenience food
  • Reformulation
  • Satiety
  • Metabolic risk