Literature DB >> 11477507

Effects of test-meal palatability on compensatory eating following disguised fat and carbohydrate preloads.

M R Yeomans1, M D Lee, R W Gray, S J French.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test whether the palatability of a test meal altered compensatory eating following disguised high-energy fat and carbohydrate preloads.
DESIGN: Effects of preload energy (low, 265 kJ, or high, 1510 kJ) and test-meal palatability (bland or palatable) were contrasted within-subjects, with a between-subjects contrast of fat and carbohydrate preloads.
SUBJECTS: Twenty-four healthy, normal men (age 23.6+/-1.0 y, (body mass index) BMI 21.3+/-0.5). MEASUREMENTS: Microstructural analysis of test meal intake and rated appetite in the four test conditions, plus diary-based weighed intake analysis of energy intake post-lunch.
RESULTS: Subjects ate significantly less at lunch after disguised high-energy fat or carbohydrate preloads relative to the low-energy preload, and ate significantly more of the palatable than bland lunch in all conditions. The reduction in eating following the high-energy preload was significantly less in the palatable condition. Intake post-lunch did not differ between conditions, and overall subjects had higher daily energy intake on the days they consumed the high-energy preloads. Rated hunger was significantly less 30 min after the high- than low-energy preloads, but increased on tasting the palatable food in all conditions. The high-energy preloads suppressed appetite immediately post-lunch. No differences between fat and carbohydrate were found on any measure.
CONCLUSIONS: Manipulation of the palatability of a test meal modified the ability to respond to disguised high-energy preloads, with over-consumption most evident when disguised high-energy preloads were followed by a palatable food. Subsequent voluntary intake compensated for over-consumption of the palatable lunch, but not the high-energy preload.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11477507     DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801653

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord


  10 in total

1.  "The next mouthful will be the best": influence of prevision of the pleasure on the decision of having a second helping of a just eaten food.

Authors:  Piergiuseppe Vinai; Luisa Vinai; Paolo Vinai; Cecilia Bruno; Stacia Studt; Silvia Cardetti; Donatella Masante; Maurizio Speciale
Journal:  Eat Weight Disord       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 4.652

Review 2.  Molecular gastronomy: a new emerging scientific discipline.

Authors:  Peter Barham; Leif H Skibsted; Wender L P Bredie; Michael Bom Frøst; Per Møller; Jens Risbo; Pia Snitkjaer; Louise Mørch Mortensen
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2010-04-14       Impact factor: 60.622

3.  Measuring the Consumption of Individual Solid and Liquid Bites Using a Table-Embedded Scale During Unrestricted Eating.

Authors:  Ryan S Mattfeld; Eric R Muth; Adam Hoover
Journal:  IEEE J Biomed Health Inform       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 5.772

4.  Caloric compensation in preschool children: Relationships with body mass and differences by food category.

Authors:  S Carnell; L Benson; E L Gibson; L A Mais; S Warkentin
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 3.868

Review 5.  Nonnutritive sweetener consumption in humans: effects on appetite and food intake and their putative mechanisms.

Authors:  Richard D Mattes; Barry M Popkin
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2008-12-03       Impact factor: 7.045

Review 6.  Variety, palatability, and obesity.

Authors:  Fiona Johnson; Jane Wardle
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 8.701

Review 7.  Portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco.

Authors:  Gareth J Hollands; Ian Shemilt; Theresa M Marteau; Susan A Jebb; Hannah B Lewis; Yinghui Wei; Julian P T Higgins; David Ogilvie
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-09-14

8.  Assessment of satiety depends on the energy density and portion size of the test meal.

Authors:  Rachel A Williams; Liane S Roe; Barbara J Rolls
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2013-09-23       Impact factor: 5.002

Review 9.  Portion size: what we know and what we need to know.

Authors:  David Benton
Journal:  Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 11.176

10.  Monosodium glutamate delivered in a protein-rich soup improves subsequent energy compensation.

Authors:  Una Masic; Martin R Yeomans
Journal:  J Nutr Sci       Date:  2014-08-13
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.