Literature DB >> 21983053

Effects of meal frequency and snacking on food demand in mice.

Deniz Atalayer1, Neil E Rowland.   

Abstract

Ad libitum feeding patterns in mice show substantial differences between laboratories, in addition to large individual and time-of-day differences. In the present study, we examine how mice work for food when access to food is temporally restricted and so they are forced to take discrete meals. In a first experiment, separate groups of ICR:CD1 mice were given access to food for 4, 8 or 16 opportunities or meals per day, with the duration of access at each opportunity adjusted reciprocally so that the total time of availability was 160 min per day in all three conditions. During the periods of availability, mice were able to earn food pellets by nose poke responses, according to an incrementing series of fixed unit prices (FUP: 2, 5, 10, 25) with each schedule in force for 3-4 days. Total food intake was similar in all three groups, indicating that mice generally were able to adjust their intake to a range of temporal availabilities. In each group, food demand fell as FUP increased. In the 8 and 16 meal groups, no food was eaten in many of the opportunities. Within an opportunity, the rate of intake generally declined with time, indicative of satiation. At low FUPs, later opportunities in each day were associated with smaller meals than earlier opportunities; in contrast, at high FUPs the first opportunity was also a small meal. Collectively, these results show that mice eat less at higher costs but not because of time constraints of the schedule: instead, they exhibit an elective anorexia. In the second experiment, we examined whether snacking between imposed meals would affect subsequent meal(s). Mice were adapted to the foregoing 8 opportunity protocol. Then, half the mice received free snacks of sugar cubes after the 3rd, 4th and 5th meal opportunities and the intakes of sugar and pellets were examined at low and high unit costs for pellets (FUP2 and 25). At FUP2, mice decreased demand for pellets and compensated energetically for the sugar they consumed. At FUP25, mice also decreased demand, but by less than the energy obtained from sugar. These data show that choice for pellets over a free palatable snack, and subsequent compensation of energy intake, is modified by effort and demand.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21983053      PMCID: PMC3264693          DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appetite        ISSN: 0195-6663            Impact factor:   3.868


  13 in total

1.  Biobehavioral influences on energy intake and adult weight gain.

Authors:  Megan A McCrory; Vivian M M Suen; Susan B Roberts
Journal:  J Nutr       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.798

2.  Food intake, water intake, and drinking spout side preference of 28 mouse strains.

Authors:  Alexander A Bachmanov; Danielle R Reed; Gary K Beauchamp; Michael G Tordoff
Journal:  Behav Genet       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 2.805

3.  Effect of two types of environmental enrichment for singly housed mice on food intake and weight gain.

Authors:  Kimberly L Robertson; Neil E Rowland
Journal:  Lab Anim (NY)       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 12.625

4.  When to eat and how often?

Authors:  Elizabeth J Parks; Megan A McCrory
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 7.045

5.  Demand for food on fixed-ratio schedules as a function of the quality of concurrently available reinforcement.

Authors:  S E Lea; T J Roper
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.468

Review 6.  Psychological effects of snacks and altered meal frequency.

Authors:  R Kanarek
Journal:  Br J Nutr       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.718

7.  The ecological determinants of reinforcement in the rat.

Authors:  G Collier; E Hirsch; P H Hamlin
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  1972 Nov-Dec

8.  Meal patterns of lean and leptin-deficient obese mice in a simulated foraging environment.

Authors:  Cheryl H Vaughan; Neil E Rowland
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2003-07

9.  Food demand functions in mice.

Authors:  Melissa A Chaney; Neil E Rowland
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2008-06-08       Impact factor: 3.868

10.  An experimental analysis of the cost of food in a closed economy.

Authors:  R Bauman
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 2.468

View more
  3 in total

1.  The motivation for exercise over palatable food is dictated by cannabinoid type-1 receptors.

Authors:  Edgar Soria-Gomez; Carolina Muguruza; Bastien Redon; Giulia R Fois; Imane Hurel; Amandine Scocard; Claire Nguyen; Christopher Stevens; Marjorie Varilh; Astrid Cannich; Justine Daniault; Arnau Busquets-Garcia; Teresa Pelliccia; Stéphanie Caillé; François Georges; Giovanni Marsicano; Francis Chaouloff
Journal:  JCI Insight       Date:  2019-03-07

2.  Increased Eating Frequency Is Associated with Lower Obesity Risk, But Higher Energy Intake in Adults: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yue-Qiao Wang; Yun-Quan Zhang; Fei Zhang; Yi-Wen Zhang; Rui Li; Guo-Xun Chen
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 3.  Eating Frequency, Food Intake, and Weight: A Systematic Review of Human and Animal Experimental Studies.

Authors:  Hollie A Raynor; Matthew R Goff; Seletha A Poole; Guoxun Chen
Journal:  Front Nutr       Date:  2015-12-18
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.