Eric Robinson1, Eva Almiron-Roig1, Femke Rutters1, Cees de Graaf1, Ciarán G Forde1, Catrin Tudur Smith1, Sarah J Nolan1, Susan A Jebb1. 1. From the Departments of Psychological Sciences (ER) and Biostatistics (CTS and SJN), University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom; Medical Research Council Human Nutrition Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom (EA-R and SAJ); the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands (FR); the Division of Human Nutrition, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands (CdG); Top Institute Food and Nutrition, Wageningen, Netherlands (CdG); Nestlé Research Centre, Vers-Chez-Les-Blanc, Lausanne, Switzerland (CGF); and the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom (SAJ).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reductions in eating rate are recommended to prevent and treat obesity; yet, the relation between eating rate and energy intake has not been systematically reviewed, with studies producing mixed results. OBJECTIVE: Our main objective was to examine how experimentally manipulated differences in eating rate influence concurrent energy intake and subjective hunger ratings. DESIGN: We systematically reviewed studies that experimentally manipulated eating rate and measured concurrent food intake, self-reported hunger, or both. We combined effect estimates from studies by using inverse variance meta-analysis, calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD) in food intake between fast and slow eating rate conditions. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were eligible for inclusion. Evidence indicated that a slower eating rate was associated with lower energy intake in comparison to a faster eating rate (random-effects SMD: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.65; P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis indicated that the effect was consistent regardless of the type of manipulation used to alter eating rate, although there was a large amount of heterogeneity between studies. There was no significant relation between eating rate and hunger at the end of the meal or up to 3.5 h later. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence to date supports the notion that eating rate affects energy intake. Research is needed to identify effective interventions to reduce eating rate that can be adopted in everyday life to help limit excess consumption.
BACKGROUND: Reductions in eating rate are recommended to prevent and treat obesity; yet, the relation between eating rate and energy intake has not been systematically reviewed, with studies producing mixed results. OBJECTIVE: Our main objective was to examine how experimentally manipulated differences in eating rate influence concurrent energy intake and subjective hunger ratings. DESIGN: We systematically reviewed studies that experimentally manipulated eating rate and measured concurrent food intake, self-reported hunger, or both. We combined effect estimates from studies by using inverse variance meta-analysis, calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD) in food intake between fast and slow eating rate conditions. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were eligible for inclusion. Evidence indicated that a slower eating rate was associated with lower energy intake in comparison to a faster eating rate (random-effects SMD: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.65; P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis indicated that the effect was consistent regardless of the type of manipulation used to alter eating rate, although there was a large amount of heterogeneity between studies. There was no significant relation between eating rate and hunger at the end of the meal or up to 3.5 h later. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence to date supports the notion that eating rate affects energy intake. Research is needed to identify effective interventions to reduce eating rate that can be adopted in everyday life to help limit excess consumption.
Authors: Kevin D Hall; Alexis Ayuketah; Robert Brychta; Hongyi Cai; Thomas Cassimatis; Kong Y Chen; Stephanie T Chung; Elise Costa; Amber Courville; Valerie Darcey; Laura A Fletcher; Ciaran G Forde; Ahmed M Gharib; Juen Guo; Rebecca Howard; Paule V Joseph; Suzanne McGehee; Ronald Ouwerkerk; Klaudia Raisinger; Irene Rozga; Michael Stagliano; Mary Walter; Peter J Walter; Shanna Yang; Megan Zhou Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 27.287
Authors: Anna Fogel; Ai Ting Goh; Lisa R Fries; Suresh Anand Sadananthan; S Sendhil Velan; Navin Michael; Mya Thway Tint; Marielle Valerie Fortier; Mei Jun Chan; Jia Ying Toh; Yap-Seng Chong; Kok Hian Tan; Fabian Yap; Lynette P Shek; Michael J Meaney; Birit F P Broekman; Yung Seng Lee; Keith M Godfrey; Mary Foong Fong Chong; Ciarán G Forde Journal: Physiol Behav Date: 2017-02-14
Authors: Anna Fogel; Lisa R Fries; Keri McCrickerd; Ai Ting Goh; Mei Jun Chan; Jia Ying Toh; Yap-Seng Chong; Kok Hian Tan; Fabian Yap; Lynette P Shek; Michael J Meaney; Birit F P Broekman; Yung Seng Lee; Keith M Godfrey; Mary Foong Fong Chong; Ciarán G Forde Journal: Matern Child Nutr Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Anna Fogel; Ai Ting Goh; Lisa R Fries; Suresh A Sadananthan; S Sendhil Velan; Navin Michael; Mya-Thway Tint; Marielle V Fortier; Mei Jun Chan; Jia Ying Toh; Yap-Seng Chong; Kok Hian Tan; Fabian Yap; Lynette P Shek; Michael J Meaney; Birit F P Broekman; Yung Seng Lee; Keith M Godfrey; Mary F F Chong; Ciarán G Forde Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: Anna Fogel; Lisa R Fries; Keri McCrickerd; Ai Ting Goh; Phaik Ling Quah; Mei Jun Chan; Jia Ying Toh; Yap-Seng Chong; Kok Hian Tan; Fabian Yap; Lynette P Shek; Michael J Meaney; Birit F P Broekman; Yung Seng Lee; Keith M Godfrey; Mary Foong Fong Chong; Ciarán G Forde Journal: Appetite Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 3.868