Harriet A Carroll1, Iain Templeman2, Yung-Chih Chen3, Robert Edinburgh4, Elaine K Burch5, Jake T Jewitt5, Georgie Povey5, Timothy D Robinson5, William L Dooley5, Charlotte Buckley6, Peter J Rogers7, Widet Gallo8, Olle Melander9, Dylan Thompson10, Lewis J James11, Laura Johnson12, James A Betts13. 1. Department for Health, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, United Kingdom; Rowett Institute, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Ashgrove Road West, Aberdeen, AB25 3BQ, United Kingdom. Electronic address: hc12591@my.bristol.ac.uk. 2. Department for Health, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, United Kingdom. Electronic address: iain.templeman@gmail.com. 3. Department of Physical Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan; Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Science, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan. Electronic address: yc.chen@ntnu.edu.tw. 4. Department for Health, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, United Kingdom. Electronic address: r.m.edinburgh@bath.ac.uk. 5. Department for Health, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, United Kingdom. 6. Automatic Control and Systems Engineering, University of Sheffield, S1 4DT, United Kingdom. Electronic address: c.m.buckley@sheffield.ac.uk. 7. School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, 12a, Priory Road, Bristol, BS8 1TU, United Kingdom. Electronic address: peter.rogers@bristol.ac.uk. 8. Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Box 117, 221 00, Sweden. Electronic address: widet.gallo@med.lu.se. 9. Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Box 117, 221 00, Sweden. Electronic address: olle.melander@med.lu.se. 10. Department for Health, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, United Kingdom. Electronic address: d.thompson@bath.ac.uk. 11. School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Epinal Way, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, United Kingdom. Electronic address: l.james@lboro.ac.uk. 12. School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, 8 Priory Road, Bristol, BS8 1TZ, United Kingdom. Electronic address: laura.johnson@bristol.ac.uk. 13. Department for Health, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, United Kingdom. Electronic address: j.betts@bath.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the effect of hydration status on appetite for food in healthy adults. Prior work suggests hydration status does not alter appetite or energy intake, with mixed findings regarding appetite hormone secretion. However, an extensive investigation into both the psychological and physiological appetitive responses to hydration status has never been conducted. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of hydration status on multiple facets of appetite. DESIGN: After 3 days pre-trial standardization, a range of appetite tasks were conducted when hypohydrated (HYPO) and euhydrated (EUHY) in 16 healthy participants (8 men). Hydration status was manipulated via dehydration in a heat tent for 60 min and subsequent fluid restriction (HYPO) or replacement (EUHY). The next day, a food reward computer task was completed followed by an ad libitum pasta meal. Pre- and post-prandial visual analogue scales assessing hunger, fullness, and flavour desires (sweet, salty, savoury and fatty) were additionally completed. Blood samples were taken the previous day before the hydration interventions in a euhydrated state, and in the fasted and post-prandial state during HYPO and EUHY. RESULTS: HYPO induced -1.9 ± 1.2% body mass change, compared to -0.2 ± 0.6% , with accompanying changes in markers of hypohydration which were not seen during EUHY. A higher desire for foods was associated with a higher water content but the association was weaker in EUHY compared to HYPO, (β= -0.33 mm/g of food water content, p < 0.001) in the food reward task. Visual analogue scales showed similar hunger and fullness between interventions, but during HYPO there was consistently higher thirst (average range in difference 27-32 mm across all time points) and lower fasted desire for salt (-23, 95% CI -10, -35 mm). Ad libitum energy intake (HYPO 1953 ± 742 kJ, EUHY 2027 ± 926 kJ; p = 0.542) and post-prandial ghrelin concentrations (HYPO 180 ± 65 pg mL-1, EUHY 188 ± 71 pg mL-1; p = 0.736) were similar by hydration status. CONCLUSIONS: An acute manipulation to hydration status altered desire for salt and foods of differing water contents, but did not influence energy intake at an ad libitum pasta meal. Further research should investigate whether these appetites would alter food choice.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the effect of hydration status on appetite for food in healthy adults. Prior work suggests hydration status does not alter appetite or energy intake, with mixed findings regarding appetite hormone secretion. However, an extensive investigation into both the psychological and physiological appetitive responses to hydration status has never been conducted. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of hydration status on multiple facets of appetite. DESIGN: After 3 days pre-trial standardization, a range of appetite tasks were conducted when hypohydrated (HYPO) and euhydrated (EUHY) in 16 healthy participants (8 men). Hydration status was manipulated via dehydration in a heat tent for 60 min and subsequent fluid restriction (HYPO) or replacement (EUHY). The next day, a food reward computer task was completed followed by an ad libitum pasta meal. Pre- and post-prandial visual analogue scales assessing hunger, fullness, and flavour desires (sweet, salty, savoury and fatty) were additionally completed. Blood samples were taken the previous day before the hydration interventions in a euhydrated state, and in the fasted and post-prandial state during HYPO and EUHY. RESULTS: HYPO induced -1.9 ± 1.2% body mass change, compared to -0.2 ± 0.6% , with accompanying changes in markers of hypohydration which were not seen during EUHY. A higher desire for foods was associated with a higher water content but the association was weaker in EUHY compared to HYPO, (β= -0.33 mm/g of food water content, p < 0.001) in the food reward task. Visual analogue scales showed similar hunger and fullness between interventions, but during HYPO there was consistently higher thirst (average range in difference 27-32 mm across all time points) and lower fasted desire for salt (-23, 95% CI -10, -35 mm). Ad libitum energy intake (HYPO 1953 ± 742 kJ, EUHY 2027 ± 926 kJ; p = 0.542) and post-prandial ghrelin concentrations (HYPO 180 ± 65 pg mL-1, EUHY 188 ± 71 pg mL-1; p = 0.736) were similar by hydration status. CONCLUSIONS: An acute manipulation to hydration status altered desire for salt and foods of differing water contents, but did not influence energy intake at an ad libitum pasta meal. Further research should investigate whether these appetites would alter food choice.
Authors: Asher Y Rosinger; Hilary J Bethancourt; Zane S Swanson; Kaylee Lopez; W Larry Kenney; Tomas Huanca; Esther Conde; Rosemary Nzunza; Emmanuel Ndiema; David R Braun; Herman Pontzer Journal: Am J Hum Biol Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 2.947