Jessica S Bahorski1, Camille R Schneider-Worthington2, Paula C Chandler-Laney3. 1. University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Nursing, 1701 University Blvd, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. Electronic address: jbahorski@fsu.edu. 2. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Nutrition Sciences, 1675 University Blvd, Birmingham, AL 35233, USA. Electronic address: cschneid@uab.edu. 3. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Nutrition Sciences, 1675 University Blvd, Birmingham, AL 35233, USA. Electronic address: pchandle@uab.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Appetite traits and feeding practices have been linked to children's weight status. For example, eating in response to food cues (high food responsiveness (FR)), and poor regulation of intake (low satiety responsiveness (SR)), increase risk for obesity. Appetitive traits of infants, and feeding practices, are typically measured by parent-report. The purpose of this study was to use a modified eating in the absence of hunger (EAH) paradigm, measuring infants' intake 30 min after a typical meal, to test whether infant acceptance of a second meal is associated with parent-reported appetitive traits or feeding practices. METHODS: Healthy infants aged 3-5 months (N = 54) were fed a typical meal and then offered a second meal by bottle 30 min later. Appetitive traits and feeding practices were assessed with surveys. Analyses of covariance were used to assess whether appetitive traits differed by acceptance of the second meal after adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent of infants accepted the second meal and these infants had greater parent-reported FR (M = 3.06 ± 0.58 vs M = 2.43 ± 0.80, p < 0.01) and lower SR (M = 1.87 ± 0.62 vs M = 2.67 ± 0.87, p = 0.01), compared to infants who rejected it. Group differences remained after adjusting for infant age, feeding mode, weight-for-length, and maternal body mass index. No other appetitive traits or feeding practices differed by group. CONCLUSIONS: Results expand research in older children by showing that infant response to a modified EAH protocol is associated with parent-reported FR and SR. Future research with this protocol in infants should investigate the consistency of this behavior across time and examine whether response to this protocol predicts subsequent growth.
BACKGROUND: Appetite traits and feeding practices have been linked to children's weight status. For example, eating in response to food cues (high food responsiveness (FR)), and poor regulation of intake (low satiety responsiveness (SR)), increase risk for obesity. Appetitive traits of infants, and feeding practices, are typically measured by parent-report. The purpose of this study was to use a modified eating in the absence of hunger (EAH) paradigm, measuring infants' intake 30 min after a typical meal, to test whether infant acceptance of a second meal is associated with parent-reported appetitive traits or feeding practices. METHODS: Healthy infants aged 3-5 months (N = 54) were fed a typical meal and then offered a second meal by bottle 30 min later. Appetitive traits and feeding practices were assessed with surveys. Analyses of covariance were used to assess whether appetitive traits differed by acceptance of the second meal after adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent of infants accepted the second meal and these infants had greater parent-reported FR (M = 3.06 ± 0.58 vs M = 2.43 ± 0.80, p < 0.01) and lower SR (M = 1.87 ± 0.62 vs M = 2.67 ± 0.87, p = 0.01), compared to infants who rejected it. Group differences remained after adjusting for infant age, feeding mode, weight-for-length, and maternal body mass index. No other appetitive traits or feeding practices differed by group. CONCLUSIONS: Results expand research in older children by showing that infant response to a modified EAH protocol is associated with parent-reported FR and SR. Future research with this protocol in infants should investigate the consistency of this behavior across time and examine whether response to this protocol predicts subsequent growth.
Authors: A E Baughcum; S W Powers; S B Johnson; L A Chamberlin; C M Deeks; A Jain; R C Whitaker Journal: J Dev Behav Pediatr Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 2.225
Authors: Hendrik R Taal; Albert J Vd Heijden; Eric A P Steegers; Albert Hofman; Vincent W V Jaddoe Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Clare H Llewellyn; Cornelia H M van Jaarsveld; Laura Johnson; Susan Carnell; Jane Wardle Journal: Appetite Date: 2011-06-06 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Jane Wardle; Susan Carnell; Claire M A Haworth; I Sadaf Farooqi; Stephen O'Rahilly; Robert Plomin Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2008-06-26 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Clare Heidi Llewellyn; Maciej Trzaskowski; Cornelia Hendrika Maria van Jaarsveld; Robert Plomin; Jane Wardle Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Camille R Schneider-Worthington; Paige K Berger; Michael I Goran; Sarah-Jeanne Salvy Journal: Pediatr Obes Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 3.910
Authors: Sarvenaz Vandyousefi; Mary Jo Messito; Michelle W Katzow; Marc A Scott; Rachel S Gross Journal: Pediatr Obes Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 3.910
Authors: Sara F Stein; Hurley O Riley; Niko Kaciroti; Katherine L Rosenblum; Julie M Sturza; Ashley N Gearhardt; Andrew C Grogan-Kaylor; Julie C Lumeng; Alison L Miller Journal: Front Nutr Date: 2022-04-07