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.

Insufficient energy compensation after a preload (meal, snack, or beverage) has been associated with excess energy intake, but experimental studies have used heterogeneous methodologies, making energy compensation difficult to predict. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the relative contributions of two key variables, preload physical form and intermeal interval (IMI), to differences in energy compensation. Forty-eight publications were included, from which percent energy compensation (%EC) data were extracted for 253 interventions (121 liquid, 69 semisolid, 20 solid, and 43 composite preloads). Energy compensation ranged from −370% (overconsumption, mostly of liquids) to 450% (overcompensation). A meta-regression analysis of studies reporting positive energy compensation showed that IMI (as the predominant factor) together with preload physical form and energy contributed significantly to %EC differences, accounting for 50% of the variance, independently from gender and BMI. Energy compensation was maximized when the preload was in semisolid/solid form and the IMI was 30–120 min. These results may assist in the interpretation of studies assessing the relative efficacy of interventions to enhance satiety, including functional foods and weight management products.

Socioeconomic inequalities in diet-related health outcomes are well-recognised, but are not fully explained by observational studies of consumption. We provide a novel analysis to identify purchasing patterns more precisely, based on data for take-home food and beverage purchases from 25,674 British households in 2010. To examine socioeconomic differences (measured by occupation), we conducted regression analyses on the proportion of energy purchased from (a) each of 43 food or beverage categories and (b) major nutrients. Results showed numerous small category-level socioeconomic differences. Aggregation of the categories showed lower SES groups generally purchased a greater proportion of energy from less healthy foods and beverages than those in higher SES groups (65% and 60%, respectively), while higher SES groups purchased a greater proportion of energy from healthier food and beverages (28% vs. 24%). At the nutrient-level, socioeconomic differences were less marked, although higher SES was associated with purchasing greater proportions of fibre, protein and total sugars, and smaller proportions of sodium. The observed pattern of purchasing across SES groups contributes to the explanation of observed health differences between groups and highlights targets for interventions to reduce health inequalities.

Increasing rates of obesity and overweight have been attributed to the growing proportion of dietary energy that is consumed in liquid form. Liquids reportedly fail to trigger physiological satiety mechanisms so that compensation for energy consumed as beverages may be imprecise and incomplete. Sweetened beverages have come under particular scrutiny, as their consumption exceeds that of milk and fruit and vegetable juices. However, the evidence that liquids have less impact on satiety than do solid foods remains inconclusive. Some published studies have reported that liquids are less satiating than solids, whereas other studies have reported that solids are less satiating than liquids. In laboratory studies, the degree of energy compensation following pre-load ingestion was influenced by subject characteristics, pre-load volume, or the time lag between the pre-load and the next meal. Such factors appear to interact with pre-load texture in their impact on hunger and satiety and later food consumption.