Emerging evidence indicates that for some people, the COVID-19 lockdowns are a time of high risk for increased food intake. A clearer understanding of which individuals are most at risk of overeating during the lockdown period is needed to inform interventions that promote healthy diets and prevent weight gain during lockdowns. An online survey collected during the COVID-19 lockdown (total n=875; analysed n=588; 33.4±12.6 years; 82% UK-based; mostly white, educated, and not home schooling) investigated reported changes to the amount consumed and changes to intake of high energy dense (HED) sweet and savoury foods. The study also assessed which eating behaviour traits predicted a reported increase of HED sweet and savoury foods and tested whether coping responses moderated this relationship. Results showed that 48% of participants reported increased food intake in response to the COVID-19 lockdown. There was large individual variability in reported changes and lower craving control was the strongest predictor of increased HED sweet and savoury food intake. Low cognitive restraint also predicted greater increases in HED sweet snacks and HED savoury meal foods. Food responsiveness, enjoyment of food, emotional undereating, emotional overeating and satiety responsiveness were not significant predictors of changes to HED sweet and savoury food intake. High scores on acceptance coping responses attenuated the conditional effects of craving control on HED sweet snack intake. Consistent with previous findings, the current research suggests that low craving control is a risk factor for increased snack food intake during lockdown and may therefore represent a target for intervention.

Key PointsQuestionIs transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (surgery) in patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk?FindingsIn this randomized clinical trial that included 913 patients at moderately increased operative risk due to age or comorbidity, all-cause mortality at 1 year was 4.6% with TAVI vs 6.6% with surgery, a difference that met the prespecified noninferiority margin of 5%.MeaningAmong patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk, treatment with TAVI was noninferior to surgery with respect to all-cause mortality at 1 year.

No abstract

While the use of additives to control the crystallization of polymorphs is well known, similar methodology to promote the crystallization of a metastable conglomerate over a stable racemic compound in enantiomeric systems has not been reported. Here we demonstrate this phenomenon in the case of 2-chloromandelic acid.

Background Portion size is known to be a key driver of food intake. As consumed portions are often pre-planned, ‘ideal portion size’—an individual’s preferred meal size selected prior to eating—has been identified as a strong predictor of actual consumption. However, assessments of ideal portion size have predominantly relied on laboratory-based computer tasks, limiting use online. Therefore, this cross-sectional study sought to pilot test the validity of a web-based tool to measure ideal portion size. Methods In an online study (N = 48), participants responded to images of a range of foods. Each food was photographed in a series of different portions and loaded into an ‘image carousel’ that would allow participants to change the size of the displayed portion by moving a slider left-to-right. Using this image carousel, participants selected their ideal portion size. They also completed measures of expected satiety and expected satiation and self-reported their age and body mass index (BMI). A non-parametric correlation matrix was used to explore associations between ideal portion size and identified predictors of food intake. Results Supporting convergent validity of this measure, ideal portion size was significantly correlated with expected satiety (rs = .480) and expected satiation (rs = −.310) after controlling for effects of baseline hunger and fullness, consistent with past research. Similarly, supporting divergent validity of this measure, ideal portion size was not significantly correlated with age (rs = −.032) or BMI (rs = −.111,). Conclusions Pilot results support the validity of this web-based portion size selection tool used to measure ideal portion size, though further research is needed to validate use with comparisons to actual food intake.

As greater food variety has been shown to increase intake and is associated with a higher BMI, interventions that modify the effects of food variety have implications for combatting obesity. Previous research has shown that labelling a food with ‘high variety’ flavour-specific labels can reduce an individual’s satiation whilst eating. We were interested in whether the effects of ‘variety labelling’ would also be observed on portion size selection and ad libitum food intake. Therefore, two studies were conducted to explore the effects of labelling foods with different levels of variety on ideal portion size, ratings of expected fullness, and actual intake. In Study 1 (N = 294), participants viewed images of a range of foods that were presented with either high variety labels (descriptions of within-food components), low variety labels (general names of food items), or no label. They selected their ideal portion size and rated their expected fullness for each food. In Study 2 (N = 99), they also consumed one of these foods ad libitum. It was hypothesised that foods presented with high variety labels would have an increased ideal portion size, reduced expected fullness, and increased intake compared to foods presented with low variety labels or no label. Our findings failed to support these predictions, and we found no evidence of an effect of variety labelling on ideal portion size, expected fullness or food intake. These findings highlight the importance of considering how consumer research studies translate to a more ‘real world’ setting.

Objectives: A need for Open Research practices exists, yet there remains a lack of validated questionnaires to assess Open Research practices. The study aimed to develop a brief (<5 minutes), standardised questionnaire to measure Open Research awareness and engagement across UK institutions.Methods: The Brief Open Research Survey (BORS) was developed in six steps: 1) a scoping exercise collated previous questionnaires on Open Research, 2) a brief questionnaire was developed, 3) peer-reviewed, 4) piloted, 5) revised, and 6) the final questionnaire was distributed across UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) local networks.Results: Respondents across thirty-five UKRN local networks participated (n = 1,274). Respondents were most aware of Open Access publications (94.1%) and also used them the most (76.5%). They were least aware of Registered Reports (38.1%) and also used them the least (8.3%). Respondents reported that incentives (51%), dedicated funding (46.2%), and recognition in promotion and recruitment criteria (39.6%) would help them embed Open Research.Conclusion: Although various Open Research initiatives exist, there remains a disconnect between awareness and implementation. Support from funders and institutions is required to increase Open Research. The Brief Open Research Survey can be used to track uptake over time and adapted to measure Open Research globally.

Background Many studies have shown that food variety—the presence of multiple foods and/or sensory characteristics within and across meals—increases intake. However, studies report mixed findings, and effect size remains unclear. Objectives A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to 1) synthesize data across experimental studies that examined effects of variety on total meal intake, relative to a control condition with comparatively less variety; 2) quantify support for this effect; and 3) assist in the identification of important moderating factors (registration: CRD42019153585). Methods In November 2019, we searched the following databases for relevant experimental studies, published in English from 1980, with human participants: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, PsycINFO, and OpenGrey. This search was updated in September 2020. Means, standard deviations, and sample sizes were extracted from included articles, and Hedges' g was used to calculate effect sizes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Results Of 7259 references identified in an initial search, 34 articles consisting of 37 studies contained sufficient information for review, and data from 30 studies (39 comparisons) were included in the meta-analysis. Results from a random-effects model showed a significant small to medium effect of variety on intake (in weight and energy), with greater variety being associated with increased consumption (Hedges' g = 0.405; 95% CI: 0.259, 0.552). However, heterogeneity was considerable across studies (I2 = 84%), and this was unexplained by subgroup analyses based on form of variety, test foods, sensory characteristics, age, sex, and body weight. Conclusions Our findings support the conclusion that variety is a robust driver of food intake. However, risk of bias was high across studies, and this review highlights methodologic limitations of studies. It is recommended that further attention is given to the development of preregistered, well-powered randomized controlled studies in eating behavior research.