Effects of test-meal palatability on compensatory eating following disguised fat and carbohydrate preloads

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:To test whether the palatability of a test meal altered compensatory eating following disguised high-energy fat and carbohydrate preloads. DESIGN: Effects of preload energy (low, 265 kJ, or high, 1510 kJ) and test-meal palatability (bland or palatable) were contrasted within-subjects, with a between-subjects contrast of fat and carbohydrate preloads. SUBJECTS: Twenty-four healthy, normal men (age 23.6 AE 1.0 y, (body mass index) BMI 21.3 AE 0.5). MEASUREMENTS: Microstructural analysis of test meal intake and rated appetite in the four test conditions, plus diary-based weighed intake analysis of energy intake post-lunch. RESULTS: Subjects ate signi®cantly less at lunch after disguised high-energy fat or carbohydrate preloads relative to the lowenergy preload, and ate signi®cantly more of the palatable than bland lunch in all conditions. The reduction in eating following the high-energy preload was signi®cantly less in the palatable condition. Intake post-lunch did not differ between conditions, and overall subjects had higher daily energy intake on the days they consumed the high-energy preloads. Rated hunger was signi®cantly less 30 min after the high-than low-energy preloads, but increased on tasting the palatable food in all conditions. The high-energy preloads suppressed appetite immediately post-lunch. No differences between fat and carbohydrate were found on any measure. CONCLUSIONS: Manipulation of the palatability of a test meal modi®ed the ability to respond to disguised high-energy preloads, with over-consumption most evident when disguised high-energy preloads were followed by a palatable food. Subsequent voluntary intake compensated for over-consumption of the palatable lunch, but not the high-energy preload.

Food sensory characteristics: their unconsidered roles in the feeding behaviour of domestic ruminants

“…The hedonic stimulation induced by the new distribution thus overrode the satiety signals due to rumen fill. In the same way, moderate energy preloads, combined with manipulations of palatability during a test meal, resulted in overconsumption in humans, thus demonstrating that the hedonic value of food sensory characteristics decreased the ability of short-term satiety cues to stop intake (Yeomans et al, 2001). In sheep, when post-ingestive consequences were controlled, the intake of lucerne hay was higher than that of grass hay just after food distribution, indicating that the motivation to eat was then higher than the negative fill effect of the hay introduced in the rumen (Favreau et al, 2010c).…”

Olfactory influences on appetite and satiety in humans

“…To manipulate need state postexposure, they consumed 200ml of either water (control), a low-energy (60kCal) tomato soup or the same soup with added maltodextrin (360kcal). The extra energy in the maltodextrin-enriched soup preload had previously been shown to reduce subsequent rated appetite and food intake relative to the low-energy soup [40]. In the sucrose condition, the rated sweetness of the sucrose-paired odor had increased, and this increase was unaffected by the energy manipulation (Figure 2a).…”

Intense sweeteners, energy intake and the control of body weight

“…As a result, the likelihood of finding energy compensation will be reduced. Energy intakes may also be affected by the palatability of the test meal (Yeomans, 1996;Yeomans et al, 2001;. Typically, the interval to the test meal is determined by the experimenters.…”