Measuring food reward and the transfer effect of sensory specific satiety

Griffioen-Roose, Sanne; Finlayson, Graham; Mars, Monica; Blundell, John; Graaf, C. de

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2010.09.018

Cited by 106 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Leeds Food Preference Task (LFPT)26, 27 measures components of food preference and reward (explicit liking and implicit wanting). Validation of this method has been described previously 28, 29, 30. Subjects were presented with pictures of food items common in the diet from the same four categories as were included in the evening snack box (Figure S2).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of once‐weekly semaglutide on appetite, energy intake, control of eating, food preference and body weight in subjects with obesity

Blundell

Finlayson

Axelsen

et al. 2017

Diabetes Obesity Metabolism

Self Cite

338

370

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimThe aim of this trial was to investigate the mechanism of action for body weight loss with semaglutide.Materials and methodsThis randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, two‐period crossover trial investigated the effects of 12 weeks of treatment with once‐weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, dose‐escalated to 1.0 mg, in 30 subjects with obesity. Ad libitum energy intake, ratings of appetite, thirst, nausea and well‐being, control of eating, food preference, resting metabolic rate, body weight and body composition were assessed.ResultsAfter a standardised breakfast, semaglutide, compared with placebo, led to a lower ad libitum energy intake during lunch (−1255 kJ; P < .0001) and during the subsequent evening meal (P = .0401) and snacks (P = .0034), resulting in a 24% reduction in total energy intake across all ad libitum meals throughout the day (−3036 kJ; P < .0001). Fasting overall appetite suppression scores were improved with semaglutide vs placebo, while nausea ratings were similar. Semaglutide was associated with less hunger and food cravings, better control of eating and a lower preference for high‐fat foods. Resting metabolic rate, adjusted for lean body mass, did not differ between treatments. Semaglutide led to a reduction from baseline in mean body weight of 5.0 kg, predominantly from body fat mass.ConclusionAfter 12 weeks of treatment, ad libitum energy intake was substantially lower with semaglutide vs placebo with a corresponding loss of body weight observed with semaglutide. In addition to reduced energy intake, likely mechanisms for semaglutide‐induced weight loss included less appetite and food cravings, better control of eating and lower relative preference for fatty, energy‐dense foods.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of once‐weekly semaglutide on appetite, energy intake, control of eating, food preference and body weight in subjects with obesity

Blundell

Finlayson

Axelsen

et al. 2017

Diabetes Obesity Metabolism

Self Cite

338

370

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Where appropriate, Greenhouse-Geisser probability levels were used to adjust for sphericity, and Bonferroni adjustments were applied to control for multiple post hoc comparisons. Our sample size of sixty-five was assessed for adequate power by a posteriori power analysis using G*Power (40) to find an effect of macronutrient composition on implicit wanting for HFLC food, based on data from Griffioen-Roose et al (35) , and expected correlation of 0·5, β = 0·8 and α = 0·05. A paired t test was used to examine differences between pre-meal subjective appetite ratings (hunger and fullness) and total daily energy intake during the HFLC and LFHC conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Details of the mean energy density, serving and macronutrient composition of food items and categories' used in the LFPQ can be found in Table 2. The LFPQ has been validated against physiological and behavioural end points in a range of research (34)(35)(36) . The specific end points examined from the LFPQ were explicit liking, implicit wanting and food preference for HFLC relative to LFHC foods, as described below.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differing effects of high-fat or high-carbohydrate meals on food hedonics in overweight and obese individuals

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the effects of dietary fat and carbohydrate on satiety are well documented, little is known about the impact of these macronutrients on food hedonics. We examined the effects of ad libitum and isoenergetic meals varying in fat and carbohydrate on satiety, energy intake and food hedonics. In all, sixty-five overweight and obese individuals (BMI = 30·9 (SD 3·8) kg/m 2 ) completed two separate test meal days in a randomised order in which they consumed high-fat/low-carbohydrate (HFLC) or low-fat/high-carbohydrate (LFHC) foods. Satiety was measured using subjective appetite ratings to calculate the satiety quotient. Satiation was assessed by intake at ad libitum meals. Hedonic measures of explicit liking (subjective ratings) and implicit wanting (speed of forced choice) for an array of HFLC and LFHC foods were also tested before and after isoenergetic HFLC and LFHC meals. The satiety quotient was greater after ad libitum and isoenergetic meals during the LFHC condition compared with the HFLC condition (P = 0·006 and P = 0·001, respectively), whereas ad libitum energy intake was lower in the LFHC condition (P < 0·001). Importantly, the LFHC meal also reduced explicit liking (P < 0·001) and implicit wanting (P = 0·011) for HFLC foods compared with the isoenergetic HFLC meal, which failed to suppress the hedonic appeal of subsequent HFLC foods. Therefore, when coupled with increased satiety and lower energy intake, the greater suppression of hedonic appeal for high-fat food seen with LFHC foods provides a further mechanism for why these foods promote better short-term appetite control than HFLC foods.Key words: Explicit liking: Implicit wanting: Macronutrient composition: Energy intake: Satiety: Food hedonicsThe role of dietary carbohydrate in the aetiology and treatment of obesity is controversial, with some arguing that carbohydrate intake has a more prominent role in promoting overconsumption and weight gain than dietary fat (1,2) . Although this view has been strongly debated (3) , it has long been established that dietary macronutrients exert a hierarchical effect on appetite-related processes such as satiety and short-term food intake (4) . When expressed relative to energy content rather than weight of food, protein exerts the strongest effect on satiety, followed by carbohydrate, whilst fat exerts the weakest effect (5) . This hierarchical effect has been demonstrated under a variety of laboratory and free-living conditions using subjective measures of appetite, biomarkers of satiety and food intake (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11) . However, the underlying metabolic and, in particular, behavioural mechanisms that promote overconsumption following the consumption of energy-dense, high-fat foods are not well understood.The differential effects of dietary macronutrients on satiety may relate to differences in pre-ingestive cognitive and sensory signals generated at the time of consumption (12) and/or the post-ingestive metabolic effects of these foods (13)(14)(15) . However, recent evidence suggests that the...

show abstract

“…This phenomenon is called sensory-specific satiation and/or satiety, and has been demonstrated in a large number of studies (e.g. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] ). Metabolic signals are involved in the regulation of energy intake.…”

Section: Sensory and Metabolic Signals Involved In Eating Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why liquid energy results in overconsumption

Graaf

2011

Proc. Nutr. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Liquids have been shown to have a low satiating efficiency. The may be related to the high rate of consumption for liquids which may be higher than 200 g/min. In a number of studies, we showed that the positive relationship between eating rate and energy intake is mediated by oro-sensory exposure time. Longer sensory exposure times are consistently associated with lower food intakes. This observation maybe linked to the role of cephalic phase responses to foods. Cephalic phase responses are a set of physiological responses, which are conceived to prepare the digestive system for the incoming flow of nutrients after ingestion, with the aim of maintaining homeostasis. Results from various studies suggest that cephalic phase responses are much smaller (absent) for liquids compared to solids. It is hypothesised that the absence of cephalic phase responses to liquid foods may be one of the causes why liquid energies enter the body undetected and lead to weak energy intake compensation. This idea fits with the concept of the taste system as a nutrient-sensing system that informs the brain and the gastro-intestinal system about what is coming into our body. With liquids, this system is bypassed. Slower eating may help the human body to associate the sensory signals from food with their metabolic consequences. Foods that are eaten quickly may impair this association, and may therefore lead to overconsumption of energy, and ultimately to weight gain. Appetite: Liquid energy: Obesity: Energy intakeIn the last few decades it has become clear that the high prevalence of obesity in developing countries is a normal behavioural response to an abnormal obesogenic environment. This obesogenic environment facilitates food (energy) intake and limits energy expenditure. Recent evidence suggests that changes in energy intake are the dominant factors in increasing prevalence of obesity since the 1980s (1,2) . Frequent exposure to food cues, large portion sizes, large available variety, high energy density and high palatability of foods are implicated in this respect (3) . This paper focuses on one additional element of our food supply and our eating environment, i.e. the high eating rate at which we can ingest a vast majority of foods in our current food supply. It is hypothesised that the high eating rate undermines our body's capacity to regulate energy intake at healthy levels. This may work by impairing the congruent relationship between sensory input and metabolic consequences. The physiological background for this may be that foods that are consumed quickly like liquids do not lead to functional cephalic phase responses (CPR). CPR are the predominantly learned physiological responses to the sensory signals from food. Before focusing on the role of eating rate in the regulation of food intake, we first discuss a simple psycho-biological model of eating behaviour that helps to explain the later reasoning in this paper.Sensory and metabolic signals involved in eating behaviour Fig. 1 illustrates how eating behaviour is guided by s...

show abstract

Measuring food reward and the transfer effect of sensory specific satiety

Cited by 106 publications

References 30 publications

Effects of once‐weekly semaglutide on appetite, energy intake, control of eating, food preference and body weight in subjects with obesity

Effects of once‐weekly semaglutide on appetite, energy intake, control of eating, food preference and body weight in subjects with obesity

Differing effects of high-fat or high-carbohydrate meals on food hedonics in overweight and obese individuals

Why liquid energy results in overconsumption

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About