The Impact of Eating Rate on Energy Intake, Body Composition, and Health

Teo, Pey Sze

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-14504-0_120

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 137 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A reduced bite size with increased chews per bite and a longer oral exposure time has been shown to lower food intake ( 9 , 10 ), whether manipulated through verbal instructions to chew for longer, within-meal prompts to slow consumption, or by changing the textural properties of the food being consumed ( 8 ). Texture-led changes to ER have been shown to effectively moderate eating speed, as people adapt their oral processing behaviors in response to the structural properties of a food being consumed ( 11 ). For example, a soft/thin and less chewy food can be consumed at a faster rate than harder-textured, chewy, less lubricated, and more viscous foods ( 12–14 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Texture-based differences in eating rate influence energy intake for minimally processed and ultra-processed meals

Teo

Lim

Goh

et al. 2022

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked with higher energy intakes. Food texture is known to influence eating rate (ER) and energy intake to satiation, yet it remains unclear whether food texture influences energy intakes from minimally-processed and ultra-processed meals. Objectives We examined the independent and combined effects of food texture and degree of processing on ad-libitum food intake. We also investigated whether differences in energy intake during lunch influenced post-meal feelings of satiety and later food intake. Design In this crossover study, 50 healthy-weight participants (n = 50 (24 men); 24.4 ± 3.1y; BMI = 21.3 ± 1.9kgm−2) consumed four ad-libitum lunch-meals consisting of “soft- minimally-processed,” “hard-minimally-processed,” “soft-ultra-processed,” and “hard-ultra-processed” components. Meals were matched for total energy served, with some variation in meal energy density ( ±0.20 kcal/g). Ad-libitum food-intake (kcal and g) was measured and ER derived using behavioral coding of videos. Subsequent food intake was self-reported by food-diary. Results There was a main effect of food texture on intake, where “hard-minimally-processed” and “hard-ultra-processed” meals were consumed slower overall, and produced a 21% and 26% reduction in food weight (g) and energy (kcal) consumed respectively. Intakes were higher for “soft-ultra-processed” and “soft-minimally-processed” meals (P < 0.001), after correcting for meal pleasantness. The effect of texture on food weight consumed was not influenced by processing levels (weight-of-food: Texture*Processing-effect, P = 0.376), but the effect of food-texture on energy intake was (energy-consumed: Texture*Processing-effect, P = 0.015). The lowest energy was consumed from “hard-minimally-processed” meal (482.9 kcal; 95%CI: 431.9, 531.0), and the most from “soft-ultra-processed” meal (789.4 kcal; 95%CI: 725.9, 852.8; Δ=↓∼300 kcal). Energy intake was lowest when harder texture was combined with the “minimally-processed” meals. Total energy intake across the day varied directly with energy intakes of the test meals (Δ15%, P < 0.001). Conclusions Findings suggest that food texture-based differences in ER and meal energy density contribute to observed differences in energy intake between minimally-processed and ultra-processed meals.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Texture-based differences in eating rate influence energy intake for minimally processed and ultra-processed meals

Teo

Lim

Goh

et al. 2022

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 as we will show in this chapter, inter-individual variations in oral processing behaviour also significantly affect post-prandial metabolic responses. 7 Beyond what is in a food, the current chapter focuses on how we eat, and how this influences the way we respond to an ingested food.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Metabolic Impacts of Food Oral Processing

Stieger

2022

Oral Processing and Consumer Perception

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This publication is made publicly available in the institutional repository of Wageningen University and Research, under the terms of article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, also known as the Amendment Taverne. This has been done with explicit consent by the author.Article 25fa states that the author of a short scientific work funded either wholly or partially by Dutch public funds is entitled to make that work publicly available for no consideration following a reasonable period of time after the work was first published, provided that clear reference is made to the source of the first publication of the work.This publication is distributed under The Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) 'Article 25fa implementation' project. In this project research outputs of researchers employed by Dutch Universities that comply with the legal requirements of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act are distributed online and free of cost or other barriers in institutional repositories. Research outputs are distributed six months after their first online publication in the original published version and with proper attribution to the source of the original publication.

show abstract

“…The current study reported differences in energy intake, body composition, and cardio-metabolic factors as they relate to differences in SRER. A recent review of the area highlights genetic, physiological, and environmental factors that are known to influence an individual's eating rate [54]. Future studies should explore some of the reasons for differences in SRER, including potential lifestyle and environmental factors that may play a role.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Future longitudinal interventions are required to investigate whether reducing SRER can have an impact on long-term energy intake and adiposity. As the eating rate is a product of both an individual's drive to eat and the food environment they select to consume (i.e., texture, energy density) [54], future research should investigate the energy intake rate (kcal/min) of an individual's diet, to establish whether the association between faster eating and body composition is caused by an individual's drive to eat, or the energy intake rate of the foods that most contribute to greater energy intakes, or both.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between Self-Reported Eating Rate, Energy Intake, and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in a Multi-Ethnic Asian Population

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eating faster is associated with greater body mass index (BMI), but less is known about the relationships between eating rate, energy intake, body composition, and cardio-metabolic risk factors in different Asian ethnic groups. Using data from the Singapore Multi-Ethnic Cohort (n = 7011; 21–75 y), we investigated associations between self-reported eating rate (SRER), with energy intake, body composition, blood pressure, and blood lipids. SRER and lifestyle was assessed using interviewer-administered questionnaires. Multivariable models were used to examine the associations of SRER with energy intake, body composition, blood pressure, and blood lipids after adjusting for covariates. General and abdominal overweight were defined as BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2 and waist circumference >90 cm (men) and > 80 cm (women), respectively. On average, faster eaters (vs. slower eaters) consumed 105 kcal/day more (p = 0.034), had ~5 kg higher body weight (p < 0.001), 1.3 kg/m2 higher BMI (p < 0.001), and 3.1 cm larger waist-circumference (p < 0.001). Faster eaters had significantly higher blood pressure, circulating triglycerides, and total-to-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio than slower eaters. Faster eaters were twice as likely to develop general (multivariable-OR: 2.2; 95% CI, 1.8–2.6; p < 0.001), and abdominal (OR: 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5–2.2; p < 0.001) overweight than slower eaters. This association was observed across all subgroups by age, sex, and ethnicity. Findings suggest that SRER is a robust behavioral marker for increased risk of higher energy intake, obesity, and poor cardio-metabolic health, and a modifiable behavioral risk-factor for obesity prevention.

show abstract

The Impact of Eating Rate on Energy Intake, Body Composition, and Health

Cited by 12 publications

References 137 publications

Texture-based differences in eating rate influence energy intake for minimally processed and ultra-processed meals

Texture-based differences in eating rate influence energy intake for minimally processed and ultra-processed meals

Metabolic Impacts of Food Oral Processing

Association between Self-Reported Eating Rate, Energy Intake, and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in a Multi-Ethnic Asian Population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About