Connecting biology with psychology to make sense of appetite control

Eating more than is required to maintain bodyweight is weakly resisted physiologically, as appetite does not closely track body energy balance. What does limit energy intake is the capacity of the gut to accommodate and process what is eaten. As the gut empties, we are ready to eat again. We typically refer to this absence of fullness as ‘hunger’, but in this state, even when it is prolonged (e.g. by missing one or two meals), our mental and physical performance is not compromised because body energy stores are mobilised to sustain energy supply to our brain and muscles. We illustrate this by discussing research on the effects of missing breakfast. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it appears that missing breakfast leads to a reduction in total daily energy intake and does not impair cognitive function (in adequately nourished individuals). The problem with missing a meal or eating smaller meals, however, is that we miss out on (some of) the pleasure of eating (food reward). In current studies, we are investigating how to offset the reduced reward value of smaller food portions, by, for example, altering flavour intensity, food variety and unit size, in order to maintain overall meal satisfaction and thereby reduce or eliminate subsequent compensatory eating

Effects of eating rate on satiety:A role for episodic memory?

AbstractEating slowly is associated with a lower body mass index. However, the underlying mechanism is poorly understood. Here, our objective was to determine whether eating a meal at a slow rate improves episodic memory for the meal and promotes satiety. Participants (N=40) consumed a 400ml portion of tomato soup at either a fast (1.97ml/s) or a slow (0.50ml/s) rate. Appetite ratings were elicited at baseline and at the end of the meal (satiation). Satiety was assessed using; i) an ad libitum biscuit ‘taste test’ (3h after the meal) and ii) appetite ratings (collected 2h after the meal and after the ad libitum snack). Finally, to evaluate episodic memory for the meal, participants self-served the volume of soup that they believed they had consumed earlier (portion size memory) and completed a rating of memory ‘vividness’. Participants who consumed the soup slowly reported a greater increase in fullness, both at the end of the meal and during the inter-meal interval. However, we found little effect of eating rate on subsequent ad libitum snack intake. Importantly, after 3h, participants who ate the soup slowly remembered eating a larger portion. These findings show that eating slowly promotes self-reported satiation and satiety. For the first time, they also suggest that eating rate influences portion size memory. However, eating slowly did not affect ratings of memory vividness and we found little evidence for a relationship between episodic memory and satiety. Therefore, we are unable to conclude that episodic memory mediates effects of eating rate on satiety

Restricting sugar or carbohydrate intake does not impact physical activity level or energy intake over 24 h despite changes in substrate use : A randomised crossover study in healthy men and women

Purpose To determine the effects of dietary sugar or carbohydrate restriction on physical activity energy expenditure, energy intake, and physiological outcomes across 24 h. Methods In a randomized, open-label crossover design, twenty-five healthy men (n = 10) and women (n = 15) consumed three diets over a 24-h period: moderate carbohydrate and sugar content (MODSUG = 50% carbohydrate [20% sugars], 15% protein, 35% fat); low sugar content (LOWSUG = 50% carbohydrate [< 5% sugars], 15% protein, 35% fat); and low carbohydrate content (LOWCHO = 8% carbohydrate [< 5% sugars], 15% protein, 77% fat). Postprandial metabolic responses to a prescribed breakfast (20% EI) were monitored under laboratory conditions before an ad libitum test lunch, with subsequent diet and physical activity monitoring under free-living conditions until blood sample collection the following morning. Results The MODSUG, LOWSUG and LOWCHO diets resulted in similar mean [95%CI] rates of both physical activity energy expenditure (771 [624, 919] vs. 677 [565, 789] vs. 802 [614, 991] kcal·d−1; p = 0.29] and energy intake (2071 [1794, 2347] vs. 2195 [1918, 2473] vs. 2194 [1890, 2498] kcal·d−1; P = 0.34), respectively. The LOWCHO condition elicited the lowest glycaemic and insulinaemic responses to breakfast (P < 0.01) but the highest 24-h increase in LDL-cholesterol concentrations (P < 0.001), with no differences between the MODSUG and LOWSUG treatments. Leptin concentrations decreased over 24-h of consuming LOWCHO relative to LOWSUG (p < 0.01). Conclusion When energy density is controlled for, restricting either sugar or total dietary carbohydrate does not modulate physical activity level or energy intake over a 24-h period (~ 19-h free-living) despite substantial metabolic changes. Clinical trials registration ID NCT03509610, https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT0350961

Effect of Plain Versus Sugar-Sweetened Breakfast on Energy Balance and Metabolic Health : A Randomized Crossover Trial

We would like to thank Pippa Heath for her help with randomization, our participants, and Dr. Graham Horgan for statistical advice. Funding Information Economic and Social Research Council. Grant Number: ES/J50015X/1 Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) GlaxoSmithKline Lucozade Ribena Suntory Kellogg’s Nestlé PepsiCo Sugar Nutrition UK Danone Baby Nutrition the Alpro Foundation Kellogg Europe Unilever Volac International The Collagen Research Institute British Summer FruitsPeer reviewedPublisher PD