Appetite and energy balancing

AbstractThe idea that food intake is motivated by (or in anticipation of) ‘hunger’ arising from energy depletion is apparent in both public and scientific discourse on eating behaviour. In contrast, our thesis is that eating is largely unrelated to short-term energy depletion. Energy requirements meal-to-meal are trivial compared with total body energy stores, and energy supply to the body's tissues is maintained if a meal or even several meals are missed. Complex and exquisite metabolic machinery ensures that this happens, but metabolic regulation is only loosely coupled with the control of energy intake. Instead, food intake needs to be controlled because the limited capacity of the gut means that processing a meal presents a significant physiological challenge and potentially hinders other activities. We illustrate the relationship between energy (food) intake and energy expenditure with a simple analogy in which: (1) water in a bathtub represents body energy content, (2) water in a saucepan represents food in the gut, and (3) the bathtub is filled via the saucepan. Furthermore, (4) it takes hours to process and pass the full energy (macronutrient) content of the saucepan to the bathtub, and (5) both the saucepan and bathtub resist filling, representing negative feedbacks on appetite (desire to eat). This model is consistent with the observations that appetite is reduced acutely by energy intake (a meal added to the limited capacity of the saucepan/gut), but not increased by an acute increase in energy expenditure (energy removed from the large store of energy in the bathtub/body). The existence of relatively very weak but chronic negative feedback on appetite proportional to body fatness is supported by observations on the dynamics of energy intake and weight gain in rat dietary obesity. (We use the term ‘appetite’ here because ‘hunger’ implies energy depletion.) In our model, appetite is motivated by the accessibility of food and the anticipated and experienced pleasure of eating it. The latter, which is similar to food reward, is determined primarily by the state of emptiness of the gut and food liking related to the food's sensory qualities and macronutrient value and the individual's dietary history. Importantly, energy density adds value because energy dense foods are less satiating kJ for kJ and satiation limits further intake. That is, energy dense foods promote energy intake by virtue (1) of being more attractive and (2) having low satiating capacity kJ for kJ, and (1) is partly a consequence of (2). Energy storage is adapted to feast and famine and that includes unevenness over time of the costs of obtaining and ingesting food compared with engaging in other activities. However, in very low-cost food environments with energy dense foods readily available, risk of obesity is high. This risk can be and is mitigated by dietary restraint, which in its simplest form could mean missing the occasional meal. Another strategy we discuss is the energy dilution achieved by replacing some sugar in the diet with low-calorie sweeteners. Perhaps as or more significant, though, is that belief in short-term energy balancing (the energy depletion model) may undermine attempts to eat less. Therefore, correcting narratives of eating to be consistent with biological reality could also assist with weight control

Estimating everyday portion size using a 'method of constant stimuli': in a student sample, portion size is predicted by gender, dietary behaviour, and hunger, but not BMI

This paper (i) explores the proposition that body weight is associated with large portion sizes and (ii) introduces a new technique for measuring everyday portion size. In our paradigm, the participant is shown a picture of a food portion and is asked to indicate whether it is larger or smaller than their usual portion. After responding to a range of different portions an estimate of everyday portion size is calculated using probit analysis. Importantly, this estimate is likely to be robust because it is based on many responses. First-year undergraduate students (N=151) completed our procedure for 12 commonly consumed foods. As expected, portion sizes were predicted by gender and by a measure of dieting and dietary restraint. Furthermore, consistent with reports of hungry supermarket shoppers, portion-size estimates tended to be higher in hungry individuals. However, we found no evidence for a relationship between BMI and portion size in any of the test foods. We consider reasons why this finding should be anticipated. In particular, we suggest that the difference in total energy expenditure of individuals with a higher and lower BMI is too small to be detected as a concomitant difference in portion size (at least in our sample)

Assimilation of healthy and indulgent impressions from labelling influences fullness but not intake or sensory experience

Background: Recent evidence suggests that products believed to be healthy may be over-consumed relative to believed indulgent or highly caloric products. The extent to which these effects relate to expectations from labelling, oral experience or assimilation of expectations is unclear. Over two experiments, we tested the hypotheses that healthy and indulgent information could be assimilated by oral experience of beverages and influence sensory evaluation, expected satiety, satiation and subsequent appetite. Additionally, we explored how expectation-experience congruency influenced these factors. Results: Results supported some assimilation of healthiness and indulgent ratings—study 1 showed that indulgent ratings enhanced by the indulgent label persisted post-tasting, and this resulted in increased fullness ratings. In study 2, congruency of healthy labels and oral experience promoted enhanced healthiness ratings. These healthiness and indulgent beliefs did not influence sensory analysis or intake—these were dictated by the products themselves. Healthy labels, but not experience, were associated with decreased expected satiety. Conclusions: Overall labels generated expectations, and some assimilation where there were congruencies between expectation and experience, but oral experience tended to override initial expectations to determine ultimate sensory evaluations and intake. Familiarity with the sensory properties of the test beverages may have resulted in the use of prior knowledge, rather than the label information, to guide evaluations and behaviour

Portion Size Influences Intake in Samburu Kenyan People Not Exposed to the Western Obesogenic Environment

For people in the modernized food environment, external factors like food variety, palatability, and ubiquitous learned cues for food availability can overcome internal, homeostatic signals to promote excess intake. Portion size is one such external cue; people typically consume more when served more, often without awareness. Though susceptibility to external cues may be attributed to the modernized, cue-saturated environment, there is little research on people living outside that context, or with distinctly different food norms. We studied a sample of Samburu people in rural Kenya who maintain a traditional, semi-nomadic pastoralist lifestyle, eat a very limited diet, and face chronic food insecurity. Participants (12 male, 12 female, aged 20–74, mean BMI = 18.4) attended the study on two days and were provided in counterbalanced order an individual serving bowl containing 1.4 or 2.3 kg of a familiar bean and maize stew. Amount consumed was recorded along with post-meal questions in their dialect about their awareness of intake amount. Data were omitted from two participants who consumed the entire portion in a session. Even though the ‘smaller’ serving was a very large meal, participants consumed 40% more when given the larger serving, despite being unable to reliably identify which day they consumed more food. This result in the Samburu demonstrates the portion size effect is not a by-product of the modern food environment and may represent a more fundamental feature of human dietary psychology

Individual variability in preference for energy-dense foods fails to predict child BMI percentile

Many studies show that higher dietary energy density is associated with greater body weight. Here we explored two propositions: i) that child BMI percentile is associated with individual differences in children's relative preference for energy-dense foods, ii) that child BMI percentile is associated with the same individual differences between their parents. Child-parent dyads were recruited from a local interactive science center in Bristol (UK). Using computerized tasks, participants ranked their preference and rated their liking for a range of snack foods that varied in energy density. Children (aged 3–14 years, N = 110) and parents completed the tasks for themselves. Parents also completed two further tasks in which they ranked the foods in the order that they would prioritize for their child, and again, in the order that they thought their child would choose. Children preferred (t(109) = 3.91, p ≺ 0.001) and better liked the taste of (t(109) = 3.28, p = 0.001) higher energy-dense foods, and parents correctly estimated this outcome (t(109) = 7.18, p ≺ 0.001). Conversely, lower energy-dense foods were preferred (t(109) = − 4.63, p ≺ 0.001), better liked (t(109) = − 2.75, p = 0.007) and served (t(109) = − 15.06, p ≺ 0.001) by parents. However, we found no evidence that child BMI percentile was associated with child or parent preference for, or liking of, energy-dense foods. Therefore, we suggest that the observed relationship between dietary energy density and body weight is not explained by individual differences in preference for energy density

Energy-dense snacks can have the same expected satiation as sugar-containing beverages

AbstractSugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are thought to be problematic for weight management because energy delivered in liquid form may be less effective at suppressing appetite than solid foods. However, little is known about the relative ‘expected satiation’ (anticipated fullness) of SSBs and solid foods. This is relevant because expected satiation is an important determinant of portion selection and energy intake. Here, we used a method of constant stimuli to assess the expected satiation of test meals that were presented in combination with different caloric and non-caloric beverages (500 ml) (Experiment 1 and 2), as well as with high-energy solid snack foods (Experiment 2). All energy-containing beverages and snack foods were presented in 210 kcal portions. Both experiments found that expected satiation was greater for meals containing caloric versus non-caloric beverages (201.3 ± 17.3 vs. 185.4 ± 14.1 kcal in Experiment 2; p < 0.05). Further, Experiment 2 showed that this difference was greater in participants who were familiar with our test beverages, indicating a role for learning. Notably, we failed to observe a significant difference in expected satiation between any of the caloric beverages and snack foods in Experiment 2 (range: 192.5–205.2 kcal; p = 0.87). This finding suggests that it may be more appropriate to consider beverages and solid foods on the same continuum, recognizing that the expected satiation of some solid foods is as weak as some beverages

No difference in compensation for sugar in a drink versus sugar in semi-solid and solid foods

AbstractIt is claimed that sugar consumed in a drink is poorly compensated for by a reduction in subsequent energy intake, however very little research has tested directly the effect on appetite of adding sugar to a drink versus food. In this between subjects study, 144 participants (72 men) consumed preloads sweetened with either sucrose or the low-energy sweetener, sucralose (preload energy difference 162kcal) in the form of a blackcurrant drink, jelly or candy. The different preload viscosities were achieved by varying the amount of thickener (carrageenan) and water in the recipes. Participants completed hunger ratings before and 5, 10 and 20min after consuming their preload. After the 20-minute rating they were served a test-meal comprising an excess of bite-sized sandwiches and a sweet dessert. Energy intake measured for the same meal consumed the previous day (baseline day, no preload consumed) was used in the data analyses to control for individual differences in energy intake. Overall, there was 36% compensation for the energy difference in the preloads, but this did not vary with preload viscosity — if anything compensation was greater for the drink preload, and greater in men. The drink preload also showed an effect of sucrose versus sucralose for hunger. The lack of the predicted effect of viscosity on compensation could not be explained by differences in blood-glucose concentration 20min after the preload (measured in a separate study) or by differences in preload sweetness, flavour intensity, liking or familiarity. Comparison of baseline and test-meal food intakes indicated that, irrespective of energy content, the sweet drinks reduced the relative intake of sweet food. In conclusion, short-term energy compensation did not differ across a set of realistic drink and food stimuli