Does Eating Slowly Influence Appetite and Energy Intake when Water Intake is Controlled?

Background: Slow eating has been associated with enhanced satiation, but also with increased water intake. Therefore, the role of water ingestion in regard to eating rate needs to be discerned. This study examined the influence of eating rate on appetite regulation and energy intake when water intake is controlled. Methods: In a randomized design, slow and fast eating rates were compared on two occasions, in 30 women (22.7±1.2y; BMI=22.4±0.4kg/m2) who consumed an ad libitum mixed-macronutrient lunch with water (300 mL). Satiation was examined as the main outcome by measuring energy intake during meals. At designated times, subjects rated hunger, satiety, desire-to-eat, thirst, and meal palatability on visual analogue scales. Paired t-tests were used to compare hypothesis-driven outcomes. Appetite ratings were compared across time points and conditions by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) using a within-subject model. Results: Energy intake and appetite ratings did not differ between conditions at meal completion. However, subjects rated less hunger and tended to rate lower desire-to-eat and greater satiety at 1 hour following the slow condition. Conclusions: Results tend to support a role of slow eating on decreased hunger and higher inter-meal satiety when water intake is controlled. However, the lack of significant differences in energy intake under these conditions indicates that water intake may account for the effects of eating rate on appetite regulation

Chewing gum increases energy expenditure before and after controlled breakfasts

Chewing has been associated with improved satiation and satiety, but little is known about the metabolic impact of gum chewing. We tested the hypothesis that gum chewing would increase energy expenditure (EE) and reduce respiratory exchange ratio (RER) before and after a controlled test meal. Seventeen males and 13 females (age 21.5 ± 6.6 years, body mass index 23.9 ± 2.8 kg/m2) participated in a randomized crossover study in which subjects chewed sugar-free gum for a total of 1 h (3 sessions of 20 min) on the test day (GC) and did not chew gum on a control day (NG). EE and RER were measured by indirect calorimetry after an overnight fast. Subjects consumed a breakfast shake containing 30% of their measured energy needs, and then postprandial EE and RER were measured for 3 h. Blood glucose (GLC) was measured in the fasting and postprandial states at regular intervals. Fasting EE was higher during GC (1.23 ± 0.04 kcal/min; 1 kcal = 4.2 kJ) than during NG (1.17 ± 0.04 kcal/min; p = 0.016). Postprandial EE was also higher during GC (1.46 ± 0.05 kcal/min) than during NG (1.42 ± 0.05 kcal/min; p = 0.037). Fasting and postprandial RER and GLC did not differ between GC and NG. The findings demonstrate that GC is associated with higher fasting and postprandial EE without altering blood glucose or substrate oxidation as measured by RER. These data suggest that gum chewing potentially could influence short-term energy balance in this population; however, longer-term research is needed

Chewing gum decreases energy intake at lunch following a controlled breakfast

The impact of chewing gum on fasting appetite or meal intake has not been studied. We tested the hypothesis that chewing gum would decrease lunch intake after a controlled breakfast, and reduce hunger in fasting and fed states. Seventeen males and sixteen females (21.4 ± 6.3y, BMI 23.8 ± 2.7 kg/m2) participated in a randomized crossover study in which subjects chewed sugar-free gum a total of 1 h on the test day (GC), and did not chew gum on a control day (NG). The 1 h of gum chewing included 20 min while fasting, and two 20-min sessions between breakfast and lunch. Subjects rated their appetite and mood on visual analog scales. After completing the fasting measures, subjects consumed a breakfast shake containing 30% of their measured resting energy expenditure. Three hours later they consumed an ad libitum lunch with water. Fasting ratings of hunger were lower in GC than NG (t = 2.66, p = 0.01). Subjects consumed significantly less pasta (41 g, 68 kcals, t = 2.32, p = 0.03) during GC than NG. In conclusion, gum chewing decreased fasting hunger ratings and lunch energy consumed. Chewing gum may be a useful tool impacting energy balance in this population. Longer studies, especially in other populations, will be required