Effects of macronutrient content and energy density of snacks consumed in a satiety state on the onset of the next meal
Laboratoire de Physiologie du Comportement Alimentaire, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, France. Appetite
(Impact Factor: 2.69).
05/2000; 34(2):161-8. DOI: 10.1006/appe.1999.0302
We examined the effects of nutrient composition of a 1 MJ afternoon snack, consumed in a satiety state, on the spontaneous onset of the next meal in 11 young male subjects deprived of any temporal cues. All subjects attended four experimental sessions scheduled 2 weeks apart. The first, baseline, session served to establish: (1) the subjects' ad libitum lunch intake, (2) the latency of the spontaneous request for dinner following lunch, (3) ad libitum food intake at dinner. Lunches provided during the next three sessions were based on baseline lunch intakes. During the following three sessions, conducted in counterbalanced order, subjects were given a high-fat (58% of energy from fat), a high-protein (77%) or a high-carbohydrate (84%) snack to be consumed 240 min after the beginning of lunch. Latency to dinner and the amount of energy consumed at dinner were two dependent variables. Consumption of a high-protein snack delayed the request for dinner by 60 min. In contrast, high-fat snack delayed dinner request by 25 min, whereas high-carbohydrate snack delayed dinner request by 34 min. Snack composition had no impact on energy or macronutrient intakes during dinner.
Available from: Laura C Ortinau
- "Several previous snack studies have also examined the combined effects of reduced energy density and increased dietary protein [6, 15, 16]. Specifically, Marmonier et al.  included normal weight men and provided 240 kcal snacks which varied in macronutrient content and energy density. Although afternoon hunger and fullness were not different between snacks, the consumption of the low energy dense, high-protein snack delayed eating by 35 min compared to the high energy dense, high-fat snack (p < 0.05) and 25 min compared to a moderate energy dense, high-carbohydrate snack (p < 0.05). "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
The purpose of this study was to determine whether a high-protein afternoon yogurt snack improves appetite control, satiety, and reduces subsequent food intake compared to other commonly-consumed, energy dense, high-fat snacks.
Twenty, healthy women (age: 27 ± 2 y; BMI: 23.4 ± 0.7 kg/m2) completed the randomized crossover design study which included 3, 8-h testing days comparing the following 160 kcal afternoon snacks: high-protein yogurt (14 g protein/25 g CHO/0 g fat); high-fat crackers (0 g protein/19 g CHO/9 g fat); and high-fat chocolate (2 g protein/19 g CHO/9 g fat). Participants were acclimated to each snack for 3 consecutive days. On day 4, the participants consumed a standardized breakfast and lunch; the respective snack was consumed 3-h post-lunch. Perceived hunger and fullness were assessed throughout the afternoon until dinner was voluntarily requested. An ad libitum dinner was then provided. The consumption of the yogurt snack led to greater reductions in afternoon hunger vs. chocolate (p < 0.01). No differences in afternoon fullness were detected. The yogurt snack also delayed eating initiation by approximately 30 min compared to the chocolate snack (p < 0.01) and approximately 20 min vs. crackers (p = 0.07). The yogurt snack led to approximately 100 fewer kcals consumed at dinner vs. the crackers (p = 0.08) and chocolate (p < 0.05). No other differences were detected.
These data suggest that, when compared to high-fat snacks, eating less energy dense, high-protein snacks like yogurt improves appetite control, satiety, and reduces subsequent food intake in healthy women.
Nutrition Journal 09/2014; 13(1):97. DOI:10.1186/1475-2891-13-97 · 2.60 Impact Factor
Available from: Steve Douglas
- "When the response was “yes, I want to eat dinner right now”, the time from snack consumption was recorded. The time to dinner approach has been utilized in several studies and is an excellent measure of the “satiety power” of meals/snacks
[16,23-25]. Upon “voluntary dinner request,” the participants were presented with an ad libitum dinner of chicken parmesan pizza pockets cut into bite size pieces. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
A large portion of daily intake comes from snacking. One of the increasingly common, healthier snacks includes Greek-style yogurt, which is typically higher in protein than regular yogurt. This study evaluated whether a 160 kcal higher-protein (HP) Greek-style yogurt snack improves appetite control, satiety, and delays subsequent eating compared to an isocaloric normal protein (NP) regular yogurt in healthy women. This study also identified the factors that predict the onset of eating.
Thirty-two healthy women (age: 27 ± 2y; BMI: 23.0 ± 0.4 kg/m2) completed the acute, randomized crossover-design study. On separate days, participants came to our facility to consume a standardized lunch followed by the consumption of the NP (5.0 g protein) or HP (14.0 g protein) yogurt at 3 h post-lunch. Perceived hunger and fullness were assessed throughout the afternoon until dinner was voluntarily requested; ad libitum dinner was then provided. Snacking led to reductions in hunger and increases in fullness. No differences in post-snack perceived hunger or fullness were observed between the NP and HP yogurt snacks. Dinner was voluntarily requested at approximately 2:40 ± 0:05 h post-snack with no differences between the HP vs. NP yogurts. Ad libitum dinner intake was not different between the snacks (NP: 686 ± 33 kcal vs. HP: 709 ± 34 kcal; p = 0.324). In identifying key factors that predict eating initiation, perceived hunger, fullness, and habitual dinner time accounted for 30% of the variability of time to dinner request (r = 0.55; p < 0.001).
The additional 9 g of protein contained in the high protein Greek yogurt was insufficient to elicit protein-related improvements in markers of energy intake regulation.
Nutrition Journal 06/2013; 12(1):71. DOI:10.1186/1475-2891-12-71 · 2.60 Impact Factor
Available from: Margaret J Morris
- "Excess energy, and therefore, weight gain may reflect a failure to compensate for the calories obtained through snacking across initial exposure to an energy rich diet, and consumption of larger portions across later exposure to that diet. There is evidence that both of these factors contribute to weight gain and obesity in people , , , , . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Rats prefer energy-rich foods over chow and eat them to excess. The pattern of eating elicited by this diet is unknown. We used the behavioral satiety sequence to classify an eating bout as a meal or snack and compared the eating patterns of rats fed an energy rich cafeteria diet or chow.
Eight week old male Sprague Dawley rats were exposed to lab chow or an energy-rich cafeteria diet (plus chow) for 16 weeks. After 5, 10 and 15 weeks, home-cage overnight feeding behavior was recorded. Eating followed by grooming then resting or sleeping was classified as a meal; whereas eating not followed by the full sequence was classified as a snack. Numbers of meals and snacks, their duration, and waiting times between feeding bouts were compared between the two conditions.
Cafeteria-fed rats ate more protein, fat and carbohydrate, consistently ingesting double the energy of chow-fed rats, and were significantly heavier by week 4. Cafeteria-fed rats tended to take multiple snacks between meals and ate fewer meals than chow-fed rats. They also ate more snacks at 5 weeks, were less effective at compensating for snacking by reducing meals, and the number of snacks in the majority of the cafeteria-fed rats was positively related to terminal body weights.
Exposure to a palatable diet had long-term effects on feeding patterns. Rats became overweight because they initially ate more frequently and ultimately ate more of foods with higher energy density. The early increased snacking in young cafeteria-fed rats may represent the establishment of eating habits that promote weight gain.
PLoS ONE 04/2013; 8(4):e60407. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0060407 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.