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
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study assessed whether afternoon snacks, varying in protein content, influence appetite-control and eating initiation. Fifteen healthy women (age: 26±2y) randomly consumed 160kcal afternoon yogurt snacks containing Low (LP), Moderate (MP), or High (HP) protein (5,14,24g protein, respectively) or had no snack (NS) for 3days. On day 4, the volunteers came to our facility to consume a standardized lunch. The respective snack pattern was completed 3h post-lunch. Perceived sensations were measured every 30min until dinner was voluntarily requested. An ad libitum dinner was then provided. Snacking, regardless of protein content, led to reduced hunger and increased fullness, which were sustained up to 120min post-snack vs. NS (all, p<0.05). Between snacks, hunger was lower and fullness was higher throughout post-snack following HP vs. LP (p<0.05). Snacking delayed the onset of eating vs. NS (all, p<0.05). Specifically, dinner was requested at 124±7min following NS, 152±7min with LP, 158±7min following MP, and 178±7min post-snack for HP. Between snacks, HP led to the latest request time vs. LP (p<0.001) and MP (p<0.05). Although the energy content consumed at dinner was lower following the yogurt snacks vs. NS, the 160kcal snacks were not fully compensated for at this meal. In conclusion, an afternoon snack of Greek yogurt, containing 24g protein, led to reduced hunger, increased fullness, and delayed subsequent eating compared to lower protein snacks in healthy women.
    Appetite 09/2012; 60. DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2012.09.012 · 2.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aimed to investigate factors associated with weight management, especially whether satiety value of food as a part of a weight-maintenance diet would affect self-regulation of food intake and weight management. Altogether 82 obese subjects completed the study consisting of weight-loss and weight-maintenance (WM) periods. During the WM, subjects were randomized into higher- and lower-satiety food groups. No differences were observed in the changes in body weight, energy intake, or eating behaviour between the groups, even despite the different macronutrient compositions of the diets. However, when regarding all study subjects, success in WM was most strongly associated with a greater increase in the flexible control of eating and experience of greater easiness of WM and control of food intake and a greater decrease in uncontrollable eating and psychological distress. Psychobehavioural factors seem to be more strongly associated with successful weight management than the predetermined satiety effect or other characteristics of the diet.
    Journal of obesity 06/2012; 2012:274068. DOI:10.1155/2012/274068
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Consummatory behavior is driven by both caloric and emotional need, and a wide variety of animal models have been useful in research on the systems that drive consumption of food and drugs. Models have included selective breeding for a specific trait, manipulation of gene expression, forced or voluntary exposure to a substance, and identification of biomarkers that predict which animals are prone to overconsuming specific substances. This research has elucidated numerous brain areas and neurochemicals that drive consummatory behavior. Although energy homeostasis is primarily mediated by the hypothalamus, reinforcement is more strongly mediated by nuclei outside the hypothalamus, in mesocorticolimbic regions. Orexigenic neurochemicals that control food intake can provide a general signal for promoting caloric intake or a more specific signal for stimulating consumption of a particular macronutrient, fat, carbohydrate, or protein. The neurochemicals involved in controlling fat ingestion--galanin, enkephalin, orexin, melanin-concentrating hormone, and the endocannabinoids--show positive feedback with this macronutrient, as these peptides both increase fat intake and are further stimulated by its intake. This positive association offers some explanation for why foods high in fat are so often overconsumed. Consumption of ethanol, a drug of abuse that also contains calories, is similarly driven by the neurochemical systems involved in fat intake, according to evidence that closely relates fat and ethanol consumption. Further understanding of the systems involved in consummatory behavior will enable the development of effective therapies for the treatment of both overeating and drug abuse.
    ILAR journal / National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources 03/2012; 53(1):35-58. DOI:10.1093/ilar.53.1.35 · 1.05 Impact Factor