Article

Sip size of orangeade: effects on intake and sensory-specific satiation.

Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
The British journal of nutrition (Impact Factor: 3.45). 05/2009; 102(7):1091-7. DOI: 10.1017/S000711450932574X
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Sensory-specific satiation (SSS) drives food selection and contributes to meal termination. We hypothesised that smaller sips would increase SSS due to increased oro-sensory exposure, irrespective of energy content. The objective was to determine the effects of sip size and energy content on ad libitum intake of orangeade and subjective SSS for orangeade. Orangeade intake and ratings of wanting and liking were measured before and after ad libitum orangeade consumption in a 2 x 2 cross-over design (n 53). Conditions differed in energy content (no-energy v. regular-energy orangeade) and in sip size (large, 20 g/sip v. small, 5 g/sip). The mean intake of both orangeades was lower when consumed with small sips than when consumed with large sips (regular-energy, 352 v. 493 g; no-energy, 338 v. 405 g; both P < 0.001). When consumed with large sips, the mean intake of no-energy orangeade was lower than that of regular-energy orangeade (P = 0.02). When consumed with small sips, subjective SSS (based on the desire to drink) was higher for no-energy orangeade than for regular-energy orangeade (P = 0.01), while mean intake was comparable. We concluded that smaller sip size, i.e. increased oro-sensory exposure per unit of consumption, can lower intake of sweet drinks. Only with low oro-sensory exposure (large sip size) was intake higher for an energy-containing sweet drink than for a no-energy sweet drink. This suggests that intake of sweet drinks is stimulated by (metabolic) reward value and inhibited by sensory satiation. This underpins the importance of SSS for meal termination.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
107 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The interaction between oral and gastric signals is an important part of food intake regulation. Previous studies suggest that bypassing oral stimulation diminishes the suppression of hunger and increases gastric emptying rate. However, the role of appetite hormones, like cholecystokinin-8 and ghrelin, in this process is still unclear. Our objective was to determine the contributions of gastric and oral stimulation to subsequent appetite and hormone responses and their effect on ad libitum intake. Fourteen healthy male subjects (age 24.6±3.8y, BMI 22.3±1.6kg/m(2)) completed a randomized, single-blinded, cross-over experiment with 3 treatment-sessions: 1) Stomach distention: naso-gastric infusion of 500mL/0kJ water, 2) Stomach distention with caloric content: naso-gastric infusion of 500mL/1770kJ chocolate milk, and 3) Stomach distention with caloric content and oral exposure: oral administration of 500mL/1770kJ chocolate milk. Changes in appetite ratings and plasma glucose, insulin, cholecystokinin-8, and active and total ghrelin concentrations were measured at fixed time-points up to 30min after infusion or oral administration. Subsequently, subjects consumed an ad libitum buffet meal. Oral administration reduced appetite ratings more than both naso-gastric infusions (P<0.0001). Gastric infusion of a caloric load increased insulin and cholecystokinin-8 and decreased total ghrelin concentrations more than ingestion (all P<0.0001). No differences in active ghrelin response were observed between conditions. Ad libitum intake did not differ between oral and gastric administration of chocolate milk (P>0.05). Thus, gastric infusion of nutrients induces greater appetite hormone responses than ingestion does. These data provide novel and additional evidence that bypassing oral stimulation not only affects the appetite profile but also increases anorexigenic hormone responses, probably driven in part by faster gastric emptying. This confirms the idea that learned associations between sensory characteristics and associated metabolic consequences serve to adapt hormone responses to nutrient content. These findings underscore the importance of oral stimulation in the regulation of food intake.
    Physiology & Behavior 07/2014; · 3.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: During food consumption the brain integrates multiple interrelated neural and hormonal signals involved in the regulation of food intake. Factors influencing the decision to stop eating include the foods' sensory properties, macronutrient content, and volume, which in turn affect gastric distention and appetite hormone responses. So far, the contributions of gastric distention and oral stimulation by food on brain activation have not been studied. The primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of gastric distention with an intra-gastric load and the additional effect of oral stimulation on brain activity after food administration. Our secondary objective was to study the correlations between hormone responses and appetite-related ratings and brain activation. Fourteen men completed three functional magnetic resonance imaging sessions during which they either received a naso-gastric infusion of water (stomach distention), naso-gastric infusion of chocolate milk (stomach distention + nutrients), or ingested chocolate-milk (stomach distention + nutrients + oral exposure). Appetite ratings and blood parameters were measured at several time points. During gastric infusion, brain activation was observed in the midbrain, amygdala, hypothalamus, and hippocampus for both chocolate milk and water, i.e., irrespective of nutrient content. The thalamus, amygdala, putamen and precuneus were activated more after ingestion than after gastric infusion of chocolate milk, whereas infusion evoked greater activation in the hippocampus and anterior cingulate. Moreover, areas involved in gustation and reward were activated more after oral stimulation. Only insulin responses following naso-gastric infusion of chocolate milk correlated with brain activation, namely in the putamen and insula. In conclusion, we show that normal (oral) food ingestion evokes greater activation than gastric infusion in stomach distention and food intake-related brain areas. This provides neural evidence for the importance of sensory stimulation in the process of satiation. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01644539.
    PLoS ONE 03/2014; 9(3):e90872. · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous research has shown that oral processing characteristics like bite size and oral residence duration are related to the satiating efficiency of foods. Oral processing characteristics are influenced by food texture. Very little research has been done on the effect of food texture within solid foods on energy intake. The first objective was to investigate the effect of hardness of food on energy intake at lunch, and to link this effect to differences in food oral processing characteristics. The second objective was to investigate whether the reduction in energy intake at lunch will be compensated for in the subsequent dinner. Fifty subjects (11 male, BMI: 21±2 kg/m2, age: 24±2 y) participated in a cross-over study in which they consumed ad libitum from a lunch with soft foods or hard foods on two separate days. Oral processing characteristics at lunch were assessed by coding video records. Later on the same days, subjects consumed dinner ad libitum. Hard foods led to a ∼13% lower energy intake at lunch compared to soft foods (P<0.001). Hard foods were consumed with smaller bites, longer oral duration per gram food, and more chewing per gram food compared to the soft foods (P<0.05). Energy intake at dinner did not differ after both lunches (P = 0.16). Hard foods led to reduced energy intake compared to soft foods, and this reduction in energy intake was sustained over the next meal. We argue that the differences in oral processing characteristics produced by the hardness of the foods explain the effect on intake. The sustained reduction in energy intake suggests that changes in food texture can be a helpful tool in reducing the overall daily energy intake.
    PLoS ONE 04/2014; 9(4):e93370. · 3.53 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads