Variety enhances food intake in humans: Role of sensory-specific satiety
ABSTRACT Twenty-one subjects were studied to evaluate the effect of renewal of sensory stimulations of previously eaten foods on sensory-specific satiety and intake. The subjects ate French fries then brownie cakes ad libitum in three situations: "monotonous" - fries then brownies were consumed alone; "simultaneous" - condiments (ketchup and mayonnaise for the fries, vanilla cream and whipped cream for the brownies) were added during intakes; "successive" - after intake of fries alone, ketchup then mayonnaise were available with fries and, after intake of brownies alone, vanilla cream then whipped cream were offered with brownies. The quantities eaten in the "simultaneous" and "successive" situations were higher (p<0.001) than those in the "monotonous" one (1485+/-582 and 1682+/-777 kcal vs 1195+/-552 kcal, respectively). In the "successive" situation, hedonic ratings for fries diminished during intake but increased after the introduction of ketchup, leading to additional intake of fries. Similarly, hedonic ratings for brownies diminished during intake and increased after the introduction of vanilla cream leading to additional brownie intake (mayonnaise and whipped cream had no significant effect). Food variety, obtained by adding condiments can increase food intake in the short term. The mechanism by which food consumption is increased after the addition of condiments is introduced is at least partly related to the attenuation of sensory-satiety for a given food.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Offering a variety of foods in a meal consistently increases intake (Brondel et al., 2009; Hetherington, 1996; Sørensen, Møller, Flint, Martens, & Raben, 2003), the more different the foods are the greater the enhancement (Rolls et al., 1981), and desserts rekindle appetite when a person is presented with foods that differ from the appetizer and main courses (Remick, "
ABSTRACT: We contend that palates link herbivores and humans with landscapes and consider how these relationships have changed historically. An attuned palate, which enables herbivores to meet needs for nutrients and self-medicate to rectify maladies, evolves from three interrelated processes: flavor-feedback associations, availability of phytochemically rich foods, and learning in utero and early in life to eat nourishing combinations of foods. That occurs when wild or domestic herbivores forage on phytochemically rich landscapes, is less common when domestic herbivores forage on monoculture pastures, is close to zero for herbivores in feedlots, and is increasingly rare for people who forage in modern food outlets. Unlike our ancestors, the palates of many individuals are no longer linked in healthy ways with landscapes. Industrial farming and selection for yield, appearance, and transportability diminished the flavor, phytochemical richness, and nutritive value of fruits and vegetables for humans. Phytochemically impoverished pastures and feedlot diets can adversely affect the health of livestock and the flavor and nutritive value of meat and milk products for humans. While flavors of produce, meat, and dairy have become blander, processed foods have become more desirable as people have learned to link synthetic flavors with feedback from energy-rich compounds that obscure nutritional sameness and diminish health. Thus, the roles plants and animals once played in nutrition have been usurped by processed foods that are altered, fortified, and enriched in ways that can adversely affect appetitive states and food preferences. The need to amend foods, and to take nutrient supplements, could be reduced by creating phytochemically rich plants and herbivores and by creating cultures that know how to combine foods into meals that nourish and satiate.Appetite 08/2015; in press. DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.004 · 2.69 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Research investigating the effects of meal variety has tended to concentrate on the physiological and psychological processes that promote meal termination (e.g., sensory-specific satiety (Brondel et al., 2009; Raynor & Epstein, 2001; Rolls et al., 1981; Rolls, Van Duijvenvoorde, & Rolls, 1984). However, recent research suggests that meal size is very often planned, and therefore determined, in advance of eating (Fay et al., 2011; Hinton et al., 2013). "
ABSTRACT: Meal variety has been shown to increase energy intake in humans by an average of 29%. Historically, research exploring the mechanism underlying this effect has focused on physiological and psychological processes that terminate a meal (e.g., sensory-specific satiety). We sought to explore whether meal variety stimulates intake by influencing pre-meal planning. We know that individuals use prior experience with a food to estimate the extent to which it will deliver fullness. These ‘expected satiation’ judgments may be straightforward when only one meal component needs to be considered but it remains unclear how prospective satiation is estimated when a meal comprises multiple items. We hypothesised that people simplify the task by using a heuristic, or ‘cognitive shortcut.’ Specifically, as within-meal variety increases, expected satiation tends to be based on the perceived volume of food(s) rather than on prior experience. In each trial, participants (N = 68) were shown a plate of food with six buffet food items. Across trials the number of different foods varied in the range one to six. In separate tasks, the participants provided an estimate of their combined expected satiation and volume. When meal variety was high, judgments of perceived volume and expected satiation ‘converged.’ This is consistent with a common underlying response strategy. By contrast, the low variety meals produced dissociable responses, suggesting that judgments of expected satiation were not governed solely by perceived volume. This evidence for a ‘volume heuristic’ was especially clear in people who were less familiar with the meal items. Together, these results are important because they expose a novel process by which meal variety might increase food intake in humans.Appetite 01/2015; 89. DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2015.01.010 · 2.69 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "In such laboratory or clinical studies, careful attention to study design is crucial for correct interpretation of the results (Robinson, 2004). A number of individual and combined environmental cues such as the variety of available foods (Brondel et al., 2009), time of consumption (Chungchunlam, Moughan, Henare, & Ganesh, 2012), portion size (Spill, Birch, Roe, & Rolls, 2011), distraction while eating (Brunstrom & Mitchell, 2006; Higgs & Donohoe, 2011), previous experiences with the same food (Hogenkamp, Brunstrom, Stafleu, Mars, & de Graaf, 2012), orosensory stimulation (Hetherington & Regan, 2011), expectations (Brunstrom, Shakeshaft, & Alexander, 2010), specific sensory satiety (Griffioen-Roose, Finlayson, Mars, Blundell, & de Graaf, 2010) or dietary conditions (Mok, 2010) generate, modulate, and terminate appetitive sensations in individuals (Mattes, Hollis, Hayes, & Stunkard, 2005). Consequently, it is necessary to take into consideration the many effects that these cues can produce. "
ABSTRACT: Alongside proteins, soluble fibres are the most promising ingredients for formulating foods with high satiating capacity. Because of the considerable complexity and variety of composition and structure of polysaccharide gums, it is not easy to decide which ingredients are most effective in which products. They can often act in combination on more than one level. Moreover, the research results are often contradictory as it is extremely difficult to draw comparisons between different studies. The complexity of the methods and the absence of necessary information on the substances used for satiating purposes pose additional difficulties. This review aims to clarify the mechanisms governing the satiating effect of gums in formulated foods, update the information and draw attention to points that require further investigation.Food Hydrocolloids 07/2013; 32(1):147–154. DOI:10.1016/j.foodhyd.2012.12.010 · 4.28 Impact Factor