Article

Chronic food restriction and reduced dietary fat: Risk factors for bouts of overeating

Obesity Research Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45237-1625, USA.
Physiology & Behavior (Impact Factor: 3.03). 12/2005; 86(4):578-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2005.08.028
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of chronic food restriction and reduced dietary fat on feeding behavior and body weight. Young female rats were fed ad lib or food restricted on a low-fat (LF) or a fat-free (FF) diet for 4 weeks. Rats then received 24-h free access to 2 diets, the maintenance diet (LF or FF) plus a novel high-fat (HF) diet (24-h intake test). After the test, all the rats were allowed chronic free access to the HF diet until body weight was stable. During the 24-h test, the restricted groups ate significantly more calories than the ad lib groups, and the FF-restricted rats ate significantly more total food, carbohydrate and protein than the LF-restricted rats; there were no differences between the two ad lib groups. During chronic free access to the HF diet, the formerly restricted rats achieved and defended lower body weights than the formerly non-restricted rats. Throughout the experiment, the ad lib groups had more body fat than the restricted groups independent of the dietary subgroup. Hence, a history of chronic food restriction predisposes to consuming more food in acute feeding situations, particularly when dietary fat is reduced, and lowers the level of body weight maintained and defended. Chronic food restriction accompanied by reduced dietary fat may increase risk for bouts of overeating.

0 Followers
 · 
65 Views
  • Source
    • "In our study, after the caloric restriction period, the energy deficit was quickly restored upon refeeding. Mars et al. (2006) suggests that the leptin concentration is inversely proportional to appetite; therefore, chronic caloric restriction leads to overfeeding after the refeeding period (Ogawa et al. 2005), which promotes an increase in the adipose mass and leptinaemia (Stanley et al. 2005). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of successive cycles of a moderately restrictive diet and refeeding with a high-fat diet on the metabolism of the adipose and hepatic tissues of obese rats. Rats were assigned to the following groups: a chow diet; a high-fat diet; a moderate caloric restriction; or a moderate caloric restriction plus refeeding. Some animals in each group were given [1-(14)C]triolein intragastrically, while others received an intraperitoneal injection of 3 mCi (3)H(2)O. All animals were killed by decapitation. The retroperitoneal, visceral epididymal and omental white adipose tissues, brown adipose tissue, liver and blood were immediately removed. The lipid uptake from the diet, in vivo rate of lipogenesis, percentage of fat, lipid profile and leptin concentration were analysed. The high-fat diet promoted an increase in fatty liver (P ≤ 0.05), adiposity mass (P ≤ 0.05) and the plasma concentration of leptin (P ≤ 0.05) and a decreased lipid uptake in white adipose tissue depots (P ≤ 0.05) in relation to the chow diet. The moderate caloric restriction did not reverse the changes promoted by the high-fat diet but induced a small decrease in adiposity, which was reversed after refeeding, and the animals maintained a dyslipidaemic profile and high fat deposition in the liver. We can conclude that the high-fat diet and subsequent moderate caloric restriction plus refeeding increased the risks of developing visceral obesity, dyslipidaemia and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which suggests that this type of experimental protocol can be used to study mechanisms related to the metabolic syndrome.
    Experimental physiology 03/2012; 97(7):882-94. DOI:10.1113/expphysiol.2011.064121 · 2.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "First, it aligns with evidence from animal experiments that have investigated the effects of severe dietary restriction. Rats randomized to extreme caloric deprivation conditions (in which they lost between 7% to 20% of their body mass) consume significantly more calories during ad lib feeding and show a preference for high-fat foods immediately after the deprivation period than non-deprived control rats (Hagan, Chandler, Wauford, Rybak, & Oswald, 2003; Lusas & Sclafani, 1992; Ogawa et al., 2005; Sclafani & Ackroff, 1993). Second, this explanation accords with experiments that indicate that enforced periods of caloric deprivation result in greater reinforcement value of food, as assessed by operant tasks that measure how hard participants will work to earn food and by actual caloric intake (Epstein et al., 2003; Raynor & Epstein, 2003). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prospective studies find that individuals with elevated dietary restraint scores are at increased risk for bulimic symptom onset, yet experiments find that assignment to energy-deficit diet interventions reduce bulimic symptoms. One explanation for the conflicting findings is that the dietary restraint scales used in the former studies do not actually identify individuals who are restraining their caloric intake. Thus, we tested whether dietary restraint scales showed inverse relations to objectively measured caloric intake in three studies. Four dietary restraint scales did not correlate with doubly labeled water estimates of caloric intake over a 2-week period (M, r=.01). One scale showed a significant inverse correlation with objectively measured caloric intake during a regular meal ordered from an ecologically valid menu (M, r=-.30), but a significant positive relation that was qualified by a significant quadratic effect, to objectively measured caloric intake during multiple eating episodes in the lab (M, r=.32). In balance, results suggest that dietary restraint scales are not valid measures of dietary restriction, replicating findings from prior studies that examined objective measures of caloric intake.
    Appetite 12/2009; 54(2):331-9. DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2009.12.009 · 2.69 Impact Factor
    • "In our study, after the caloric restriction period, the energy deficit was quickly restored upon refeeding. Mars et al. (2006) suggests that the leptin concentration is inversely proportional to appetite; therefore, chronic caloric restriction leads to overfeeding after the refeeding period (Ogawa et al. 2005), which promotes an increase in the adipose mass and leptinaemia (Stanley et al. 2005). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We investigated the effects of severe caloric restriction and refeeding with a high-fat diet on lipid uptake by visceral adipose fat and lipid profile in rats. Rats were assigned to six groups: a chow diet (C), a high-fat diet (H), severe caloric restriction (SC and SH), and severe caloric restriction plus refeeding (SC-r and SH-r) during 8 wk. All animals were killed by decapitation 4 h after intragastric administration of [1-14C] triolein ( approximately 0.5 g, 0.3 muCi/rat). Liver; visceral retroperitoneal (RET), epididymal (EPI), and omental (VIS) white adipose tissues; brown adipose tissue; and intestine were immediately removed and weighed. The whole intestine was withdrawn and homogenized to determine lipid uptake. Total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL), and triacylglycerol in plasma were determined enzymatically. The SC and SH groups showed reduced visceral adiposity, although this effect was more evident in the SC group. The SC group had greater lipid absorption in the VIS than the C group. The SH treatment increased RET and VIS lipid uptake in relation to the H group. The SH-r treatment increased RET and VIS adiposity. HDL cholesterol decreased with caloric restriction in the SC and SH groups. The SH-r treatment did not increase HDL cholesterol. Severe caloric restriction decreased visceral adiposity even in rats in the H group but did not reduce the risk of development of dyslipidemia. Therefore, food restriction plus refeeding with a high-fat diet increase the risk of development of visceral adiposity and dyslipidemia.
    Nutrition 03/2008; 24(2):177-86. DOI:10.1016/j.nut.2007.10.012 · 3.05 Impact Factor
Show more