Sip size of orangeade: effects on intake and sensory-specific satiation
Pascalle L. G. Weijzen1,2*, Paul A. M. Smeets1,3and Cees de Graaf1
1Division of Human Nutrition, Wageningen University, PO Box 8129, 6700 EV Wageningen, The Netherlands
2FrieslandCampina Corporate Research, PO Box 87, 7400 AB Deventer, The Netherlands
3Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
(Received 1 December 2008 – Revised 11 February 2009 – Accepted 10 March 2009 – First published online 15 April 2009)
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 £ 2 cross-over design (n 53). Conditions differed in energy content (no-energy v. regular-energy
orangeade) and in sip size (large, 20g/sip v. small, 5g/sip). The mean intake of both orangeades was lower when consumed with small sips
than when consumed with large sips (regular-energy, 352 v. 493g; no-energy, 338 v. 405g; both P,0·001). When consumed with large sips,
the mean intake of no-energy orangeade was lower than that of regular-energy orangeade (P¼0·02). When consumed with small sips, subjective
SSS (based on the desire to drink) was higher for no-energy orangeade than for regular-energy orangeade (P¼0·01), while mean intake was com-
parable. 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.
Sensory-specific satiation: Intake: Sip size: Energy content
The regulation of food choice is governed by internal factors,
such as a specific subconscious desire for the food, an overt
liking, and/or habit (for a review, see Mela(1)), and by environ-
mental factors, such as serving size and social context (for
a review, see Wansink(2)). Whatever has prompted the
choice, as soon as food enters the mouth, the taste and
smell of food generate the first triggers of satiation, through
their action on sensory receptors(3). Sensory-specific satiation
(SSS) results from continued sensory stimulation and has been
defined as the decline in wanting or liking of a food relative to
uneaten foods(4). SSS has been shown to contribute to food
intake control (for a review, see Sørensen et al.(5)).
Factors thought to influence food intake and the degree
of SSS for a food are its intensity(6)and the duration(7)of
oro-sensory exposure. The shorter oro-sensory exposure to
liquids could explain the low satiating power of liquid
energy as compared with energy from solid foods(8,9), and
the weak compensatory response after consumption of liquid
energy(10–12). Also the bite or sip size by which a given
food is consumed influences the duration of oro-sensory
exposure. When consumed with smaller bites or sips, a smaller
amount per chew(13,14)or per swallow(15)is ingested, which
results in a longer oro-sensory exposure per consumption.
Another factor that potentially influences SSS is the energy
content of food. Although some studies showed that the degree
of SSS increased when the energy content or amount of
solid foods ingested increased(16,17), studies that dissociated
the sensory properties of fat or sugar from the energy they
provided, while matching the food stimuli for taste and
texture, found that the degree of SSS did not depend on
The present study tested whether (1) consumption of oran-
geade with smaller sips leads to a lower ad libitum intake and
a higher degree of subjective SSS, and whether (2) orangeade
intake and the degree of subjective SSS are affected by the
energy content of similarly sweet orangeades.
Subjects and methods
Subjects were fifty-three healthy adults (twenty-one male,
thirty-two female), aged 18–29 (mean 21·9) years. The
mean BMI was 21·5 (SD 1·7) kg/m2. Subjects were recruited
from a consumer database of the division of Human Nutrition
of Wageningen University. A pre-screening questionnaire was
performed by eligible subjects to confirm that they had normal
weight (BMI 18·5–25·0kg/m2), their weight was stable
(no weight change of more than 5kg during the previous
6 months), did not smoke, did not have a gastrointestinal
*Corresponding author: Dr Pascalle Weijzen, fax þ31 570 695 918, email Pascalle.email@example.com
Abbreviations: GLM, general linear model; LSD, least significant difference; SSS, sensory-specific satiation.
British Journal of Nutrition (2009), 102, 1091–1097
q The Authors 2009
British Journal of Nutrition
7. Zijlstra N, Mars M, De Wijk RA, et al. (2008) The effect of
viscosity on ad libitum food intake. Int J Obes 32, 676–683.
Haber GB, Heaton KW, Murphy D, et al. (1977) Depletion and
disruption of dietary fibre. Lancet ii, 679–682.
Hulshof T, De Graaf G & Weststrate JA (1993) The effects of
preloads varying in physical state and fat content on satiety
and energy intake. Appetite 21, 273–286.
Mattes RD (1996) Dietary compensation by humans for
supplemental energy provided as ethanol or carbohydrates in
fluids. Physiol Behav 59, 179–187.
DiMeglio DP & Mattes RD (2000) Liquid versus solid carbo-
hydrate: effects on food intake and body weight. Int J Obes
Relat Metab Disord 24, 794–800.
Mattes RD (2006) Beverages and positive energy balance: the
menace is the medium. Int J Obes 30, S60–S65.
Spiegel TA & Jordan HA (1978) Effects of simultaneous
oral-intragastric ingestion on meal patterns and satiety in
humans. J Comp Physiol Psychol 92, 133–141.
Spiegel T (2000) Rate of intake, bites, and chews – the
interpretation of lean–obese differences. Neurosci Biobehav
Rev 24, 229–237.
German RZ, Crompton AW, Owerkowicz T, et al. (2004)
Volume and rate of milk delivery as determinants of swallowing
in an infant model animal (Sus scrofia). Dysphagia 19,
De Graaf C, Schreurs A & Blauw YH (1993) Short-term effects
of different amounts of sweet and nonsweet carbohydrates on
satiety and energy intake. Physiol Behav 54, 833–843.
Johnson J & Vickers Z (1993) Effects of flavour and macronu-
trient composition of food servings on liking, hunger, and sub-
sequent intake. Appetite 21, 25–39.
Rolls BJ, Hetherington M & Burley VJ (1988) Sensory stimu-
lation and energy density in the development of satiety. Physiol
Behav 44, 727–733.
Rolls BJ, Laster LJ & Summerfelt A (1989) Hunger and food
intake following consumption of low-calorie foods. Appetite
Miller DL, Hammer VA, Peters JC, et al. (1996) Influence of
the fat content of a food on sensory-specific satiety. FASEB J
Miller DL, Bell EA, Pelkman CL, et al. (2000) Effects of
dietary fat, nutrition labels, and repeated consumption on
sensory-specific satiety. Physiol Behav 71, 153–158.
Bury St Edmunds, UK: Thames Valley Test Company Ltd.
23.Hetherington MM & Boyland E (2007) Short-term effects of
sugar gum on snack intake and appetite. Appetite 48, 397–401.
Lavin JH, French SJ, Ruxton CHS, et al. (2002) An investi-
gation of the role of oro-sensory stimulation in sugar satiety.
Int J Obes 26, 384–388.
Mattes RD & Rothacker D (2001) Beverage viscosity is inver-
sely related to postprandial hunger in humans. Physiol Behav
Tsuchiya A, Almiron-Roig E, Lluch A, et al. (2006) Higher
satiety ratings following yoghurt consumption relative to fruit
drink or dairy fruit drink. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 550–557.
Harper A, James A, Flint A, et al. (2007) Increased satiety after
intake of a chocolate milk drink compared with a carbonated
beverage, but no difference in subsequent ad libitum lunch
intake. Br J Nutr 97, 579–583.
Mattes RD (2005) Soup and satiety. Physiol Behav 83,
Oka K, Sakuarae A, Fuijse T, et al. (2003) Food texture differ-
ences affect energy metabolism in rats. J Dent Res 82, 491–494.
Tournier A & Louis-Sylvestre J (1991) Effect of the physical
state of a food on subsequent intake in human subjects. Appetite
De Castro JM (1993) The effects of the spontaneous ingestion of
particular foods or beverages on the meal pattern and overall
nutrient intake of humans. Physiol Behav 53, 1133–1144.
Raben A, Vasilaras TH, Møller AC, et al. (2002) Sucrose com-
pared with artificial sweeteners: different effects on ad libitum
food intake and body weight after 10 wk of supplementation
in overweight subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 76, 721–729.
Frank GKW, Oberndorfer TA, Simmons AN, et al. (2008)
Sucrose activates human taste pathways differently from artifi-
cial sweeteners. Neuroimage 39, 1559–1569.
De Araujo IE, Oliveira-Maia AJ, Sotnikova TD, et al. (2008)
Food reward in the absence of taste receptor signaling.
Neuron 57, 930–941.
mers of artificially-sweetened beverages: effects of sweet taste
and energy on short-term appetite. Physiol Behav 92, 479–486.
Davidson TL & Swithers SE (2004) A Pavlovian approach to
the problem of obesity. Int J Obes 28, 933–935.
Swithers SE & Davidson TL (2005) Obesity: outwitting the
wisdom of the body? Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 5, 159–162.
Swithers SE & Davidson TL (2008) A role for sweet taste:
calorie predictive relations in energy regulation by rats. Behav
Neurosci 122, 161–173.
Sip size and sensory-specific satiation1097
British Journal of Nutrition