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


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.

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • Source
    • "The last decade it has become clear that that especially the time during which the food is present in the oral cavity has an important role in satiation[5]. For example prolonging oral exposure by altering the physico-chemical structure of a food678, lowering the rate of eating[9], for example by changing bite or sip size10111213, and mode of consumption[14,15], have shown to lead to earlier satiation. Cecil and colleagues have hypothesized, based on a series of studies, that oro-sensory signals are especially important for the magnitude of physiological feed-back in order to have optimal satiation and digestion[2]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Studies show that longer oral exposure to food leads to earlier satiation and lowers energy intake. Moreover, higher energy content of food has been shown to lead to higher satiety. Up to now, it has not been studied systematically how oral exposure duration and gastric energy content interact in satiety regulation. Thirty-seven men (22 ± 4 years, 22 ± 2 kg/m²) participated in a randomized cross-over trial, in which we independently manipulated: (1) oral exposure duration by modified sham feeding (MSF) for 1 or 8 min; and (2) energy content of gastric load (GL) by a nasogastric tube: 100 kcal/500 mL or 700 kcal/500 mL. Outcome measures were appetite ratings and subsequent energy intake from an ad libitum meal. Energy intake was 35% lower after the GLs with 700 kcal than with 100kcal (p < 0.0001). All appetite ratings were lower in the 700 kcal than in the 100 kcal treatments (area under the curve (AUC); p-values ≤ 0.002); fullness was higher and prospective consumption was lower in the 8 min than in the 1 min MSF treatments (AUC; p-values ≤ 0.02). In conclusion, the current showed that a GL of 700 kcal/500 mL vs. 100 kcal/500 mL increased satiety and lowered energy intake. No additional effects of oral exposure duration could be observed, presumably due to the high contrast in energy between the manipulations. Future research should also focus on the role of oral exposure as such and not only the duration.
    Preview · Article · Jan 2016 · Nutrients
  • Source
    • "and food intake are not addressed in this study. However, the results are in line with several cross-over and mostly laboratory studies have consistently shown that reducing bite sizes or eating rate within individuals decrease food intake (Andrade, Greene, & Melanson, 2008; Bolhuis, Forde, et al., 2014; Bolhuis et al., 2011; Bolhuis, Lakemond, de Wijk, Luning, & de Graaf, 2013, 2014; Robinson et al., 2014; Weijzen, Smeets, & de Graaf, 2009). The underlying mechanism is considered to be less oral sensory exposure to taste when eating fast, the latter has been shown to play a major role in regulation of acute food intake (Spetter, Mars, Viergever, de Graaf, & Smeets, 2014). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Accumulating evidence show positive relationships between eating rate and body weight. Acute food intake is affected by eating rate, bite size, and palatability. The objective was to assess differences between participants who chose to use a spoon vs. fork in eating rate and food intake of four meals that differ in palatability (low vs. high salt) and in energy density (low vs. high fat). Forty-eight healthy adults (16 males, 18–54 y, BMI: 17.8–34.4 kg/m2) were recruited. Participants attended four lunch time sessions after a standardised breakfast. Meals were either (1) low-fat/low-salt, (2) low-fat/high-salt, (3) high-fat/low-salt, or (4) high-fat/high-salt. Nineteen participants (6 males) consistently used a fork and 21 (8 males) used a spoon, 8 participants were inconsistent in cutlery use and excluded from analyses. Spoon users had on average a higher BMI than fork users (p = 0.006). Effects of cutlery use, BMI status (BMI < 25 vs. BMI > 25), salt, and fat, and their interactions were assessed in a General Linear Model. Spoon users consumed faster (fork: 53 ± 2.8 g/min; spoon: 62 ± 2.1 g/min, p = 0.022) and tended to consume more (p = 0.09), whereas the duration of the meals were similar (fork: 6.9 ± 0.3 min; spoon: 6:7 ± 0.2 min, p = 0.55). BMI status affected both eating rate and food intake (p = 0.005). There were no significant two-way or three-way interactions between salt, fat, and cutlery use on eating rate or food intake. In conclusion, participants who chose to consume with forks ate slower compared to spoon users.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2015 · Food Quality and Preference
  • Source
    • "The magnitude of these orosensory signals influences the satiation process. For example, a drink with a higher viscosity results in lower intake [3] and increased orosensory exposure can lower intake of sweet drinks [4]. Oral stimulation triggers cephalic phase responses, which prepare the body for food digestion and absorption, including hormonal responses, such as increases in circulating insulin [5]. "
    [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.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2014 · Physiology & Behavior
Show more