Satiety management: Effect on texture on satiation

Satiety management: Effect of texture on satiation

Dr. Monica Mars Human Nutrition, Sensory Science and Eating Behavior

EFFoST November 11th 2011

Eating behavior

Food

Individual

External factors

Content presentation

Concepts and theories on satiety

Experimental data on food texture and satiation

Food

Individual

External factors

2 Concepts of satiety

14 November

4

Satiation “the process that determines when we stop eating “

Satiety “the process which

suppresses the internal drive to eat”

Model of Blundell

5

Food

Sensory

Pre-absorptive Post-absorptive

Post-ingestive

Satiation

Sensory Cognitive

early late

Satiety

Cognitive

Ingestion

pre-prandial

Satiation vs. satiety

Satiation:

Within meals Meal size

Sensory perception Early pre-absorptive signals

Mainly physical chemical

properties of foods

Satiety:

Between meals Inter-meal interval

Late pre-absorptive signals Post absorptive signals

Mainly nutritional

properties of foods

Content presentation

Concepts and theories on satiety

Experimental data on food texture and satiation viscosity

Food

Individual

External factors

Role of liquids in food intake regulation

• Although the energy density of liquids is relatively low, they can be easily ingested without noticing

• Mattes 1996 • Tournier and Louis Sylvestre 1999 • Di Megglio and Mattes 2000 • Mattes and Tothacker, 2001

• Tordoff 1990 • De Castro 1993

Is viscosity an important factor in satiation?

• Most studies investigate satiety, while sensory properties seem to be important within meals

• And foods mostly differed in more characteristics than viscosity/texture

• Series of experiments on viscosity and satiation

Experiment 1

Does viscosity affect meal size, i.e. satiation?

Zijlstra et al. Int J Obes. 2008

“Real life” setting

• Cinema setting

• 108 healthy unrestrained subjects

• Standardized satiety state

• 90 minute movie

• 3 times new portion of 1.5 liter

• Blind box and consumed with a straw

• Subjects were not aware of the exact study aim


Tested foods

•Newly designed products

•Chocolate flavored custard •Per 100g:

~14 carbohydrate ~3 protein ~3.5 fat ~415 kcal (kJ)

•3 viscosities Different starches 0.1 1 10 100 1000

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

1: liquid

2: semi-liquid

3: semi-solidcomm. milk

comm. custard

shear rate (1/s)

Visc

osity

(Pas

)


Results

liquid semi-liquid semi-solid0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200 p<0.0001

p<0.0001

p<0.0001

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

ad li

bitu

m in

take

(g) ad libitum

intake (kJ)


Conclusion after experiment 1

• Hypothesis was accepted; viscous products are more satiating

• But why? Is it the effort it takes, the rate at which it is eaten, … ?

Experiment 2


• experimental setting: taste booths

• Products offered to each subject, identical to experiment 1 -Liquid -Semi-solid

• 3 test conditions

• Outcome measure: Ad libitum intake in grams

(Zijlstra et al., Int. J. Obes., 2008)

Test conditions

1. Free eating rate, different effort → consumption with a straw

2. Free eating rate, no effort → consumption with peristaltic pump

3. Fixed eating rate, no effort → consumption with peristaltic pump 50 g/min men; 40 g/min women


Results experiment 2: Is effort important and/or eating rate?

0

200

400

600

liquidsemi-solid

P<0.0001

P<0.0001

P<0.24

Free eating rateDifferent effort

Free eating rateNo effort

Fixed eating rateNo effort

0

1000

2000

3000

Ad

libitu

m in

take

(g) A

d libitum intake (kJ)


Conclusions after experiment 2

• It was clearly shown that viscous products are more satiating than liquids.

• This is mainly due to the rate at which it is eaten, i.e. viscous products are eaten slower which leads to more oral exposure

• Can we affect intake of a specific product by changing bite size and/or time of oral processing?

Experiment 3: Effect of bite size and oral processing on ad libitum food intake


• Test product: commercially available chocolate custard

• Products offered to each subject during 7 test conditions

(Zijlstra et al., Am J Clin Nutr, 2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 70

200

400

600

0

800

1600

2400

Condition

Ad

libitu

m in

take

(gra

m) A

d libitum intake (kJ)

Results experiment 3

Cond. Bite size

Oral proc. time

1 Free Free

2 Free 3 sec

3 Free 9 sec

4 5 g 3 sec

5 5 g 9 sec

6 15 g 3 sec

7 15 g 9 sec

(Zijlstra et al., Am J Clin Nutr, 2009)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Vla Energie per 100 ml 395 kJ (94 kcal)

Conclusions after experiment 3

• It was clearly shown that viscous products are more satiating than solids.

• This is mainly due to the rate at which it is eaten, i.e. viscous products are eaten slower which leads to more oral exposure

• Intake of a semi-solid is lower with smaller bite size and longer oral exposure time, i.e. lower eating rate

What about solid products?

Zijlstra et al., 2010

Eating rate of solids (g/min)

Soft Hard Luncheon meat 21 ± 10 25 ± 13 * Meat replacer 19 ± 16 19 ± 9 Candy 8 ± 4 8 ± 4

Eating rate (g/min)

range: 4 – 630 g/min

Liquids

Semi-solids Solids

In other words,

• Affecting oral exposure time/eating rate may affect meal size and consequently satiety and energy intake

• Evidence mainly from changes in viscosity in liquid and semi-solid products

Satiety management: Effect on texture on satiation

Technology

Transcript of Satiety management: Effect on texture on satiation