Energy compensation in the real world: good compensation for small portions of chocolate and biscuits over short time periods in complicit consumers using commercially available foods

5-a-day fruit and vegetable food product labels: reduced fruit and vegetable consumption following an exaggerated compared to a modest label

BACKGROUND

Food product labels based on the WHO 5-a-day fruit and vegetable (FV) message are becoming increasingly common, but these labels may impact negatively on complementary or subsequent FV consumption. This study aimed to investigate the impact of a '3 of your 5-a-day' versus a '1 of your 5-a-day' smoothie product label on subsequent FV consumption.

METHODS

Using an acute experimental design, 194 participants (90 males, 104 females) were randomised to consume a smoothie labelled as either '3 of your 5-a-day' (N = 97) or '1 of your 5-a-day' (N = 97) in full, following a usual breakfast. Subsequent FV consumption was measured for the rest of the day using 24-h recall. Usual FV consumption was also assessed via 24-h recall for the day before the study.

RESULTS

Regression analyses revealed a significantly lower subsequent FV consumption following smoothies displaying the '3 of your 5-a-day' label compared to the '1 of your 5-a-day' label (Beta = - 0.15, p = 0.04). Secondary analyses revealed these effects to be driven mainly by changes to consumption in usual high FV consumers, in females and in vegetable as opposed to fruit consumption.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate a role for label information in food intake, and the potential negative impacts of an exaggerated food product label on healthy food consumption and healthy dietary profiles.

A Comparison of the Satiety Effects of a Fruit Smoothie, Its Fresh Fruit Equivalent and Other Drinks

Energy-containing liquids are claimed to have relatively low satiating power, although energy in liquids is not without effect on appetite. Using the preload test-meal method, effects on fullness and energy intake compensation were compared across four drinks (water, blackcurrant squash, milk and fruit smoothie) and the fresh fruit equivalent of the smoothie. Preload volumes were similar, and the energy value of each preload was 569 kJ, except for water (0 kJ). Healthy, adult participants rated the preloads for liking, enjoyment, satisfaction, familiarity and how ‘food-like’ they seemed. The preload to test-meal interval was 2 min (n = 23) or 2 h (n = 24). The effects of the preloads on fullness varied with food-likeness and the rate at which they were consumed. In contrast, energy intake compensation versus water did not differ between the energy-containing preloads, although it decreased over time (from 82% at 2 min to 12% at 2 h). In conclusion, although fullness increased with food-likeness, subsequent energy intake compensation did not differ for energy/nutrients consumed in drinks compared with a food. The results also support the proposal that food intake is influenced predominantly by the immediate, but rapidly waning, post-ingestive effects of the previous ‘meal’ (rather than by changes in energy balance).

Limited compensation at the following meal for protein and energy intake at a lunch meal in healthy free-living older adults

Various interventions have previously been found to increase protein intakes in older adults, but in free-living individuals, compensation for increased intakes at one meal may easily negate these effects resulting in limited long term benefit. This study investigated the impact of adding sauce to an older person's lunch meal on intakes at that meal, at the following meal and overall (lunch + evening meal). Using a repeated measures design, 52 participants consumed both a lunch meal with sauce and the same lunch meal without sauce on two separate occasions, and intake at this meal and at the following meal were measured. In all participants analysed together, the addition of sauce resulted in increased protein intakes at the lunch meal. Individual differences were also found, where for some individuals (n = 26), the addition of sauce resulted in significantly higher protein and energy intakes at the lunch meal (12.3 g protein, 381 kJ) and overall (11 g protein, 420 kJ), compared to the no-sauce condition, while for some individuals (n = 19), the sauce manipulation resulted in lower protein and energy intakes (lunch: 7 g protein, 297 kJ; overall: 7 g protein, 350 kJ). Compensation for earlier intakes was low (0-17%) for both groups. These findings demonstrate the possible value of adding sauce to an older person's meal for increasing intakes, and demonstrate a need for attention to individual differences. This study also confirms previous findings of limited compensation in older adults, but extends earlier studies to demonstrate limited compensation for the protein consumed in a complete meal in healthy older adults.

Comparison of oro-sensory exposure duration and intensity manipulations on satiation

Oro-sensory exposure (OSE) is an important factor in the regulation of food intake with increasing OSE leading to lower food intake. Oral processing time and taste intensity both play an important role in OSE but their individual contribution to satiation is unknown. We aimed to determine the independent and combined effects of oral processing time and taste intensity on satiation. Fifty eight participants (23±9y, BMI 22±2kg/m²) participated in a 2×2 factorial randomized crossover study in which they consumed one of four gel-based model foods until satiation during four sessions. Model foods were offered ad libitum and differed in texture (soft or hard texture, yielding shorter and longer oral processing time) and sweetness (low or high intensity). Model foods were isocaloric and were matched for flavor and palatability. Outcome measures were intake of the model food and the microstructure of eating behavior, such as number of chews and eating rate. There was an overall significant effect of texture (p<0.001) but not sweetness (p=0.33) on intake with a 29.2% higher intake of the soft model foods compared to the hard model foods. After correction for palatability the difference in intake between the soft and hard model foods was 21.5% (p<0.001). The number of chews was significantly lower for the soft (10.1±6.2) than for the hard (26.9±6.2) model foods (p<0.001), which resulted in a significantly lower eating rate (soft, 26.3±10.2 and hard, 15.3±7.1g/min, p<0.001). These results show that increasing texture hardness of gel model foods decreases food intake independent of sweet taste intensity. The higher number of chews and faster eating rate may cause this effect. In conclusion, oro-sensory exposure duration rather than taste intensity appears to be the main determinant of food intake.