Biogastronomy: Factors that determine the biological response to meal ingestion

Conditioning by a Previous Experience Impairs the Rewarding Value of a Comfort Meal

BACKGROUND

Meal ingestion induces a postprandial experience that involves homeostatic and hedonic sensations. Our aim was to determine the effect of aversive conditioning on the postprandial reward of a comfort meal.

METHODS

A sham-controlled, randomised, parallel, single-blind study was performed on 12 healthy women (6 per group). A comfort meal was tested before and after coupling the meal with an aversive sensation (conditioning intervention), induced by infusion of lipids via a thin naso-duodenal catheter; in the pre- and post-conditioning tests and in the control group, a sham infusion was performed. Participants were instructed that two recipes of a tasty humus would be tested; however, the same meal was administered with a colour additive in the conditioning and post-conditioning tests. Digestive well-being (primary outcome) was measured every 10 min before and 60 min after ingestion using graded scales.

RESULTS

In the aversive conditioning group, the comfort meal in the pre-conditioning test induced a pleasant postprandial experience, which was significantly lower in the post-conditioning test; the effect of aversive conditioning (change from pre- to post-conditioning) was significant as compared to sham conditioning in the control group, which showed no differences between study days.

CONCLUSION

The hedonic postprandial response to a comfort meal in healthy women is impaired by aversive conditioning.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov ID: NCT04938934.

Gastrointestinal Contributions to the Postprandial Experience

Food ingestion induces homeostatic sensations (satiety, fullness) with a hedonic dimension (satisfaction, changes in mood) that characterize the postprandial experience. Both types of sensation are secondary to intraluminal stimuli produced by the food itself, as well as to the activity of the digestive tract. Postprandial sensations also depend on the nutrient composition of the meal and on colonic fermentation of non-absorbed residues. Gastrointestinal function and the sensitivity of the digestive tract, i.e., perception of gut stimuli, are determined by inherent individual factors, e.g., sex, and can be modulated by different conditioning mechanisms. This narrative review examines the factors that determine perception of digestive stimuli and the postprandial experience.

Food, Eating, and the Gastrointestinal Tract

Food ingestion induces a metered response of the digestive system. Initially, the upper digestive system reacts to process and extract meal substrates. Later, meal residues not absorbed in the small bowel, pass into the colon and activate the metabolism of resident microbiota. Food consumption also induces sensations that arise before ingestion (e.g., anticipatory reward), during ingestion (e.g., gustation), and most importantly, after the meal (i.e., the postprandial experience). The postprandial experience involves homeostatic sensations (satiety, fullness) with a hedonic dimension (digestive well-being, mood). The factors that determine the postprandial experience are poorly understood, despite their potential role in personalized diets and healthy eating habits. Current data suggest that the characteristics of the meal (amount, palatability, composition), the activity of the digestive system (suited processing), and the receptivity of the eater (influenced by multiple conditioning factors) may be important in this context.

Biological Response to Meal Ingestion: Gender Differences

In a previous study, we demonstrated that women enjoyed and tolerated lower meal loads than men. Hence, we hypothesized that with the same meal load, their postprandial response is more pronounced than in men. We performed a randomized parallel trial in 12 women and 12 men comparing the postprandial responses to a palatable comfort meal. We measured homeostatic sensations (hunger/satiety, fullness) and hedonic sensations (digestive well-being, mood) on 10 cm scales, vagal tone by heart ratio variability and the metabolomic profile before and after meal ingestion. Gender differences were analyzed by repeated measures ANCOVA. Overall (n = 24), ingestion of the probe meal induced satiation, fullness, digestive well-being and improved mood (main time-effect p ≤ 0.005 for all). Women exhibited a more intense sensory experience, specially more postprandial fullness, than men [main gender-effect F (1, 21) = 7.14; p = 0.014]; hedonic responses in women also tended to be stronger than in men. Women exhibited more pronounced effects on vagal tone [main gender-effect F (1, 21) = 5.5; p = 0.029] and a different lipoprotein response than men. In conclusion, our data indicate that gender influences the responses to meal ingestion, and these differences may explain the predisposition and higher incidence in women of meal-related functional disorders.

Influence of Eating Schedule on the Postprandial Response: Gender Differences

Ingestion of a meal induces conscious sensations depending of the characteristics of the meal and the predisposition of the eater. We hypothesized that the eating schedule plays a conditioning role, specifically, that an extemporaneous meal is less rewarding than when eaten at the habitual schedule. We conducted a randomized parallel trial in 10 women and 10 men comparing the responses to a consistent savoury lunch-type meal (stewed beans) eaten at the habitual afternoon schedule or at an unconventional time in the morning. Schedule and gender differences were analyzed by repeated measures analysis of covariance. In women, the sensory experience induced by the probe meal, particularly postprandial satisfaction, was weaker when eaten at an unconventional time for breakfast. Men were resilient to the schedule effect and experienced the same sensations regardless of the timing of ingestion; the effect of the eating schedule was significantly more pronounced in women for fullness (F(1,55) = 14.9; p < 0.001), digestive well-being (F(1,36.8) = 22.3; p < 0.001), mood (F(1,12.4) = 13.8; p < 0.001), and anxiety (F(1,11.9) = 10.9; p = 0.001). No differences in the physiological responses induced by the afternoon and morning meals were detected either in women or men. Our data indicate that women are more susceptible to changes in meal schedule than men.

Meal Enjoyment and Tolerance in Women and Men

Various conditioning factors influence the sensory response to a meal (inducible factors). We hypothesized that inherent characteristics of the eater (constitutive factors) also play a role. The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to determine the role of gender, as an individual constitutive factor, on the meal-related experience. Randomized parallel trial in 10 women and 10 men, comparing the sensations before, during, and after stepwise ingestion of a comfort meal up to full satiation. Comparisons were performed by repeated Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) measures. During stepwise ingestion, satisfaction initially increased up to a peak, and later decreased down to a nadir at the point of full satiation. Interestingly, the amount of food consumed at the well-being peak was lower, and induced significantly less fullness in women than in men. Hence, men required a larger meal load and stronger homeostatic sensations to achieve satisfaction. The same pattern was observed at the level of full satiation: men ate more and still experienced positive well-being, whereas in women, well-being scores dropped below pre-meal level. The effect of gender on the ingestion experience suggests that other constitutive factors of the eater may also influence responses to meals.

Metabolomic signature of the postprandial experience

BACKGROUND

Ingestion of a meal up to maximal tolerance induces unpleasant fullness sensation and changes in circulating metabolites. Our aim was to evaluate the relation between postprandial sensations and the metabolomic responses to a comfort meal.

METHODS

In 32 non-obese healthy men, homeostatic sensations (hunger/satiety, fullness), hedonic sensations (digestive well-being, mood), and the metabolomic profile in plasma (low-molecular weight metabolites and lipoprotein profiles) were measured before and 20 minutes after a comfort meal (warm ham and cheese sandwich and juice; total 300 mL; 425 kcal). Perception was measured on 10 cm scales and the metabolomic response by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

KEY RESULTS

The comfort meal induced homeostatic sensations (satiety and fullness) associated with a positive hedonic reward (enhanced digestive well-being and mood) and a clear change in the metabolomic profile with a sharp discrimination between the pre and postprandial state by a non-supervised principal component analysis. The change in circulating metabolites correlated with the postprandial sensations: the increase in alanine correlated with the increase in fullness (R = 0.50; P = 0.004) and well-being (R = 0.50; P = 0.004); the increase in glucose correlated with the sensation of fullness (R = 0.40; P = 0.023) and enhanced mood (R = 0.41; P = 0.020).

CONCLUSION AND INFERENCES

Metabolomic changes in the response to a meal may provide an objective index of the postprandial experience, which may have clinical implications in the management of patients with poor meal tolerance or meal-related symptoms.

Meal composition influences postprandial sensations independently of valence and gustation

BACKGROUND

Palatability of meals with identical composition has been shown to influence postprandial sensations. Our aim was to determine to what extent meal composition influences postprandial sensations independently of palatability.

METHODS

Randomized, crossover, double-blind trial comparing the postprandial responses to a low-fat vs a high-fat test meal, with the same physical and organoleptic characteristics (taste, smell, texture, color, and temperature). The test meal consisted in 150 g hummus containing either 17.7 g fat (low-fat) or 22.3 g fat (high-fat), 19.8 g toasts, 120 mL water and 50 g apple puree. In 12 non-obese healthy men, palatability, homeostatic sensations (hunger/satiety, fullness) and hedonic sensations (digestive well-being, mood) were measured on 10 cm scales before and during the 60-min postprandial period. Comparisons between meals were performed with a two-way repeated measures ANCOVA with premeal data as co-variate.

KEY RESULTS

Both test meals were rated equally palatable (palatability scores 3.8 ± 0.3 low-fat, 3.3 ± 0.2 high-fat; P = .156). As compared to the high-fat meal, the low-fat meal induced more satisfaction (meal effect on well-being F(1,21) = 4.92; P = .038) and tended to improve mood (meal effect F(1,21) = 3.02; P = .064), and this was associated with a non-significant decrease in satiety (meal effect F(1,21) = 2.29; P = .145) and fullness (meal effect F(1,21) = 1.57; P = .224).

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

The composition of meals with equal palatability influences postprandial satisfaction, even without significant impact on homeostatic sensations, although an effect on homeostatic sensations has not been excluded. These conditioning factors may have clinical implications in patients with impaired meal tolerance or meal-related symptoms.