Appetitive and Dietary Effects of Consuming an Energy-Dense Food (Peanuts) with or between Meals by Snackers and Nonsnackers

Background. Energy-dense foods are inconsistently implicated in elevated energy intake (EI). This may stem from other food properties and/or differences in dietary incorporation, that is, as snacks or with meals. Objective. Assess intake pattern and food properties on acute appetitive ratings (AR) and EI. Design. 201 normal and overweight adults consuming a standard lunch. Test loads of 1255.2 kJ (300 kcal) were added to the lunch or provided as snack. Loads (peanuts, snack mix, and snack mix with peanuts) were energy, macronutrient, and volumetrically matched with a lunch portion as control. Participants completed meal and snack sessions of their randomly assigned load. Results. No differences were observed in daily EI or AR for meal versus snack or treatment versus control. Consumption of peanuts as a snack tended to strengthen dietary compensation compared to peanuts or other loads with a meal. Conclusions. Inclusion of an energy-dense food as a snack or meal component had comparable influence on AR and EI. Peanuts tended to elicit stronger dietary compensation when consumed as a snack versus with a meal. If substantiated, this latter observation suggests that properties other than those controlled here (energy, macronutrient content, and volume) modify AR and EI.

Effects of peanut oil consumption on appetite and food choice

OBJECTIVE

Peanut consumption may improve lipid profiles without promoting weight gain. Both properties have been attributed to their high-unsaturated fat content. Mono and polyunsaturated fatty acids reportedly hold stronger satiety value than saturated fats and may help appetite control. This study investigated the effects of chronic peanut oil consumption on appetite and food choice.

RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES

A total of 129 healthy adults from three countries (Brazil, Ghana and US) were randomly assigned to one of four treatment arms: consumption of peanut oil, olive oil or safflower oil as 30% of individual resting energy expenditure (REE) for 8 weeks or no dietary intervention. Participants received no other dietary guidance. They completed appetite questionnaires eliciting information about hunger, fullness, desire to eat, and prospective consumption during all waking hours for 1 day at weeks 2 and 6 and for 1 or 3 days at weeks 0, 4 and 8. Diet records were completed at weeks 0, 4 and 8.

RESULTS

No differences in appetitive ratings were observed over the 8-week trial. There were no significant treatment by time interactions. Total caloric intake was significantly higher at week 8 relative to baseline (F=10.08, P<0.05). The increases for each treatment were: peanut oil=197+/-114; olive oil=237+/-121; safflower oil=274+/-90; control=75+/-71. Free-feeding intake, an index of dietary compensation, was reduced significantly at weeks 4 and 8 compared to baseline (F=9.08, P<0.00). The declines (compensation scores) were (kcals): peanut oil=-208+/-105 (46%); olive oil=-235+/-105 (50%); safflower oil=-186+/-102 (44%). There were no significant differences across countries in appetite ratings.

DISCUSSION

A prior intervention with whole peanuts reported a dietary compensation score of 66% over 8 weeks, this compares to a 46% compensation score observed with peanut oil. Our data suggests that the lipid fraction in peanuts elicits a weak effect on satiety.