Waterhouse Jim, Kao Shaoyuan, Edwards Benjamin, Weinert Dietmar, Atkinson Greg, Reilly Thomas
Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.
Chronobiol Int. 2005;22(2):299-319. doi: 10.1081/cbi-200053563.
Twelve healthy adults were studied, singly or in groups of up to four, in an Isolation Unit before (control days) and for 3 days after a simulated time-zone transition to the east across 8 time zones (the clock being changed from 15:00 to 23:00h). Subjects were free to choose how to pass their waking hours (though naps were forbidden), and to eat what and when they wanted. A wide selection of food was provided, though the subjects had to prepare it. Subjects completed food intake questionnaire on waking and at 3h intervals during the waking day. This questionnaire assessed the reasons for choosing not to eat a meal or, if a meal was eaten, the reasons for doing so, the type of meal chosen and the reasons for this choice, and subjective responses to the meal (hunger before, enjoyment during, and satiety afterwards). Subjects also recorded the incidence and degree of indigestion and jet lag at 3 h intervals after the time-zone transition. Following the time-zone transition, the subjects experienced significant amounts of jet lag and recorded a significant increase in the incidence of indigestion. They also showed significant changes in their pattern of food intake, but, whereas the patterns of food intake were no longer significantly different from control days by the third post-shift day, the symptoms of jet lag and indigestion were still present then. The distribution of daytime meals was significantly affected on the first post-shift day, with a redistribution of the times that the main, hot meals were eaten; these times indicated some influence of an unadjusted body clock. On this day also, the reasons for determining food intake continued to be dominated by hunger and appetite (hunger even increasing in the frequency with which it was cited), and the reason for not eating a meal, by a lack of hunger. On both control and post-shift days, there was a marked effect of meal type upon the responses to food intake, with cold food being rated least and large hot meals most when appetite before the meal, enjoyment during it, and satiety afterward were considered. However, evidence suggested that the degree to which larger hot meals were preferred to cold meals was significantly less marked after the time-zone transition. On control days, sleep was unbroken; whereas, after the time-zone transition, all subjects woke on at least one of the 3 nights studied. During the first post-shift night, about half of the subjects ate a meal, the reason given being that they were "hungry." On those occasions when subjects woke but did not eat a meal, the reason cited was because they "could not be bothered" as frequently as because they were "not hungry.". A simulated time-zone transition is associated with significant changes to the incidence of indigestion, pattern of food intake, and subjective responses to food. However, these changes are generally transient and are only weakly linked to the sensation of jet lag.
对12名健康成年人进行了研究,他们单独或分成每组最多4人的小组,在隔离病房中,于模拟向东跨越8个时区的时区转换前(对照日)和转换后3天进行观察(时钟从15:00调至23:00)。受试者可自由选择如何度过清醒时间(但禁止小睡),以及想吃什么和何时吃。提供了种类繁多的食物,不过受试者必须自己准备。受试者在醒来时以及清醒期间每隔3小时填写一份食物摄入问卷。该问卷评估了选择不吃一餐的原因,或者如果吃了一餐,评估用餐的原因、所选用餐的类型及选择该类型的原因,以及对该餐的主观反应(用餐前的饥饿感、用餐时的愉悦感和用餐后的饱腹感)。受试者还在时区转换后每隔3小时记录消化不良和时差反应的发生率及程度。时区转换后,受试者经历了大量的时差反应,消化不良的发生率显著增加。他们的食物摄入模式也出现了显著变化,但是,尽管在轮班后的第三天食物摄入模式与对照日不再有显著差异,但那时时差反应和消化不良的症状仍然存在。轮班后的第一天,白天用餐的分布受到显著影响,主要热餐的用餐时间重新分布;这些时间表明未调整的生物钟产生了一定影响。在这一天,决定食物摄入的原因仍然主要是饥饿和食欲(饥饿感被提及的频率甚至有所增加),而不吃饭的原因则是缺乏饥饿感。在对照日和轮班后,餐食类型对食物摄入反应有显著影响,从用餐前的饥饿感、用餐时的愉悦感和用餐后的饱腹感来看,冷食的评分最低,大型热餐的评分最高。然而,有证据表明,时区转换后,与冷餐相比,人们对大型热餐的偏好程度显著降低。在对照日,睡眠没有中断;而在时区转换后,所有受试者在所研究的3个晚上中至少有一晚醒来。在轮班后的第一个晚上,约一半的受试者吃了一餐,给出的理由是他们“饿了”。在受试者醒来但未用餐的情况下,所提及的原因通常是他们“嫌麻烦”,而不是“不饿”。模拟的时区转换与消化不良的发生率、食物摄入模式以及对食物的主观反应的显著变化有关。然而,这些变化通常是短暂的,并且与时差反应的感觉仅有微弱的关联。