Deighton Kevin, Frampton James, Gonzalez Javier T
1Institute for Sport, Physical Activity & Leisure,Leeds Beckett University,Leeds LS6 3QS,UK.
2Department for Health,University of Bath,Bath BA2 7AY,UK.
Br J Nutr. 2016 Sep;116(5):935-43. doi: 10.1017/S0007114516002750. Epub 2016 Aug 1.
Single-course, ad libitum meals are recommended for the assessment of energy intake within appetite research. This study represents the first investigation of the comparative sensitivity of two single-course, ad libitum meals designed to differ in palatability. We conducted two experiments using a preload study design. All protocols were identical except for the energy content of the preloads (Expt 1: 579 and 1776 kJ; Expt 2: 828 and 4188 kJ). During each experiment, ten healthy men completed four experimental trials constituting a low- or high-energy preload beverage, a 60-min intermeal interval and consumption of a pasta-based or a porridge-based, ad libitum meal. Appetite ratings were measured throughout each trial, and palatability was assessed after food consumption. Preload manipulation did not influence appetite (P=0·791) or energy intake (P=0·561) in Expt 1. Palatability and energy intake were higher for the pasta meal than for the porridge meal in both experiments (palatability P≤0·002; energy intake P≤0·001). In Expt 2, consumption of the high-energy preload decreased appetite (P=0·051) and energy intake (P=0·002). Energy compensation was not significantly different between pasta and porridge meals (P=0·172), but was more strongly correlated with preceding changes in appetite at the pasta meal (r -0·758; P=0·011) than the porridge meal (r -0·498; P=0·143). The provision of a highly palatable, pasta-based meal produced energy intakes that were more representative of preceding appetite ratings, but the moderately palatable, porridge-based meal produced more ecologically valid energy intakes. Ad libitum meal selection and design may require a compromise between sensitivity and ecological validity.
在食欲研究中,推荐采用单餐、随意进食的方式来评估能量摄入。本研究首次调查了两种单餐、随意进食且口味不同的餐食的比较敏感性。我们采用预负荷研究设计进行了两项实验。除预负荷的能量含量外,所有实验方案均相同(实验1:579千焦和1776千焦;实验2:828千焦和4188千焦)。在每个实验中,10名健康男性完成了四项实验性试验,包括饮用低能量或高能量的预负荷饮料、60分钟的餐间间隔以及食用基于面食或粥的随意餐食。在每个试验过程中测量食欲评分,并在进食后评估适口性。在实验1中,预负荷的调整对食欲(P = 0·791)或能量摄入(P = 0·561)没有影响。在两个实验中,面食餐的适口性和能量摄入量均高于粥餐(适口性P≤0·002;能量摄入量P≤0·001)。在实验2中,高能量预负荷的摄入降低了食欲(P = 0·051)和能量摄入(P = 0·002)。面食餐和粥餐之间的能量补偿没有显著差异(P = 0·172),但与面食餐之前的食欲变化相关性更强(r -0·758;P = 0·011),而与粥餐(r -0·498;P = 0·143)的相关性较弱。提供高度可口的面食餐所产生的能量摄入量更能代表之前的食欲评分,但适口性适中的粥餐所产生的能量摄入量在生态学上更有效。随意餐食的选择和设计可能需要在敏感性和生态学有效性之间进行权衡。