concept-development-use-an-automated-food-intake-eating-behavior

Concept Development and Use of an Automated Food Intake and Eating Behavior Assessment Method

The vast majority of dietary and eating behavior assessment methods are based on self-reports. They are burdensome and also prone to measurement errors. ...

Wageningen University & Research

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/m) 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.

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

Tobacco flavours are an important regulatory concept in several jurisdictions, for example in the USA, Canada and Europe. The European Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU prohibits cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco having a characterising flavour. This directive defines characterising flavour as 'a clearly noticeable smell or taste other than one of tobacco […]'. To distinguish between products with and without a characterising flavour, we trained an expert panel to identify characterising flavours by smelling.

Sensory analysis of characterising flavours: evaluating tobacco product odours using an expert panel.

Oro-sensory exposure (OSE) to food plays an important role in the regulation of food intake. One proposed underlying mechanism is the occurrence of cephalic phase responses (CPRs). CPRs include the pre-digestive endocrine responses induced by food-related sensory input. Yet, whether OSE duration or sweetness intensity affects CPRs is unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the independent and interactive effects of oro-sensory duration (chewing) and stimulation intensity (sweetness) on endocrine CPRs and satiation. Eighteen males (22 ± 2 years, BMI 22 ± 2 kg/m) participated in a 2 × 2 randomized study with a control condition. Each session participants performed modified sham feeding (MSF) with one of the four gel-based model foods. During the control session no MSF was performed. Model foods differed in chewing duration (hard or soft texture) and sweetness (low or high intensity). During each session, eight blood samples were collected up till 25 min after MSF onset. Subsequently, food intake from an  lunch was measured. No typical CPR was found for insulin, pancreatic polypeptide (PP), and ghrelin. However, the overall PP response was 1.1 times greater for the hard sweet MSF condition compared to control ( = 0.02). Overall ghrelin responses were 1.1 times greater for the hard model food compared to the soft model food conditions ( = 0.003). These differences in endocrine response were not associated with differences in food intake at the subsequent meal. Exploratory sub-analysis of the responsive insulin curves showed that after 2.5 min of MSF the hard texture model foods insulin concentrations were 1.2 greater compared to the soft texture. These findings indicate that texture hardness and sweetness increase the overall PP response and that MSF on hard texture increases the overall ghrelin response compared to soft texture model foods. However, MSF on model foods does not lead to a typical CPR. This study, among others, shows that there are major dissimilarities in the endocrine responses to food stimulation between individuals. This emphasizes the importance of considering cephalic responders and non-responders. More research is needed to understand CPRs in relation to food texture and taste properties.

Exacting Responses: Lack of Endocrine Cephalic Phase Responses Upon Oro-Sensory Exposure.

Our current food environment promotes overconsumption due to the overrepresentation of foods that have a high calorie density and can be easily consumed. These food characteristics lead to limited oro-sensory exposure, which may lead to overconsumption due to insufficient perception of the amount consumed. Better perception of the amount eaten and thus a better ability to estimate intake may help control actual food intake through prolonged inter-meal interval and smaller meal sizes.

Unaware of the amount consumed: Systematic error in estimating food- and drink intake.

Cephalic phase responses (CPRs) are conditioned anticipatory physiological responses to food cues. They occur before nutrient absorption and are hypothesized to be important for satiation and glucose homeostasis. Cephalic phase insulin responses (CPIRs) and pancreatic polypeptide responses (CPPPRs) are found consistently in animals, but human literature is inconclusive. We performed a systematic review of human studies to determine the magnitude and onset time of these CPRs. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to develop a search strategy. The terms included in the search strategy were cephalic or hormone response or endocrine response combined with insulin and pancreatic polypeptide (PP). The following databases were searched: Scopus (Elsevier), Science Direct, PubMed, Google Scholar, and The Cochrane Library. Initially, 582 original research articles were found, 50 were included for analysis. An insulin increase (≥1μIU/mL) was observed in 41% of the treatments (total n = 119). In 22% of all treatments the increase was significant from baseline. The median (IQR) insulin increase was 2.5 (1.6-4.5) μIU/mL, 30% above baseline at 5± 3 min  after food cue onset (based on study treatments that induced ≥1 μIU/mL insulin increase). A PP increase (>10 pg/mL) was found in 48% of the treatments (total n = 42). In 21% of the treatments, the increase was significant from baseline. The median (IQR) PP increase was 99 (26-156) pg/mL, 68% above baseline at 9± 4 min  after food cue onset (based on study treatments that induced ≥1 μIU/mL insulin increase). In conclusion, CPIRs are small compared with spontaneous fluctuations. Although CPPPRs are of a larger magnitude, both show substantial variation in magnitude and onset time. We found little evidence for CPIR or CPPPR affecting functional outcomes, that is, satiation and glucose homeostasis. Therefore, CPRs do not seem to be biologically meaningful in daily life.

Marlou P. Lasschuijt

Division of Human Nutrition and Health

Wageningen University & Research

Concept Development and Use of an Automated Food Intake and Eating Behavior Assessment Method

Marlou P. Lasschuijt

.css-o250i3{font-size:18px;font-family:Open Sans,sans-serif;line-height:21.6px;}Division of Human Nutrition and Health

Wageningen University & Research

Concept Development and Use of an Automated Food Intake and Eating Behavior Assessment Method

Division of Human Nutrition and Health