Myths and Methodologies: Standardisation in Human Physiology Research-Should We Control the Controllables?

The premise of research in human physiology is to explore a multifaceted system whilst identifying one or a few outcomes of interest. Therefore, the control of potentially confounding variables requires careful thought regarding the extent of control and complexity of standardisation. One common factor to control prior to testing is diet, as food and fluid provision may deviate from participants' habitual diets, yet a self-report and replication method can be flawed by under-reporting. Researchers may also need to consider standardisation of physical activity, whether it be through familiarisation trials, wash-out periods, or guidance on levels of physical activity to be achieved before trials. In terms of pharmacological agents, the ethical implications of standardisation require researchers to carefully consider how medications, caffeine consumption and oral contraceptive prescriptions may affect the study. For research in females, it should be considered whether standardisation between- or within-participants in regards to menstrual cycle phase is most relevant. The timing of measurements relative to various other daily events is relevant to all physiological research and so it can be important to standardise when measurements are made. This review summarises the areas of standardisation which we hope will be considered useful to anyone involved in human physiology research, including when and how one can apply standardisation to various contexts.

Myths and Methodologies: Standardisation in human physiology research-should we control the controllables?

The premise of research in human physiology is to explore a multifaceted system whilst identifying one or a few outcomes of interest. Therefore, the control of potentially confounding variables requires careful thought regarding the extent of control and complexity of standardisation. One common factor to control prior to testing is diet, as food and fluid provision may deviate from participants' habitual diets, yet a self-report and replication method can be flawed by under-reporting. Researchers may also need to consider standardisation of physical activity, whether it be through familiarisation trials, wash-out periods, or guidance on levels of physical activity to be achieved before trials. In terms of pharmacological agents, the ethical implications of standardisation require researchers to carefully consider how medications, caffeine consumption and oral contraceptive prescriptions may affect the study. For research in females, it should be considered whether standardisation between- or within-participants in regards to menstrual cycle phase is most relevant. The timing of measurements relative to various other daily events is relevant to all physiological research and so it can be important to standardise when measurements are made. This review summarises the areas of standardisation which we hope will be considered useful to anyone involved in human physiology research, including when and how one can apply standardisation to various contexts.

Development of Momentary Appetite Capture (MAC): A versatile tool for monitoring appetite over long periods.

Understanding how an intervention impacts appetite in real-life settings and over several days remains a challenging and under-explored research question. To this end, we developed Momentary Appetite Capture (MAC), a form of ecological momentary assessment that combines automated text messaging with an online platform. Participants report their appetite using visual analogue scales (hunger, desire to eat, and fullness) and a virtual portion-size selection task. In two separate studies, we assessed the feasibility and test-retest reliability of MAC. Participants were prompted every 2 hours over a 14-hour window, and they repeated this assessment over two consecutive weekdays. For each participant, we calculated a daily time-averaged area under the curve (AUC) for each appetite measure. In Study One (N = 25) time-averaged AUC was significantly positively correlated across test days for hunger (r = 0.563, p = .003), desire to eat (r = 0.515, p = .008) and prospective portion size (r = 0.914, p < .001), but not for fullness (r = 0.342, p = .094). Participants completed 95% of MACs (380 of 400), and we used participant feedback to improve the MAC tool and study protocol for Study Two. In Study Two (N = 31), 94% of MACs were completed (468 of 496). Across days, time-averaged AUC was significantly positively correlated for hunger (r = 0.595, p = < .001), fullness (r = 0.501, p = .004), desire to eat (r = 0.585, p < .001), and prospective portion size (r = 0.757, p < .001). Together, these studies suggest that MAC could be an acceptable and reliable tool to track appetite throughout the day. In the future, MAC could be used to explore the impact of weight-loss interventions on natural fluctuations in appetite.