Unit size influences ad libitum intake in a snacking context via eating rate.

Geometric and textural properties of food, like unit size, have previously been shown to influence energy intake. While mechanism(s) driving this effect are unclear, unit size may relate to intake by affecting eating microstructure (e.g., eating rate, bite size). In a randomized crossover study, we investigated relationships between unit size, eating microstructure, and intake. Adults (n = 75, 75% women) consumed an ad libitum snack three times in our laboratory. This snack was a 70-g portion (∼2.5 servings) of one of three sizes of pretzel (small, medium, large). Intake was measured in grams by difference in weight before and after the snack. Each session was video recorded to measure eating microstructure; snack duration (min) and number of bites were annotated and used to calculate mean eating rate (g/min) and mean bite size (g/bite). Results revealed unit size influenced intake (grams and kcal; both p's ≤ 0.001), such that participants consumed 31% and 22% more of the large pretzels (16.9 ± 2.3 g) compared to the small (12.9 ± 2.3 g) and medium sizes (13.8 ± 2.3 g), respectively. Unit size also influenced eating rate and bite size (both p's < 0.001); the largest pretzel size yielded the fastest eating rate and largest mean bite size. Further analysis revealed that after accounting for eating microstructure, the effects of unit size on intake were no longer significant, suggesting eating microstructure was driving these effects. Together, these findings indicate that unit size influences intake by affecting eating microstructure and that food properties like unit size can be leveraged to moderate snack intake.

Reasons for meal termination, eating frequency, and typical meal context differ between persons with and without a spinal cord injury.

Overeating associated with neurogenic obesity after spinal cord injury (SCI) may be related to how persons with SCI experience satiation (processes leading to meal termination), their eating frequency, and the context in which they eat their meals. In an online, cross-sectional study, adults with (n = 688) and without (Controls; n = 420) SCI completed the Reasons Individuals Stop Eating Questionnaire-15 (RISE-Q-15), which measures individual differences in the experience of factors contributing to meal termination on five scales: Physical Satisfaction, Planned Amount, Decreased Food Appeal, Self-Consciousness, and Decreased Priority of Eating. Participants also reported weekly meal and snack frequency and who prepares, serves, and eats dinner with them at a typical dinner meal. Analysis revealed that while Physical Satisfaction, Planned Amount, and Decreased Food Appeal were reported as the most frequent drivers of meal termination in both groups, scores for the RISE-Q-15 scales differed across the groups. Compared to Controls, persons with SCI reported Physical Satisfaction and Planned Amount as drivers of meal termination less frequently, and Decreased Food Appeal and Decreased Priority of Eating more frequently (all p < 0.001). This suggests that persons with SCI rely less on physiological satiation cues for meal termination than Controls and instead rely more on hedonic cues. Compared to Controls, persons with SCI less frequently reported preparing and serving dinner meals and less frequently reported eating alone (all p < 0.001), indicating differences in meal contexts between groups. Individuals with SCI reported consuming fewer meals than Controls but reported a higher overall eating frequency due to increased snacking (p ≤ 0.015). A decrease in the experience of physical fullness, along with a dependence on a communal meal context and frequent snacking, likely contribute to overeating associated with neurogenic obesity after SCI.

Poorer inhibitory control was related to greater food intake across meals varying in portion size: A randomized crossover trial.

Individuals eat more food when larger portions are served, and this portion size effect could be influenced by inhibitory control (the ability to suppress an automatic response). Inhibitory control may also relate to obesogenic meal behaviors such as eating faster, taking larger bites, and frequent switching between meal components (such as bites of food and sips of water). In a randomized crossover design, 44 adults ate lunch four times in the laboratory. Lunch consisted of a pasta dish that was varied in portion size (400, 500, 600, or 700 g) along with 700 g of water. Meals were video-recorded to assess meal duration and bite and sip counts, which were used to determine mean eating rate (g/min), mean bite size (g/bite), and number of switches between bites and sips. Participants completed a food-specific stop-signal task, which was used to calculate Stop-Signal Reaction Time (SSRT). Across participants, SSRT values ranged from 143 to 306 msec, where greater SSRT indicates poorer inhibitory control. As expected, serving larger portions increased meal intake (p < 0.0001); compared to the smallest portion, intake of the largest increased by 121 ± 17 g (mean ± SEM). SSRT did not moderate the portion size effect (p = 0.34), but individuals with poorer inhibitory control ate more across all meals: 24 ± 11 g for each one SD unit increase in SSRT (p = 0.035). SSRT was not related to eating rate or bite size (both p > 0.13), but poorer inhibitory control predicted greater switching between bites and sips, such that 1.5 ± 0.7 more switches were made during meals for each one SD unit increase in SSRT (p = 0.03). These findings indicate that inhibitory control can contribute to overconsumption across meals varying in portion size, potentially in part by promoting switching behavior.

Variety and portion size combine to increase food intake at single-course and multi-course meals.

Increases in food variety and portion size independently promote intake. Little is known about how these effects combine or how they depend on meal structure. In two randomized crossover experiments, once a week for four weeks, women ate a lunch meal that was varied in two properties: variety (low: three bowls of the favorite dish vs. high: three bowls, each with a different main dish) and portion size (small: 450 g vs. large: 600 g). In Experiment 1 (n = 42), dishes were served simultaneously and in Experiment 2 (n = 49), dishes were served sequentially over three courses. At each meal, the primary outcome of food intake was measured; additionally, we measured sensory-specific satiety (SSS; the relative hedonic decline of a food as it is eaten). In Experiment 1 (simultaneous structure) variety and portion size did not interact (p = 0.72) but both independently increased intake; participants consumed 15 ± 7 g more at meals with high variety compared to low and 57 ± 7 g more from large portions compared to small (both p < 0.03). Similarly, in Experiment 2 (sequential structure) variety and portion size did not interact (p = 0.99) but participants consumed 30 ± 8 g more at high-variety meals and 51 ± 8 g more from large portions (both p < 0.001). SSS was not influenced by portion size in either experiment (both p > 0.16) or by variety in Experiment 1 (p = 0.58), but SSS was smaller at high-variety meals in Experiment 2 (p = 0.001). Thus, variety and large portions promoted greater food intake for a similar or smaller hedonic decline, indicating these effects were facilitated by delayed SSS. At meals with either a simultaneous or sequential structure, high variety and large portions combined to increase intake, suggesting that these common properties act together to promote overconsumption.

Switching between bites of food and sips of water is related to food intake across meals varying in portion size.

Individuals eat more when served more food, but little is known about how this portion size effect is moderated by meal-related characteristics, particularly the inclusion of water served as a beverage. Patterns of eating and drinking as well as consumption of water could affect satiation by modifying exposure to the sensory qualities of food. In a crossover design, 44 adults ate lunch in the laboratory once a week for 4 weeks and intake was measured. The meal was a pasta dish that was varied in portion size (400, 500, 600, or 700 g) plus 700 g of water. Meals were video-recorded to count bites and sips and the number of switches between them. Sensory-specific satiety (SSS) was evaluated as the relative decline in hedonic ratings of the pasta after consumption. Serving larger portions led to a curvilinear increase in food intake (p < 0.0001). Neither switching between bites and sips nor water intake moderated the portion size effect. Independent of portion served, across all meals switching more frequently was related to greater food consumption (5.7 ± 1.8 g more food consumed for each additional switch, p = 0.004). Greater water intake was also related to greater food intake across portions (1.1 ± 0.5 g more food consumed for each additional 10 g of water, p = 0.025), but this effect was not significant after accounting for switching (p = 0.38). The magnitude of SSS was unaffected by switching, suggesting that switching allowed greater food intake for a given hedonic decline. At a meal with a single food, intake was greater when larger portions were served and also when there was more switching between bites and sips. Switching between food and water may promote energy intake by attenuating the development of SSS.

Eating rate and bite size were related to food intake across meals varying in portion size: A randomized crossover trial in adults.

Serving larger portions leads to increased food intake, but behavioral factors that influence the magnitude of this portion size effect have not been well characterized. We investigated whether measures of eating microstructure such as eating rate and bite size moderated the portion size effect. We also explored how sensory-specific satiety (SSS; the relative hedonic decline of a food as it is eaten) was affected by eating microstructure and larger portions. In a randomized crossover design, 44 adults aged 18-68 y (66% women; 46% with overweight and obesity) ate lunch in the laboratory once a week for 4 weeks. The meal consisted of pasta that was varied in portion size (400, 500, 600, or 700 g) and 700 g of water. Meals were video-recorded to assess bite count and meal duration, which were used to calculate mean eating rate (g/min) and mean bite size (g/bite). At each meal participants also completed an assessment of SSS. The results showed that as larger portions were served, meal intake increased in a curvilinear manner (p < 0.0001). Measures of eating microstructure did not moderate the portion size effect but were related to intake across all portions; faster eating rate, larger bite size, higher bite count, and longer meal duration were associated with greater consumption at all meals (all p < 0.0001). SSS was not influenced by any measure of eating microstructure or by portion size (all p > 0.10). In summary, the portion size effect was not moderated by eating microstructure, but relatively faster eating rates and larger bite sizes at meals, along with large portions, combined to increase food intake.

Does labelling a food as 'light' vs. 'filling' influence intake and sensory-specific satiation?

Although several studies have investigated the influence of nutrition labelling on food intake, the effect of labels indicating a food's satiating power on food intake and sensory-specific satiation (SSS) is poorly understood. We investigated whether providing information about the satiating power of a meal affects intake and SSS. Participants (19 men and 18 women) consumed the same test meal of pasta salad ad libitum on two occasions, once described as 'light' and once as 'filling'. SSS was determined as the change in liking of the flavor and desire to eat the test meal before and after consumption, compared to seven uneaten foods. As hypothesized, intake increased by a mean (±SD) of 31 ± 59 g and 42 ± 81 kcal when the meal was labelled 'light' as opposed to 'filling' (p < 0.01). After eating, ratings for both liking and desire to eat decreased significantly more for the test meal than for the uneaten control foods (p < 0.001), demonstrating SSS. These relative changes in liking and desire to eat did not differ between the label conditions, despite differences in intake. Furthermore, accounting for amount consumed, the magnitude of SSS did not differ between the label conditions, which suggests that it did not explain the effect of the labels on intake. This study shows that labels indicating the satiating power of a meal can affect intake, warranting caution in the use of such labels on products intended to reduce intake.

Construct validation of the Reasons Individuals Stop Eating Questionnaire (RISE-Q) and the development of the RISE-Q-15.

Consumers vary in the explanations they give for meal termination. The Reasons Individuals Stop Eating Questionnaire (RISE-Q) was developed to measure these satiation processes. Individual differences in satiation may be associated with a general capacity to recognise and respond to contextual and interoceptive cues. The aims of the present study were to validate the factor structure of the RISE-Q and to explore its construct validity. In particular, we tested the prediction that a latent variable "Sensitivity to Internal Satiation Cues" is associated with high satiety responsiveness, high scores on the RISE-Q Physical Satisfaction (PS) and Decreased Food Appeal (DFA) scales and a healthy BMI. Participants (n = 216 adults) completed an online survey which included the RISE-Q, Mindful Eating Questionnaire, Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness, Adult Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (AEBQ) and self-reported height and weight. Confirmatory Factor Analysis supported the 5-factor structure of the RISE-Q, but model fit was improved by a new short form (RISE-Q-15) of the questionnaire. Construct validity replicated for most RISE-Q subscales, but not RISE-Q and BMI. Structural Equation Modelling demonstrated that Sensitivity to Internal Satiation Cues was associated with RISE-Q PS but not with the DFA, whereas AEBQ Satiety Responsiveness was associated with DFA, but not with PS. The RISE-Q-15 may be more sensitive to specific meal termination behaviours than pre-existing questionnaires, and due to its low participant burden, it provides a useful tool to explore further multiple processes of satiation in various contexts.

The Satiation Framework: Exploring processes that contribute to satiation.

Satiation has been described as a process that leads to the termination of eating and controls meal size. However, studies have shown that the termination of eating can be influenced by multiple behavioral and biological processes over the course of a meal as well as those related to the context in which the meal is consumed. To expand understanding of how individuals experience satiation during a meal, we recently developed the Reasons Individuals Stop Eating Questionnaire (RISE-Q). The development of the RISE-Q revealed five distinct factors reported to contribute to meal termination: Planned Amount, Self-Consciousness, Decreased Food Appeal, Physical Satisfaction, and Decreased Priority of Eating. Thus, we define satiation as a series of dynamic processes that emerge over the course of a meal to promote meal termination. We suggest that each of the factors identified by the RISE-Q represents a distinct process, and illustrate the contribution of each process to meal termination in the Satiation Framework. Within this framework the prominence of each process as a reason to stop eating likely depends on meal context in addition to individual variability. Therefore, we discuss contexts in which different processes may be salient as determinants of meal termination. Expanding the definition of satiation to include several dynamic processes as illustrated in the Satiation Framework will help to stimulate investigation and understanding of the complex nature of meal termination.

Development and validation of the Reasons Individuals Stop Eating Questionnaire (RISE-Q): A novel tool to characterize satiation.

A variety of factors can influence satiation, and individual differences in reasons for meal termination may help to explain variability in food intake and susceptibility to overconsumption. We developed and validated a questionnaire to characterize the Reasons Individuals Stop Eating (RISE-Q). The initial RISE-Q was created by reviewing the published literature and identifying 47 reasons why individuals might stop eating. The RISE-Q asks respondents to rate how often each reason influences why they stop eating at a typical dinner meal by using a seven-point scale. Adults (N = 477, 77% women) from a participant database completed a survey online that included the initial RISE-Q and the satiation-related Satiety Responsiveness and Food Responsiveness scales of the Adult Eating Behavior Questionnaire (AEBQ). Self-reported height and weight were collected to calculate body mass index (BMI). The survey also assessed self-reported typical meal size. After factor analysis, the RISE-Q retained 31 items and identified five distinct scales of reasons for stopping eating: Decreased Food Appeal (mean ± SD: 2.6 ± 0.05, Cronbach's α = 0.89), Physical Satisfaction (5.0 ± 0.04, α = 0.85), Planned Amount (4.4 ± 0.05, α = 0.82), Self-Consciousness (2.4 ± 0.05, α = 0.88), and Decreased Priority of Eating (2.3 ± 0.04, α = 0.69). Thus, the most frequently reported reasons for meal termination were related to Physical Satisfaction and Planned Amount. Each RISE-Q scale was significantly correlated with at least one of the satiation-related AEBQ scales, suggesting that the RISE-Q has construct validity. RISE-Q scales were also correlated with BMI and measures of typical meal size. The RISE-Q provides a novel tool to assess differences across individuals in reported reasons for eating cessation. The RISE-Q can aid in further understanding risk factors for overconsumption and has potential clinical utility in the design of targeted weight-management interventions.

Parents' perceptions of parent-child interactions related to eating and body image: an experimental vignette study.

Parents are key to children's health because they can influence children's eating behavior and body image and can make health-related decisions for children. Despite their influence, research on parents' opinions about parenting practices related to weight and eating is limited. Experimental vignettes examined parents' perceptions of parent-child interactions around body image, eating, and weight loss. We manipulated vignette-child weight (healthy-weight, overweight) and communication tone (positive, negative, neutral) to assess their influence on parents' perceptions. Parents (N = 233, 27.5% fathers, 72.5% mothers) were randomly assigned to read one of six vignettes. When the vignette-child had overweight, parents were more likely to recommend seeking help for body image and that the vignette-parent should choose the restaurant food order. Parents were less opposed to commenting on the vignette-child's weight when tone was positive. Parents were more likely to recommend weight-loss efforts that could be implemented by the family rather than those requiring professional assistance. This study is among the first to examine parents' opinions about parenting practices related to weight and eating using an experimental design. Findings might inform future research and continued work on prevention and treatment applications to help align parents' existing opinions about weight and eating with evidence-based health-promoting strategies.

Food addiction among men and women in India.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to address a cultural gap in the food addiction (FA) literature by examining FA and associated clinical features in a nonclinical group of men and women residing in India. METHOD: Participants (N = 415) were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk to complete an online survey about weight and eating. Participants completed self-report measures assessing FA (Yale Food Addiction Scale [YFAS]), eating-disorder psychopathology (Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire [EDE-Q]), health-related quality of life (Short Form Health Survey-12-item version [SF-12]), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2). RESULTS: The FA symptom mean was 3.53 (SD = 1.90); 32.5% (n = 129) met FA clinical threshold on the YFAS. Groups categorized with and without FA on the YFAS did not differ significantly in sex or body mass index. YFAS scores were significantly correlated with greater frequency of binge eating, higher severity scores on all EDE-Q subscales, higher depression, and poorer functioning scores on the SF-12 (all ps < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: FA, as conceptualized and measured by the YFAS, appears to be common among individuals residing in India.