Differences In Appetite Ratings Research Articles

The effects of resistance exercise on appetite sensations, appetite related hormones and energy intake in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer survivors

Appetite is a determinant of dietary intake and is impacted by sex hormones, exercise, and body composition among individuals without chronic conditions. Whether appetite is altered by exercise in the context of estrogen suppression and cancer survivorship is unknown. This randomized cross-over study compared appetite and ad libitum energy intake (EI) after acute resistance exercise (REx) versus sedentary (SED) conditions and in relation to body composition and resting metabolic rate (RMR) in breast cancer survivors (BCS). Physically inactive premenopausal females with previous stage I-III estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer completed a single bout of REx or SED 35 minutes after a standardized breakfast meal. Appetite visual analog scales and hormones (total ghrelin and peptide-YY [PYY]) were measured before and 30, 90, 120, 150, and 180 minutes post-meal and expressed as area under the curve (AUC). Participants were offered a buffet-type meal 180 minutes after breakfast to assess ad libitum EI. Body composition (dual X-ray absorptiometry) and RMR (indirect calorimetry) were measured during a separate visit. Sixteen BCS were included (age: 46 ± 2 y, BMI: 24.9 ± 1.0 kg/m2). There were no differences in appetite ratings or EI between conditions. There were no differences in appetite hormone AUC, but REx resulted in lower ghrelin 120 (−85 ± 39 pg/mL, p = 0.031) and 180 (−114 ± 43 pg/mL, p = 0.018) minutes post-breakfast and higher PYY 90 (21 ± 10 pg/mL, p = 0.028) and 120 (14 ± 7 pg/mL, p = 0.041) minutes post-breakfast. Fat-free mass and RMR negatively correlated with hunger and prospective food consumption AUC after SED, but not REx. In sum, a single REx bout temporarily reduces orexigenic and increases anorexic appetite hormones, but not acute subjective appetite sensations or EI.

Appetite ratings and ghrelin concentrations in young adults after administration of a balanced meal. Does sex matter?

BackgroundSex-based differences in appetite ratings have been observed previously. Ghrelin is the only known orexigenic peptide hormone. Sex differences in postprandial ghrelin responses may underlie different perceptions of hunger and satiety, but results are conflicting. We conducted a parallel study to evaluate sex differences in postprandial appetite ratings and ghrelin concentration after administration of a physiological meal among students of University of Milan.MethodsTwenty-four healthy, normal weight volunteers (12 men and 12 women) aged 18–35 years were recruited. A balanced mixed meal meeting 40% of the estimated daily energy expenditure and providing 60% of calories from carbohydrates, 25% from lipids and 15% from protein was administrated. Sex differences in appetite ratings (satiety, hunger, fullness and desire to eat) and magnitude of ghrelin suppression during postprandial period (up to 180 min) were determined.ResultsIn the fasting state, men and women did not differ in appetite ratings and ghrelin concentrations. After feeding, women tended to reach peak of satiety earlier than men, who in turn reached the nadir of hunger later than women (median: 30 min, interquartile range (IQR): 1; 120 vs. 1 min, IQR 1; 1, p = 0.007). Ghrelin suppression was greater in women (median decremental AUC − 95, IQR − 122; − 66) than in men (median decremental AUC − 47, IQR − 87; − 31, p = 0.041).ConclusionsThese findings suggest sex differences in the postprandial appetite regulation that might be important for nutritional strategy to prevent and treat obesity and eating disorders.

Activation of gastrointestinal ileal brake response with dietary slowly digestible carbohydrates, with no observed effect on subjective appetite, in an acute randomized, double-blind, crossover trial.

To test the hypothesis that oral ingestion of slowly digestible carbohydrates (SDCs) that reach the ileum triggers the ileal brake as indicated by delayed gastric emptying, reduced glycemic response, and decreased subjective appetite. The study was a five-arm, randomized, double-blind, crossover trial with a 1-week washout period between treatments (n = 20; 9 females, 11 males). Five treatments consisted of three SDC ingredients [raw cornstarch, isomaltooligosaccharide (IMO), sucromalt], and an IMO/sucromalt combination, shown in vitro to have slow and extended digestion profiles, and a rapidly digestible carbohydrate control (maltodextrin). Carbohydrates (26g) were incorporated into yogurt [300g total; carbohydrate (~ 77g), fat (~ 0.2g), and protein (~ 9g)] with closely matched energy content (346kcal) and viscosity (~ 30,000 cP). Outcomes were measured in a 4h postprandial period. Mean gastric half-emptying times were moderately though significantly increased for the raw cornstarch and IMO treatments (P < 0.05), but they could be sub-divided into larger effect responder (n = 11) and non-responder groups (n = 9). Longer time for glycemic response to return to baseline was associated with increased gastric half-emptying time in an exploratory subset of data removing gastric half-emptying times > 3.5h (P = 0.02). No significant differences in appetite ratings were observed. SDCs caused slower gastricemptying rate through activation of the ileal brake, as closely matched semi-solid yogurts were used and only rate of carbohydrate digestion differed. Extending glycemic response through consumption of SDCs was associated with triggering the ileal brake. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03630445, August 2018, retrospectively registered.

The Acute Effects of Simple Sugar Ingestion on Appetite, Gut-Derived Hormone Response, and Metabolic Markers in Men.

This pilot study aimed to investigate the effect of simple sugar ingestion, in amounts typical of common ingestion, on appetite and the gut-derived hormone response. Seven healthy men ingested water (W) and equicaloric solutions containing 39.6 g glucose monohydrate (G), 36 g fructose (F), 36 g sucrose (S), and 19.8 g glucose monohydrate + 18 g fructose (C), in a randomised order. Serum concentrations of ghrelin, glucose dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1), insulin, lactate, triglycerides, non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA), and d-3 hydroxybutyrate, were measured for 60 min. Appetite was measured using visual analogue scales (VAS). The ingestion of F and S resulted in a lower GIP incremental area under the curve (iAUC) compared to the ingestion of G (p < 0.05). No differences in the iAUC for GLP-1 or ghrelin were present between the trials, nor for insulin between the sugars. No differences in appetite ratings or hepatic metabolism measures were found, except for lactate, which was greater following the ingestion of F, S, and C, when compared to W and G (p < 0.05). The acute ingestion of typical amounts of fructose, in a variety of forms, results in marked differences in circulating GIP and lactate concentration, but no differences in appetite ratings, triglyceride concentration, indicative lipolysis, or NEFA metabolism, when compared to glucose.

Comparison of the satiating properties of egg- versus cereal grain-based breakfasts for appetite and energy intake control in children

BackgroundFew studies exist that have systematically examined the role of protein, and egg protein in particular, in appetite and energy intake regulation in children. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the effects of three different types of breakfast on appetite and energy intake at subsequent meals in children. DesignForty children, ages 8–10, were served a compulsory breakfast (egg, cereal, or oatmeal) and lunch, consumed ad libitum, once a week for three weeks. Children's appetite ratings were assessed repeatedly throughout the morning. On each test day, caregivers completed food records, which captured children's intake for the remainder of the day. ResultsThere was a significant main effect of breakfast condition on energy intake at lunch (P=0.02) indicating that children consumed ~70 fewer calories at lunch following the egg breakfast (696±53kcal) compared to the cereal (767±53kcal) and oatmeal (765±53kcal) breakfasts. Calories consumed for the remainder of the day and daily energy intake did not differ across conditions (P>0.30). There also were no significant differences in children's appetite ratings between conditions (P>0.43). ConclusionsConsuming an egg-based breakfast significantly reduced short-term, but not longer-term, energy intake in children in the absence of differences in appetite ratings.

Appetite Response among Those Susceptible or Resistant to Obesity

An alternative approach in determining cause, treatment, and prevention of obesity is to study those who appear resistant to the obesogenic environment. We examined appetite responses in 33 obesity resistant individuals (ORI) versus 28 obesity susceptible individuals (OSI). Fingerprick blood samples to measure ghrelin, total peptide YY (PYY), leptin, glucose, and insulin along with appetite ratings were collected at baseline and 15, 30, 60, 120, and 180 min following consumption of a standardized meal. Fasting, area under the curve (AUC), peak/nadir, and time to peak/nadir were compared. Participants completed the three factor eating questionnaire (TFEQ). No significant differences were observed for ghrelin or PYY. Higher leptin concentrations in the OSI disappeared after controlling for percent body fat (%BF). Significant differences in appetite ratings included a lower hunger nadir among OSI compared with ORI (P = 0.017). Dietary restraint (P < 0.001) and disinhibition (P < 0.001) were lower in ORI compared with OSI, with and without adjustment for %BF. Given the differential body weight of the study groups, similar observed ghrelin concentrations were unexpected, perhaps indicating OSI and ORI respond differently to the same ghrelin concentration. Also ORI response to hunger appears different as they exhibit lower levels of dietary restraint and disinhibition compared with OSI.

Activity related energy expenditure, appetite and energy intake. Potential implications for weight management

The aim was to investigate relationships between activity related energy expenditure (AREE), appetite ratings and energy intake (EI) in a sample of 40 male (26.4years; BMI 23.5kg/m2) and 42 female (26.9years; BMI 22.4kg/m2) participants. AREE was expressed as the residual value of the regression between total daily EE (by doubly labeled water) and resting EE (by indirect calorimetry). EI was measured using an ad libitum buffet meal and visual analogue scales measured subjective appetite ratings before and after the meal. AREE was divided into low, middle and high sex-specific tertiles. General linear models were used to investigate differences in appetite ratings and EI across AREE tertiles. Before the meal, males in the high AREE tertile had significantly lower desire to eat and lower prospective food consumption and higher feelings of fullness compared to those in the low tertile. Males in the middle tertile had significantly higher satiety quotients after the meal and lower EI compared to the other tertiles. No significant differences across tertiles were found in females. Sex differences in relationships between AREE, appetite ratings and EI may lead to differing patterns of EI and subsequent weight maintenance.

A breakfast with alpha-lactalbumin, gelatin, or gelatin + TRP lowers energy intake at lunch compared with a breakfast with casein, soy, whey, or whey-GMP

Dietary protein plays a role in body weight regulation, partly due to its effects on satiety. The objective was to compare the effects of casein-, soy-, whey-, whey without glycomacropeptide (GMP)-, alpha-lactalbumin-, gelatin-, or gelatin with tryptophan (TRP)-protein breakfasts at two concentrations on subsequent satiety and energy intake (EI). Twenty-four healthy subjects (mean+/-SEM BMI: 24.8+/-0.5 kg/m(2); age: 25+/-2 years) received a breakfast; a custard with casein, soy, whey, whey-GMP, alpha-lactalbumin, gelatin, or gelatin+TRP as protein source with either 10/55/35 (normal) or 25/55/20 (high) En% protein/carbohydrate/fat in a randomized, single-blind design. At the precedingly determined time point for lunch, 180 min, subjects were offered an ad lib lunch. Appetite profile (Visual Analogue Scales, VAS) and EI were determined. Both at the level of 10 and 25 En% from protein, EI at lunch was approximately 20% lower after an alpha-lactalbumin or gelatin (+TRP) breakfast (2.5+/-0.2 MJ) compared with after a casein, soy, or whey-GMP breakfast (3.2+/-0.3 MJ, p<0.05). Appetite ratings at 180 min differed 15-25 mm (approximately 40%, p<0.05) between types of protein. Differences in EI were a function of differences in appetite ratings (R(2)=0.4, p<0.001). Different proteins (alpha-lactalbumin, gelatin, gelatin+TRP) that are approximately 40% more satiating than other proteins (casein, soy, whey, whey-GMP) induce a related approximately 20% reduction of subsequent energy intake.

Dose-dependent satiating effect of whey relative to casein or soy

Dietary protein plays a role in body weight regulation, partly because of its effects on appetite. The objective was to compare the effects of high or normal casein-, soy-, or whey-protein breakfasts on appetite, specific hormones, amino acid responses and subsequent energy intake. Twenty-five healthy subjects (mean ± SEM BMI:23.9 ± 0.3 kg/m 2; age:22 ± 1 years) received standardized breakfasts: custards with either casein-, soy, or whey-protein with either 10/55/35 (normal) or 25/55/20 (high)En% protein/carbohydrate/fat in a randomized, single-blind design. Appetite profile (Visual Analogue Scales) and amino acid concentrations were determined for 4 h whereas plasma glucose, insulin, active Glucagon-like Peptide 1 (GLP-1), and active ghrelin concentrations were determined for 3 h; the sensitive moment for lunch was determined. Subjects returned for a second set of experiments and received the same breakfasts, ad lib lunch was offered 180 min later; energy intake (EI) was assessed. At 10En%, whey decreased hunger more than casein or soy ( p < 0.05), coinciding with higher leucine, lysine, tryptophan, isoleucine, and threonine responses ( p < 0.05). At 25En% there were no differences in appetite ratings. Whey triggered the strongest responses in concentrations of active GLP-1 ( p < 0.05) and insulin ( p < 0.05) compared with casein and/or soy. There were no differences in EI. In conclusion, differences in appetite ratings between different proteins appeared at a normal concentration; at 10En% whey-protein decreased hunger more than casein- or soy-protein. At 25En% whey-protein triggered stronger responses in hormone concentrations than casein- or soy-protein. The results suggest that a difference in appetite ratings between types of protein appears when certain amino acids are above and below particular threshold values.

Appetitive behaviours and the Three Factor Eating Questionnaire

Previous research suggests that dietary restraint and disinhibition measures from the Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) predict individual differences in appetite-related behaviours. This study explored the hypothesis that TFEQ-disinhibition predicted the tendency to over-consume in a snack context. Sixty women classified as low or high restraint (LR vs. HR) and with low or high disinhibition (LD vs. HD) rated hunger and fullness before, and 0, 30, 60, 90, and 120 min after, a standard breakfast (410 kcal). They were then exposed to four snack foods for 15 min (chocolate, mini cheddars, grapes, and peanuts), disguised as a taste evaluation test, and intake was calculated. HD participants consumed significantly more compared to LD [1907.4 kJ vs. 1400.3 kJ: F (1, 58)=6.74, p =0.012], but snack intake was unaffected by TFEQ-restraint (no significant main effect or interaction involving TFEQ-restraint). HR participants gave significantly lower post-breakfast hunger ratings compared to LR participants [ F (1, 58)=5.40, p =0.024] while TFEQ-disinhibition did not factor in differences in appetite ratings. In normal weight women, these findings support the idea that scores on the TFEQ-disinhibition scale are a stronger predictor of tendency to overeat than are TFEQ-restraint, and further suggest that breakfast suppresses appetite more effectively in restrained than unrestrained women.

Does alcohol stimulate appetite and energy intake?

It has been anecdotally suggested that alcohol stimulates appetite and so increases energy intake in people who have poor appetite. This review sought to systematically review the evidence for this practice, using the mini-review approach (Griffiths, 2002). Among the eight studies reviewed, only one showed a significant difference in appetite ratings between the alcohol and no alcohol preload. However, significant differences were found in energy intake following a high-dose alcohol preload as opposed to a no-alcohol preload, in three out of the eight studies reviewed. One further study reported an increase in energy intake after the alcohol preload but this failed to reach statistical significance. In conclusion, the effect of alcohol on appetite appears largely unsubstantiated. Alcohol's effect on energy intake does appear significant, but further research is necessary owing to small sample sizes.