Teo, P. S., Lim, A. J., Goh, A. T., R, J., Choy, J. Y. M., McCrickerd, K., & Forde, C. G. (2022). Texture-based differences in eating rate influence energy intake for minimally processed and ultra-processed meals. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqac068
Abstract:
ABSTRACT
Background
Consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked with higher energy intakes. Food texture is known to influence eating rate (ER) and energy intake to satiation, yet it remains unclear whether food texture influences energy intakes from minimally processed and ultra-processed meals.
Objectives
We examined the independent and combined effects of food texture and degree of processing on ad libitum food intake. We also investigated whether differences in energy intake during lunch influenced postmeal feelings of satiety and later food intake.
Methods
In this crossover study, 50 healthy-weight participants [n = 50 (24 men); mean ± SD age: 24.4 ± 3.1 y; BMI: 21.3 ± 1.9 kg/m2] consumed 4 ad libitum lunch meals consisting of “soft minimally processed,” “hard minimally processed,” “soft ultra-processed,” and “hard ultra-processed” components. Meals were matched for total energy served, with some variation in meal energy density (±0.20 kcal/g). Ad libitum food intake (kcal and g) was measured and ER derived using behavioral coding of videos. Subsequent food intake was self-reported by food diary.
Results
There was a main effect of food texture on intake, whereby “hard minimally processed” and “hard ultra-processed” meals were consumed slower overall, produced a 21% and 26% reduction in food weight (g) and energy (kcal) consumed, respectively. Intakes were higher for “soft ultra-processed” and “soft minimally processed” meals (P < 0.001), after correcting for meal pleasantness. The effect of texture on food weight consumed was not influenced by processing levels (weight of food: texture*processing-effect, P = 0.376), but the effect of food texture on energy intake was (energy consumed: texture*processing-effect, P = 0.015). The least energy was consumed from the “hard minimally processed” meal (482.9 kcal; 95% CI: 431.9, 531.0 kcal) and the most from the “soft ultra-processed” meal (789.4 kcal; 95% CI: 725.9, 852.8 kcal; Δ=↓∼300 kcal). Energy intake was lowest when harder texture was combined with the “minimally processed” meals. Total energy intake across the day varied directly with energy intakes of the test meals (Δ15%, P < 0.001).
Conclusions
Findings suggest that food texture–based differences in ER and meal energy density contribute to observed differences in energy intake between minimally processed and ultra-processed meals.
This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04589221.
License type:
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
Funding Info:
This research is supported by core funding from: Singapore Biomedical Research Council (Food Structure Engineering for Nutrition and Health)
Grant Reference no. : H18/01/a0/E11