Impact of food texture and degree of food processing on post-meal satiety and later snack intake

Impact of food texture and degree of food processing on post-meal satiety and later snack intake

Appetite

10.1016/j.appet.2026.108604

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2026.108604

Pey Sze Teo, Amanda JiaYing Lim, Ai Ting Goh, Janani R, Keri McCrickerd, Ciaran G. Forde

Texture, eating rate, NOVA, ultra-processed, Minimally processed, Satiety, Snack intake

22 May 2026

Teo, P. S., Lim, A. J., Goh, A. T., Janani, R., McCrickerd, K., & Forde, C. G. (2026). Impact of food texture and degree of food processing on post-meal satiety and later snack intake. Appetite, 225, 108604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2026.108604

Meal-texture influences eating rate (ER) and energy intake within a meal, but it remains unclear whether these texture effects influence post-meal experience of satiety in minimally and highly processed meals. We examined whether food texture (softer vs. harder) influence post-meal satiety in minimally- and ultra-processed fixed portion meals. Across four test-sessions in a randomised crossover design, forty-three healthy men (28.2 ± 7.1y; BMI = 22.4 ± 1.8 kg/m2) consumed four fixed compulsory portion lunch meals, consisting of “soft-minimallyprocessed”, “hard-minimally-processed”, “soft-ultra-processed”, and “hard-ultra-processed” components. Meals were approximately matched for energy density, total weight, and total energy served. ER was derived using behavioural coding of videos. Appetite-ratings were measured at baseline and during the 2h after test meal. Participants were provided an ad-libitum snack 2h post-meal and intake was recorded (kcal and g). Subsequent food-intake was self-reported by food-diary. The “Hard-ultra-processed-meal” (25.9 g/min) was consumed 2-times slower than the “soft-ultra-processed-meal” (61.2 g/min) and generated significantly greater post-meal iAUC120 for fullness for the same energy consumed (Δ = 32%), after confounders’ adjustment (Texture*processing-effect, P = 0.039). Other minimally processed meals (soft and hard) did not differ significantly from the “soft-ultra-processed-meal” in iAUC120. Lowest energy intake of ad-libitum snack was reported following “hard-ultra-processed-meal” (↓118 kcal; Texture*Processing effect, P = 0.004). “Hard-ultra-processed-meal” delivered significantly higher post-meal satiety than other meals. We concluded that meals classified as ultraprocessed do not necessarily deliver lower satiety compared to the same energy consumed as minimally processed meals.

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

This research / project is supported by the Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences - Food Structure Engineering for Nutrition and Health
Grant Reference no. : H1801a0E11

https://oar.a-star.edu.sg/communities-collections/articles/23250

0195-6663

Singapore Institute of Food and Biotechnology Innovation