Hedonic hunger and attentional bias to food cues during weight management

Appetite ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 101 ◽  
pp. 220
Author(s):  
B.R. Mead ◽  
A.L. Ahern ◽  
J.C.G. Halford ◽  
J.A. Harrold ◽  
E.J. Boyland
Appetite ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 424-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruihua Hou ◽  
Karin Mogg ◽  
Brendan P. Bradley ◽  
Rona Moss-Morris ◽  
Robert Peveler ◽  
...  

Appetite ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 91 ◽  
pp. 431
Author(s):  
F. Folkvord ◽  
D.J. Anschütz ◽  
M. Buijzen
Keyword(s):  

Appetite ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 131 ◽  
pp. 139-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.K. Ruddock ◽  
M. Field ◽  
A. Jones ◽  
C.A. Hardman

2020 ◽  
Vol 150 (5) ◽  
pp. 1126-1134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikoleta S Stamataki ◽  
Corey Scott ◽  
Rebecca Elliott ◽  
Shane McKie ◽  
Douwina Bosscher ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Background Stevia is a zero-calorie alternative to caloric sugars. Substituting caloric sweeteners with noncaloric sweeteners reduces available energy, but their effects on appetite, subsequent food intake, and neurocognitive responses are still unclear. Objective The aim was to examine whether sweetness with or without calories influences food intake, appetite, blood glucose concentrations, and attentional bias (AB) to food cues. Methods This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind crossover study. Healthy participants [n = 20; aged 27 ± 5 y,  55% female; BMI (kg/m2): 21.8 ± 1.5] completed 5 visits, consuming 5 study beverages: 330 mL water (control, no sweet taste, no calories) and either 330 mL water containing 40 g glucose or sucrose (sweet taste; calories, both 160 kcal), maltodextrin (no sweet taste; calories, 160 kcal), or 240 ppm stevia (sweet taste, no calories). Glucose and stevia beverages were matched for sweetness. Subjective appetite ratings and blood glucose were measured at baseline and at 15, 30, and 60 min postprandially. At 15 min participants performed a visual-dot probe task to assess AB to food cues; at 30 min, participants were offered an ad libitum lunch; food intake was measured. Results Subjective appetite ratings showed that preload sweetness and calorie content both affected appetite. The total AUC for glycemia was significantly higher after the caloric beverages (mean ± SD: maltodextrin, 441 ± 57.6;  glucose, 462 ± 68.1;  sucrose, 425 ± 53.6 mmol × min × L−1 ) compared with both stevia (320 ± 34.2 mmol × min × L−1) and water (304 ± 32.0 mmol × min × L−1) (all P < 0.001). Total energy intake (beverage and meal) was significantly lower after the stevia beverage (727 ± 239 kcal) compared with water (832 ± 198 kcal,  P = 0.013), with no significant difference between the water and caloric beverages (P = 1.00 for water vs. maltodextrin, glucose, and sucrose). However, food-related AB did not differ across conditions (P = 0.140). Conclusions This study found a beneficial and specific effect of a stevia beverage consumed prior to a meal on appetite and energy intake in healthy adults. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03711084.


Author(s):  
Mirjana Domakonda ◽  
Rachel Marsh ◽  
Emily J. Steinberg ◽  
Kate Terranova ◽  
Marian Tanofsky-Kraff

Appetite ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Hollitt ◽  
Eva Kemps ◽  
Marika Tiggemann ◽  
Elke Smeets ◽  
Jennifer S. Mills

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. M. Hetherington ◽  
K. Cunningham ◽  
L. Dye ◽  
E. L. Gibson ◽  
N. T. Gregersen ◽  
...  

Foods and dietary patterns that enhance satiety may provide benefit to consumers. The aim of the present review was to describe, consider and evaluate research on potential benefits of enhanced satiety. The proposal that enhanced satiety could only benefit consumers by a direct effect on food intake should be rejected. Instead, it is proposed that there is a variety of routes through which enhanced satiety could (indirectly) benefit dietary control or weight-management goals. The review highlights specific potential benefits of satiety, including: providing appetite control strategies for consumers generally and for those who are highly responsive to food cues; offering pleasure and satisfaction associated with low-energy/healthier versions of foods without feeling ‘deprived’; reducing dysphoric mood associated with hunger especially during energy restriction; and improved compliance with healthy eating or weight-management efforts. There is convincing evidence of short-term satiety benefits, but only probable evidence for longer-term benefits to hunger management, possible evidence of benefits to mood and cognition, inadequate evidence that satiety enhancement can promote weight loss, and no evidence on which consumers would benefit most from satiety enhancement. The appetite-reducing effects of specific foods or diets will be much more subtle than those of pharmaceutical compounds in managing hunger; nevertheless, the experience of pharmacology in producing weight loss via effects on appetite suggests that there is potential benefit of satiety enhancement from foods incorporated into the diet to the consumer.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document