- Email: [email protected]
Sensory attributes of foods and food intake
LETTERS
73
Sensory Attributes of Foods and Food Intake. BEVERLY TEPPER. Department of Food Science, Cook College, Rutgers Universiw New Brunswick, NJO8903,
U.S.A. “Rapporteur: Nori Geary, Columbia University”
Do flavor cues associated with the caloric contents of foods affect what and how much freeliving humans eat? To answer this question, Dr Tepper first trained subjects by giving them multiple item lunches with two different caloric contents. Each food had a distinctive flavor. Non-dieting, stable-weight male and female subjects were paid to consume daily fixed-portion lunches, after which irrelevant psychophysical taste tests were performed to disguise the study’s intent. Four of the five items served for lunch were prepared in either high calorie (HC, 1089 kcal for males and 826 for females) or low calorie (LC!, 333 and 247 kcal) forms, mainly by manipulating fat content. Flavor cues were commercial flavorings, e.g., peppery salt substitute vs. barbecue, garlic vs. lemon herb salad dressing. Subjects’ diaries of their eating outside the lab provided the principal data. An 8-day baseline period during which diaries were kept but no lunches were served was followed by a IO-day training period in which distinctively flavored HC and LC lunches were alternated. The test consisted of 5-day periods in which the HC flavors were put in the LC lunches and the LC flavors were put in the HC lunches. Total daily caloric intake was similar during HC lunch training days and baseline days. In contrast, total caloric intake was lower on LC lunch days than on baseline. Dr Geary suggested unusual caloric density might cause this difference, if the caloric density of the HC lunches, for which the subjects compensated, matched that of the subjects’ usual food choices better than the LC lunches, for which they did not compensate. Dr Tepper has not yet analyzed the caloric density of the subjects’ extra-lab food choices. When the flavor cues associated with the HC and LC lunches were switched, food intake in some subjects (called responders) seemed to be controlled more by flavor cue associations, and intake in others more by the caloric content of their foods. Data from these groups were analyzed separately. Flavor cue responders were those whose caloric intake increased by > 10 per cent of their training mean on the first test day when the HC lunch was severed with the LC flavoring and whose intake decreased > 10 per cent on the first test of the LC lunch with the HC flavoring. Seven of 28 subjects met this criterion. In response to Dr Geary’s question, Dr Tepper said she has not yet computed how many responders would be expected on the basis of the random daily variation in the subjects’ intakes. When switched to LC-flavored HC food, responders’ daily caloric intake increased about 750 kcal on day 1, which was significant, and about 500 kcal on day 2, which was insignificant. Switched to HC-flavored LC food, significant decreases of c 500 kcal occurred on days 1, 3 and 4. Therefore, flavor-calorie associations may guide spontaneous eating. Several seminar members asked what else might differentiate responders and nonresponders. Most responders, Dr Tepper said, were restrained eaters according to Stunkard’s critera. She also pointed out that during training, non-responders tended to regulate caloric intake on LC days but overeat on HC days, whereas responders regulated on HC days and underate on LC days. The result is reminiscent of Stunkard’s observation that restrained eaters rarely display compensatory increases in eating. In a short-term test run in 3-day blocks, subjects self-selected selected buffet lunches after consuming distinctively flavored HC or LC milkshakes. Seven of 22 subjects were flavor cue responders. When the milkshake flavors were switched, responders increased lunch intake by about 100 kcal after HC milkshake preloads containing the HC flavor and decreased lunch intake about 100 kcal after LC milkshakes with the HC flavor. These results reinforce the conclusion of the first experiment. Finally, Dr Tepper discussed a preliminary attempt to validate the distinction between responders and non-responders. Six restrained eaters (Stunkard restraint score > 10) were compared to 12 non-restrained eaters (< 8). Cephalic phase salivary response to a sizzling pizza increased significantly (31 per cent) in the restrained, but not in the unrestrained (20 per cent). Dr Tepper concluded that the overlap between restraint and responders in her tests suggests that either salivary response or some other physiological marker may identify people whose eating is strongly influenced by flavor-calorie associations. Tepper, B. J., Mattes, R. D. & Farkas, K. (1991) Learned flavor cues influence food intake in humans. Journal of Sensory Studies, in press. Minutes of the Columbia University Seminar in Appetite Behavior, 24 January 1990: Harry R. Kissileff, Chairman; Nori Geary, Rapporteur.
73
Sensory Attributes of Foods and Food Intake. BEVERLY TEPPER. Department of Food Science, Cook College, Rutgers Universiw New Brunswick, NJO8903,
U.S.A. “Rapporteur: Nori Geary, Columbia University”
Do flavor cues associated with the caloric contents of foods affect what and how much freeliving humans eat? To answer this question, Dr Tepper first trained subjects by giving them multiple item lunches with two different caloric contents. Each food had a distinctive flavor. Non-dieting, stable-weight male and female subjects were paid to consume daily fixed-portion lunches, after which irrelevant psychophysical taste tests were performed to disguise the study’s intent. Four of the five items served for lunch were prepared in either high calorie (HC, 1089 kcal for males and 826 for females) or low calorie (LC!, 333 and 247 kcal) forms, mainly by manipulating fat content. Flavor cues were commercial flavorings, e.g., peppery salt substitute vs. barbecue, garlic vs. lemon herb salad dressing. Subjects’ diaries of their eating outside the lab provided the principal data. An 8-day baseline period during which diaries were kept but no lunches were served was followed by a IO-day training period in which distinctively flavored HC and LC lunches were alternated. The test consisted of 5-day periods in which the HC flavors were put in the LC lunches and the LC flavors were put in the HC lunches. Total daily caloric intake was similar during HC lunch training days and baseline days. In contrast, total caloric intake was lower on LC lunch days than on baseline. Dr Geary suggested unusual caloric density might cause this difference, if the caloric density of the HC lunches, for which the subjects compensated, matched that of the subjects’ usual food choices better than the LC lunches, for which they did not compensate. Dr Tepper has not yet analyzed the caloric density of the subjects’ extra-lab food choices. When the flavor cues associated with the HC and LC lunches were switched, food intake in some subjects (called responders) seemed to be controlled more by flavor cue associations, and intake in others more by the caloric content of their foods. Data from these groups were analyzed separately. Flavor cue responders were those whose caloric intake increased by > 10 per cent of their training mean on the first test day when the HC lunch was severed with the LC flavoring and whose intake decreased > 10 per cent on the first test of the LC lunch with the HC flavoring. Seven of 28 subjects met this criterion. In response to Dr Geary’s question, Dr Tepper said she has not yet computed how many responders would be expected on the basis of the random daily variation in the subjects’ intakes. When switched to LC-flavored HC food, responders’ daily caloric intake increased about 750 kcal on day 1, which was significant, and about 500 kcal on day 2, which was insignificant. Switched to HC-flavored LC food, significant decreases of c 500 kcal occurred on days 1, 3 and 4. Therefore, flavor-calorie associations may guide spontaneous eating. Several seminar members asked what else might differentiate responders and nonresponders. Most responders, Dr Tepper said, were restrained eaters according to Stunkard’s critera. She also pointed out that during training, non-responders tended to regulate caloric intake on LC days but overeat on HC days, whereas responders regulated on HC days and underate on LC days. The result is reminiscent of Stunkard’s observation that restrained eaters rarely display compensatory increases in eating. In a short-term test run in 3-day blocks, subjects self-selected selected buffet lunches after consuming distinctively flavored HC or LC milkshakes. Seven of 22 subjects were flavor cue responders. When the milkshake flavors were switched, responders increased lunch intake by about 100 kcal after HC milkshake preloads containing the HC flavor and decreased lunch intake about 100 kcal after LC milkshakes with the HC flavor. These results reinforce the conclusion of the first experiment. Finally, Dr Tepper discussed a preliminary attempt to validate the distinction between responders and non-responders. Six restrained eaters (Stunkard restraint score > 10) were compared to 12 non-restrained eaters (< 8). Cephalic phase salivary response to a sizzling pizza increased significantly (31 per cent) in the restrained, but not in the unrestrained (20 per cent). Dr Tepper concluded that the overlap between restraint and responders in her tests suggests that either salivary response or some other physiological marker may identify people whose eating is strongly influenced by flavor-calorie associations. Tepper, B. J., Mattes, R. D. & Farkas, K. (1991) Learned flavor cues influence food intake in humans. Journal of Sensory Studies, in press. Minutes of the Columbia University Seminar in Appetite Behavior, 24 January 1990: Harry R. Kissileff, Chairman; Nori Geary, Rapporteur.