Dataset Information

Texture-based differences in eating rate influence energy intake for minimally processed and ultra-processed meals.

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.

SUBMITTER: Teo PS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9257473 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the prospective associations between consumption of ultra-processed foods and risk of cardiovascular diseases. DESIGN:Population based cohort study. SETTING:NutriNet-Santé cohort, France 2009-18. PARTICIPANTS:105?159 participants aged at least 18 years. Dietary intakes were collected using repeated 24 hour dietary records (5.7 for each participant on average), designed to register participants' usual consumption of 3300 food items. These foods were categorised using the NOVA classification according to degree of processing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Associations between intake of ultra-processed food and overall risk of cardiovascular, coronary heart, and cerebrovascular diseases assessed by multivariable Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for known risk factors. RESULTS:During a median follow-up of 5.2 years, intake of ultra-processed food was associated with a higher risk of overall cardiovascular disease (1409 cases; hazard ratio for an absolute increment of 10 in the percentage of ultra-processed foods in the diet 1.12 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.20); P<0.001, 518?208 person years, incidence rates in high consumers of ultra-processed foods (fourth quarter) 277 per 100?000 person years, and in low consumers (first quarter) 242 per 100?000 person years), coronary heart disease risk (665 cases; hazard ratio 1.13 (1.02 to 1.24); P=0.02, 520?319 person years, incidence rates 124 and 109 per 100?000 person years, in the high and low consumers, respectively), and cerebrovascular disease risk (829 cases; hazard ratio 1.11 (1.01 to 1.21); P=0.02, 520?023 person years, incidence rates 163 and 144 per 100?000 person years, in high and low consumers, respectively). These results remained statistically significant after adjustment for several markers of the nutritional quality of the diet (saturated fatty acids, sodium and sugar intakes, dietary fibre, or a healthy dietary pattern derived by principal component analysis) and after a large range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS:In this large observational prospective study, higher consumption of ultra-processed foods was associated with higher risks of cardiovascular, coronary heart, and cerebrovascular diseases. These results need to be confirmed in other populations and settings, and causality remains to be established. Various factors in processing, such as nutritional composition of the final product, additives, contact materials, and neoformed contaminants might play a role in these associations, and further studies are needed to understand better the relative contributions. Meanwhile, public health authorities in several countries have recently started to promote unprocessed or minimally processed foods and to recommend limiting the consumption of ultra-processed foods. STUDY REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03335644.