BACKGROUND:Studies have shown that energy intake increases when both the fat content and energy density of the entire diet increases. When the fat content and energy density vary independently of one another, however, energy density, but not fat content, influences intake.OBJECTIVE:The present study examined whether energy intake in lean and obese women is affected when either the energy density or the fat content of a portion of the diet is manipulated and palatability is held constant.DESIGN:In a within-subjects design, 17 lean and 17 obese women consumed meals in the laboratory for four, 4-d test periods. In 3 of these test periods the energy density (4.4 and 6.7 kJ/g) or the fat content (16% and 36% of energy) of compulsory entrees representing 50% of each subject's usual energy intake was manipulated. Additional self-selected foods were consumed ad libitum at meals and as snacks.RESULTS:There were no systematic differences in palatability of the manipulated foods across conditions. Obese and lean participants responded similarly to the dietary manipulations. Intake of self-selected foods at meals was reduced significantly by 16% for both lean and obese subjects in the low- compared with the high-energy-density condition. The fat content of the compulsory foods had no significant effect on energy intake. Ratings of hunger did not differ between diets.CONCLUSION:These results indicate that when a portion of the diet was manipulated, the energy density, but not the fat content, of the foods affected total energy intake at meals in both lean and obese women.

Background: Previous research showed that decreasing the energy density (kJ/g) of foods by adding water to them can lead to reductions in energy intake. Few studies have examined how water consumed as a beverage affects food intake.Objective: This study examined the effects of water, both served with a food and incorporated into a food, on satiety.Design: In a within-subjects design, 24 lean women consumed breakfast, lunch, and dinner in our laboratory 1 d/wk for 4 wk. Subjects received 1 of 3 isoenergetic (1128 kJ) preloads 17 min before lunch on 3 d and no preload on 1 d. The preloads consisted of 1) chicken rice casserole, 2) chicken rice casserole served with a glass of water (356 g), and 3) chicken rice soup. The soup contained the same ingredients (type and amount) as the casserole that was served with water.Results: Decreasing the energy density of and increasing the volume of the preload by adding water to it significantly increased fullness and reduced hunger and subsequent energy intake at lunch. The equivalent amount of water served as a beverage with a food did not affect satiety. Energy intake at lunch was 1209 +/- 125 kJ after the soup compared with 1657 +/- 148 and 1639 +/- 148 kJ after the casserole with and without water, respectively. Subjects did not compensate at dinner for this reduction in lunch intake.Conclusion: Consuming foods with a high water content more effectively reduced subsequent energy intake than did drinking water with food.

Sibutramine (SIB), an inhibitor of serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake, has been shown in clinical trials to be associated with a dose-related decrease in bodyweight. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, Latin square crossover study examined whether the effect on bodyweight could be due in part to a reduction in daily food intake. Twelve non-dieting, women with obesity (body mass index of 30.5 to 41.9) received three treatments (0 [matching placebo], 10, or 30 mg SIB/day) for 14 days, with 14-day washout periods in between. On days 7 and 14, participants came to the laboratory to eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner so that daily energy and macronutrient intakes and ratings of hunger and satiety could be measured. Significant reductions occurred in food intake (both grams and energy) over the 14-day study period. On day 7, SIB 30 reduced intake significantly by 1762 kJ (23% reduction from placebo), and on day 14, both SIB 10 and SIB 30 significantly reduced intake compared with placebo (SIB 10, 19% reduction [1490 kJ]; SIB 30, 26% reduction [2079 kJ]). On day 7, the percentage of energy consumed from carbohydrate increased significantly with the 30-mg dose (56.7%) compared with that of placebo (51.4%), with a reciprocal decrease in energy from fat (27.8% to 24%). The results show that SIB reduced energy intake in women with obesity who were not attempting to lose weight.

This study examined the effect of energy density, independent of fat content and palatability, on food and energy intakes. With use of a within-subjects design, normal-weight women (n = 18) were provided with meals for 2 d during each of three test sessions. During lunch, dinner, and an evening snack, subjects were given free access to a main entree varying in energy density !low, medium, or high). The manipulated main entrees were similar in palatability to their counterparts across conditions. Low-energy compulsory (consumption required) side dishes accompanied each meal. Subjects also consumed a standard, compulsory breakfast. Results showed that subjects consumed a similar amount of food (by weight) across the three conditions of energy density. Thus, significantly more energy was consumed in the condition of high energy density (7532 +/- 363 kJ, or 1800 +/- 86 kcal) than in the medium- (6356 +/- 281 kJ, or 1519 +/- 67 kcal) and low- (5756 +/- 178 kJ, or 1376 +/- 43 kcal) energy-density conditions (P < 0.0001). There were no differences in hunger or fullness before meals, after meals, or over the 2 d across conditions. The results from this study indicate that energy density affects energy intake independent of macronutrient content or palatability, suggesting that the overconsumption of high-fat foods may be due to their high energy density rather than to their fat content.

This study tested the hypothesis that the amount (weight or volume) of food consumed affects the satiating potency of a food, independent of its energy content. Normal-weight young men (n = 20) were tested in a within-subjects design. Subjects were served a milk-based drink or no drink (control), followed 30 min later by a self-selected lunch and > 4 h later by a self-selected dinner. Milk drinks were equal in energy content (2088 kJ, or 499 kcal) and had similar proportions of fat (30.3%), carbohydrate (54.7%), and protein (15%) across three volumes: 300, 450, and 600 mL. Ratings of palatability, sensory properties, and energy content of the drinks and of hunger completed before consumption of the preloads were not significantly different among conditions. The results showed that preload volume affected energy intake at lunch (P < or = 0.009) such that energy intake was less after the 600-mL preload than after the 300-mL preload. This effect was still present when energy intake at dinner was included (P < or = 0.022). At lunch, including energy from the preload, subjects overate relative to the control condition (4323 +/- 322 kJ) after the 300- (5263 +/- 321 kJ) and 450-mL (5011 +/- 300 kJ) preloads but not after the 600-mL (4703 +/- 353 kJ) preload. Thus, the best adjustment for the energy in the preloads was with the largest, least energy-dense drink. Consistent with the effects on intake, the volume of the drinks affected ratings of hunger and fullness. These results indicate that the volume consumed is an important determinant of satiety after milk drinks under these conditions.

Many reduced-fat foods retain the sensory properties of their high-fat counterparts through the use of fat substitutes. This study examined whether regulation of energy intake is affected when the nonabsorbable fat substitute olestra is used to uncouple the sensory properties of fat from fat absorption and metabolism. Cream of broccoli soups were developed in three versions: fat-free, fat-free+olestra (33.3 g olestra), and high-fat (33.3 g fat) (923900 and 2150 kJ per serving, respectively). The olestra soup had the nutrient composition of the fat-free soup but the sensory properties of the high-fat soup. Subjects were grouped by sex, body weight, and dietary restraint (total n = 67). Subjects had either no preload (control) or a soup preload (465 g) followed by a self-selection lunch. Intake was measured at lunch, dinner, snack, and breakfast. At lunch, the response to the soup preloads was not affected by sex, dietary restraint, or body weight. Energy intake (soup+lunch) was significantly greater in the high-fat than in the control condition (P < 0.05), but energy intake in the fat-free and olestra-soup conditions was not significantly different from that in the control condition (3570, 3352, 3464, and 4457 kJ in control, fat-free, olestra, and high-fat soup conditions, respectively). Thus, subjects compensated completely for the energy in the fat-free and olestra soups but not for the energy in the high-fat soup. No differences were found in the response to the two fat-free conditions, one with the fatty taste and one without. In this study the sensory properties of fat alone, ie, apart from the physiologic effects of fat, did not affect energy regulation.