4.7 Article

Bariatric Surgery Does Not Affect Food Preferences, but Individual Changes in Food Preferences May Predict Weight Loss

Journal

OBESITY
Volume 26, Issue 12, Pages 1879-1887

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/oby.22272

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. University of Copenhagen Excellence Programme for Interdisciplinary Research
  2. Novo Nordisk Foundation
  3. Lundbeck Foundation
  4. Aase and Ejnar Danielsens Foundation
  5. Lundbeck Foundation [R167-2013-15462, R164-2013-15261] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Using an ad libitum buffet meal targeting direct behavior, the authors of the current study previously reported no effect of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) surgery on food preferences 6 months after surgery. The current study investigated changes in food preferences at 18 months after surgery and whether changes in food preferences at 6 months predicted weight loss. Methods Twenty food items separated into the following food categories were served at the buffet meal: high-fat, low-fat, sweet, savory, high-fat savory, high-fat sweet, low-fat savory, and low-fat sweet. Energy intake and intake from each of the food items were registered. Energy intake prior to the meal was standardized. Results Thirty-nine subjects completed visits before surgery and 18 months following RYGB (n = 29) and SG (n = 10) surgery. Energy intake decreased 41% (4,470 +/- 209 kJ vs. 2,618 +/- 209 kJ, P < 0.001), but no change occurred in relative energy intake from any of the food categories (all P >= 0.23), energy density (P = 0.20), or macronutrient intake (all P >= 0.28). However, changes in high-fat food intake, protein intake, energy intake, and energy density at 6 months predicted weight loss at 18 months (P <= 0.02). Conclusions RYGB surgery and SG surgery do not affect food preferences. However, changes in food preferences seem to be predictive of weight loss.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available