4.5 Article

Increased textural complexity in food enhances satiation

Journal

APPETITE
Volume 105, Issue -, Pages 189-194

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.05.029

Keywords

Food texture; Oral processing; Satiation; Textural complexity; Chewing time; Food oral breakdown; Food structure

Funding

  1. University of Auckland Faculty Research Development Fund [3700486]
  2. Chinese Scholarship Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For the first time this study has shown a direct effect of food textural complexity on satiation. Independent of oral processing time, increasing the textural complexity of a food significantly decreased food intake. Foods with complex textures stimulate many sensory perceptions duting oral processing, with a succession of textures perceived between first bite and swallow. Previously the impact of texture on satiation (commonly tested by increasing viscosities of semi-solids) has been explained by texture's influence on oral processing time; a long oral processing time enhances satiation. The results of the current study show that subjects in a randomised cross-over trial who consumed a starter (preload) model food with high textural complexity went on to eat significantly less of a two course ad libitum meal. Subjects who consumed a starter model food with low textural complexity, but with the same flavour, energy density and oral processing time, ate significantly more of the same ad libitum meal. The results show that increasing the number of textures perceived during chewing of a solid food triggers the satiation response earlier than when chewing a less texturally complex food. Increasing textural complexity of manufactured foods, to allow for greater sensory stimulation per bite, could potentially be used as a tool to enhance the satiation response and decrease food intake. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available