4.5 Article

Effects of long-term cycling between palatable cafeteria diet and regular chow on intake, eating patterns, and response to saccharin and sucrose

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 139, 期 -, 页码 80-88

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.11.006

关键词

Diet cycling; Cafeteria diet; Yo-yo diet; Liking; Wanting Lick patterns; Eating patterns; Overeating

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When exposed to a diet containing foods that are rich in fat and sugar, rats eat to excess and gain weight. We examined the effects of alternating this diet with laboratory chow on intake of each type of diet, the eating elicited by a palatable food (biscuits), and the drinking elicited by sweet solutions that did (sucrose) or did not (saccharin) contain calories. Each week for 13 weeks, cycled rats were provided with the cafeteria diet for three successive days/nights and the chow diet for the remaining four days/nights, whereas other rats received continuous access to either the cafeteria or the chow diets. On each of the 13 weeks, cycled rats ate more across the first 24 hour exposure to the cafeteria diet than rats continuously fed this diet. In contrast, cycled rats ate less across the first 24 hour exposure to the chow diet than rats continuously fed this diet and ate less when presented a novel palatable biscuit than chow-fed rats. The three groups exhibited similar licks per cluster to saccharin, but cafeteria-fed and cycled rats showed fewer clusters than chow-fed rats. In contrast, chow-fed rats and cycled rats exhibited more licks per cluster to sucrose than cafeteria-fed rats, but all three groups had a similar number of clusters. The results were discussed in relation to the effects of diet cycling on eating patterns, body weight, and Wanting' and 'liking'. These findings with rats may have important implications for yo-yo dieting in people. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据