4.5 Article

Intermittent access to a sucrose solution for rats causes long-term increases in consumption

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 165, 期 -, 页码 77-85

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.07.002

关键词

Sucrose solutions; Rats; Intermittent access; Feeding; Bingeing

资金

  1. NSERC [183779-2010]
  2. Ontario Mental Health Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intermittent access to palatable food can elevate consumption beyond an animal's immediate needs. If adult male rats (with ad lib access to food and water) are provided with a 4% sucrose solution, daily sucrose consumption is determined by the sucrose access schedule: access that is intermittent leads to high levels of consumption. In Experiment 1, sucrose solutions were first provided continuously or every second, third, or fourth day for 23.5 h over 49 days. Continuous-access sucrose consumption averaged 102 g per day, while that for access every fourth day averaged 294 g. Daily consumption averages for access every second and third day fell between these two extremes. When all rats were then given alternate-day access to sucrose for 24 days in Phase II, the previously established consumption differences were maintained. Body weight was unaffected by sucrose access; rats adjusted their food consumption so that total calorie intake remained constant. In Experiment 2, compared to continuous 4% sucrose solution access, access every third day markedly elevated daily sucrose consumption after only four sucrose exposures. With this shorter Phase I, sucrose intake in. the continuous group increased markedly when in Phase II all rats were given alternate day access. In Experiment 3, a lick-by-lick analysis of the difference in sucrose consumption between access every third day and continuous access revealed that all rats were consuming a similar number of sucrose meals; however, the meals were larger both in the first hour and over the whole 24 h with intermittent access. This suggests a change in satiety as a mechanism underlying sucrose consumption difference. (C) 2016 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