4.7 Article

Variety influences habituation of motivated behavior for food and energy intake in children

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 89, 期 3, 页码 746-754

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2008.26911

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [R01 HD044725]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Research has shown that variety reduces the rate of habituation, or a general reduction in the rate of responding, for low-energy-density (LED) and high-energy-density (HED) foods. Objective: We assessed whether the effects of variety on habituation of motivation to eat are different in overweight and lean children. Design: Overweight and lean children (n=84) were randomly assigned to groups that varied as to whether they received their favorite or a variety of LED or HED foods. Results: Habituation was slower for overweight than for nonoverweight children (P=0.008), for a variety of foods than for the same foods (P<0.001), and for LED than for HED foods (P < 0.001). Energy intake was greater for overweight than for nonoverweight children provided with variety (P=0.004) and was greater for overweight or nonoverweight children provided with the same food (P, 0.001). A variety of HED foods increased energy intake more than did the same HED foods (P, 0.001); this increase was greater than energy intake with the same or a variety of LED foods (P, 0.001). Children who sensitized, or showed an increase in responding before habituating, showed slower habituation (P, 0.001) and consumed more energy (P=0.039) than did children who did not sensitize. Conclusions: Habituation is influenced by variety of foods, and overweight children increase energy intake more with variety than do leaner children. Research is needed to evaluate mechanisms of how variety influences the motivation to eat and energy intake, and how the variety effect can be used to influence intake across multiple eating occasions in children. Am J Clin Nutr 2009; 89: 746-54.

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

4.7
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