(EA01-14-25) Factors Predicting Meal Energy Compensation Across Multiple Preload Studies

Scientific conference where the work was recently presented: SSIB 2024 (Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior)

Date on which the work was previously presented at the scientific conference listed: July 10, 2024

Objectives: Effects of food properties on satiety can be evaluated by having individuals consume a compulsory first-course preload before an ad libitum test meal. One measure of satiety is energy compensation, which can be quantified as total meal energy intake (preload + test meal) expressed as a percentage of an individual’s energy intake at a no-preload control meal.

Methods: In this secondary analysis, we evaluated characteristics of preloads, test meals, and participants that predict energy compensation, in order to inform methods for satiety assessment. We combined data from 13 preloading studies comprising weighed intakes from 1757 preload meals across 511 participants.

Results: The results showed that energy compensation was positively influenced by preload energy and energy density, and negatively influenced by preload weight (all p< 0.0001). Energy compensation was not, however, affected by characteristics of the test meal or the participants. The strongest predictor of energy compensation was the energy content of the preload relative to an individual’s control meal energy intake, which explained 32% of the variability in the outcome. Complete energy compensation was observed when preload energy averaged 27% of control meal intake.

Conclusions: The finding that relative preload energy was the strongest predictor of compensation underscores the importance of including a control condition in preloading studies. This allows researchers to focus on the effects of preload properties by adjusting for any influential characteristics of the test meal and participants. Understanding predictors of energy compensation can be used to improve methods for satiety assessment and to facilitate interpretation of findings from preloading studies.

Funding Sources: This research was supported by NIH Grants R01 DK059853 and R37 DK039177 (PI: Rolls). Dr. Keller is supported by NIH Grant R01 DK126050. Dr. Zuraikat is supported by NIH Grant R01 HL173190. The sponsors had no role in designing the study; collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; or writing of the report.