Effect of Energy Restriction on Eating Behavior Traits and Psychobehavioral Factors in the Low Satiety Phenotype

Abstract

Studies have shown that individuals with low satiety efficiency may be more susceptible to weight gain, but little is known about the effect of weight loss intervention outcomes in these individuals. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of an energy-restricted weight loss intervention on eating behavior traits and psychobehavioral factors in individuals differing in their satiety responsiveness. A pooled cohort of individuals who were overweight or obese (n = 100; aged 39 ± 9 years) participating in a 12- to 15-week weight loss program targeting an energy deficit of 500–700 kcal/day were included in this study. Satiety responsiveness was determined by a median split of the mean satiety quotient based on appetite sensations measured in response to a test meal at baseline (low satiety responsiveness (LSR) vs. high satiety responsiveness (HSR)). Anthropometric variables, eating behavior traits, psychobehavioral factors, and ad libitum energy intake were assessed before and after the intervention. Although similar weight loss was observed between the LSR and HSR groups (−3.5 ± 3.2 vs. –3.8 ± 2.8 kg, p = 0.64) in response to an energy-restricted weight loss intervention, changes in eating behavior traits were different between groups. Individuals with LSR had a higher increase in cognitive restraint (+5.5 ± 4.1 vs. +3.5 ± 3.5, p = 0.02) and some of its subscales and a lower decrease in situational susceptibility to disinhibition (−0.6 ± 1.1 vs. −1.2 ± 1.3, p = 0.02) in response to the intervention compared to the HSR group. In conclusion, energy-restricted weight loss intervention seems to trigger undesirable changes in some eating behavior traits in individuals more vulnerable to overeating, which could increase their susceptibility to weight regain.

Women with a low-satiety phenotype show impaired appetite control and greater resistance to weight loss

“…One study in men reported that the LSP lost less body weight after a 16-week diet compared to the HSP (15) . Whereas another study using male and female participants reported no effects of the LSP on weight change (22) . As such, further studies which investigate specific samples (e.g.…”

“…Thus, the current findings confirm that the LSP is linked with poorer weight loss outcomes, and extends this finding to women. Yet, not all studies have reported that the LSP is linked with less weight loss, with one study reporting no effects (22) . To explain the mixed findings it has been suggested that the LSP may be particularly influential when participants are following a satiating diet, and less influential when the LSP are following an energy restricted diet (22) .…”

A systematic review of the use of the Satiety Quotient

“…For studies that used electronic VAS, one used 100 mm scales (18) , one used 60 mm scales (21) and one did not specify the length of the scale used (23) . Albert et al (38) L N R L M L L Arguin et al (40) H NR NR M NR L Arguin et al (12) L N R N R M M L Au-Yeung et al (30) L NR NR M NR L Beaulieu et al (25) L N R N R M H L Beaulieu et al (59) L N R M M M L Bédard et al (49) H (58) L L NR M L L Carbonneau et al (52) L NR NR M NR L Caudwell et al (57) H (26) L L L M L N R Chaput et al (47) H (14) L NR NR M NR L Defries et al (22) L NR NR H NR L Drapeau et al (8) H N R L M N R L Drapeau et al (10) H N R M M L L Drapeau et al (13) H N R N R L H N R Drapeau et al (53) H N R N R M H L Dubé et al (7) L NR NR M NR L Felix et al (32) L NR NR M NR NR Felix et al (36) L NR NR M NR NR Fillon et al (39) L (33) M NR NR M NR NR Green et al (6) H NR NR M NR NR Halford et al (56) M L L M M L Hansen et al (18) L N R M M N R L Harrington et al (43) H N R N R M L N R Hintze et al (54) L N R N R M H L Hollingworth et al (15) L N R N R N R N R N R Hopkins et al (19) L NR NR M NR NR Jönsson et al (44) L N R N R H H N R Jönsson et al (55) L (34) L L L M M N R King et al (50) H (27) L N R N R M H L McNeil et al (29) H NR NR M NR L McNeil et al (9) H …”

“…prev. post-menopause in women) (9,10,(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(54)(55)(56)(57)59) , while three of these nineteen studies used SQ as a tool to classify the population as low and high satiety phenotype (12,53,58) .…”

“…One study investigated the effect of a prescription combining physical activity and dietary interventions on SQ (47) . One assessed the effect of weight change on SQ (48) and three others more specifically on the effect of different energy restrictions on SQ change (53,54,59) . Bédard and colleagues investigated the effect of sex on SQ (49) and Carbonneau et al (52) the effect of different nutritional labelling.…”