Effects of olestra, a noncaloric fat substitute, on daily energy and fat intakes in lean men

Abstract

Nutrient and energy intakes, hunger, and fullness were examined after the replacement of 36, 20, or 0 g fat in breakfast with olestra, a noncaloric fat substitute. Twenty-four lean, nondieting men (aged 21-30 y) participated in a placebo-controlled, three-condition crossover design. Self-selected, ad libitum intakes at lunch and dinner were monitored in the laboratory. Evening snacks and breakfast the next day were assessed through food diaries. Visual-analog-scale ratings including hunger and fullness were collected throughout the test days. Single-meal olestra substitution produced a significant dose-related reduction in the amount and percentage of energy from fat consumed daily with a reciprocal increase in carbohydrate intake. Daily energy intakes were not significantly different nor did ratings of hunger and fullness vary systematically between conditions. Consumption of olestra can reduce fat intake and increase carbohydrate intake without affecting total daily energy intake or usual patterns of hunger and fullness.

Fat substitution and food intake: effect of replacing fat with sucrose polyester at lunch or evening meals

“…In a previous study sucrose polyester (SPE) was substituted for fat at a breakfast meal and subjects were free to compensate for the reduction in energy over the remainder of the day. Indeed, subjects demonstrated good Compensation for the larger 34 g fat replacement Rolls et al 1992) at least to the high dose of SPE. Conversely in two recent studies fat intake was reduced by 55 g using SPE substitution over 1 d by making small SPE substitutions on either four (meal) or five (snack) eating occasions.…”

“…The different experimental outcomes may be attributed to the distinct methodologies which have been employed. Certain studies have found that fat has an equivalent satiating efficiency to carbohydrate and that manipulations of energy using fat are accurately compensated for by later adjustments in intake (Foltin et al 1990;Rolls et al 1992). Other studies have demonstrated that addition of a fat supplement to a basic breakfast has no effect on subsequent intake whilst an isoenergetic carbohydrate supplement exerts a short-term effect on appetite control (Cotton et al 1994).…”

Reducing ice cream energy density does not condition decreased acceptance or engender compensation following repeated exposure

“…The ®nding that our subjects did not end up preferring the more energy-dense ice cream suggests that individuals following a weight loss regimen will not necessarily be inclined to switch to normocaloric versions when freely available. Our data do not allow us to predict how consumers might respond when the reduced fat and energy content of their foods are unconcealed, although some recent reports (Rolls et al, 1992;Miller et al, 1995) suggest that subjects tend to eat more of a food when they know that the fat content has been reduced.…”

Feeding behavior, obesity, and neuroeconomics

“…Most humans live in closed economies; within that context some encounters with food are essentially an open economy, such as the time available for lunch or its net cost. Many studies in humans have examined within-meal regulation, such as the effect of a preload or first course on intake of a test meal or second course [25]. However, these types of study often show carry-over effects whenever multiple meals (approaching a closed economy) have been included in the analysis [25,26].…”