Modifying Food Texture 2015
DOI: 10.1016/b978-1-78242-334-8.00008-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modifying the texture of foods for infants and young children

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
52
0
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 112 publications
1
52
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…It has been suggested that the period from 4 to 6 months of age is a favorable window for the introduction of foods with new flavors, while the period from 6 to 10 months is a favorable window for the introduction of complementary foods with more complex textures [28] . Due to limited oral skills at the onset of CF, texture is one of the sensory properties that requires the most adaptation to enable the infant to process and swallow the food [16] . About a quarter of infants experience difficulties with pieces in foods [29] , but such difficulties should not drive parents to delay introduction of more solid textures, since delaying introduction to lumpy foods beyond 10 months is associated with texture acceptance problems at later ages [30] .…”
Section: Effect Of Sensory Properties Of Foods On Their Acceptance Almentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been suggested that the period from 4 to 6 months of age is a favorable window for the introduction of foods with new flavors, while the period from 6 to 10 months is a favorable window for the introduction of complementary foods with more complex textures [28] . Due to limited oral skills at the onset of CF, texture is one of the sensory properties that requires the most adaptation to enable the infant to process and swallow the food [16] . About a quarter of infants experience difficulties with pieces in foods [29] , but such difficulties should not drive parents to delay introduction of more solid textures, since delaying introduction to lumpy foods beyond 10 months is associated with texture acceptance problems at later ages [30] .…”
Section: Effect Of Sensory Properties Of Foods On Their Acceptance Almentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the limited oral skills of the infant, texture is one of the properties that requires the most adaptation to enable the infant to ‘process’ and swallow the food [70]. A significant proportion of infants (23%) have difficulties with foods containing pieces [71].…”
Section: Impact Of the Sensory Properties Of Foods On Their Acceptmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Children were also divided into three groups based on the age of introduction of complementary foods; the early introduction group consisted of children who received complementary foods before 4 months of age (n=70), typical group who began complementary feeding between 4-6 months of age (n=204), and late group, who were introduced to complementary foods after 6 months of age (n=70). Typical introduction was defined as 4-6 months of age as cross-sectional data suggests that the majority of infants world-wide are introduced to complementary foods between 4-6 months of age, despite WHO recommendations to begin complementary feeding at 6 months [38]. Children who began complementary feeding after the typical age of introduction were classified as a "late group".…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly it is possible to change eating rate indirectly through the use of food textures that are equally liked, but require longer chewing [11,13,18,43,58]. Although many studies have focused on the impact of timing of introduction and food texture quality on the development of children's eating behaviour [38,64,65], to date the efficacy of using food texture to produce sustained reductions in children's eating rates, and subsequent reduction in energy intake has not been demonstrated.The current study surveyed a large multi-ethnic sample of young children using a comprehensive objective assessment of features of eating microstructure. However, despite the large sample size, there was an unbalanced comparison between children with healthy weight and overweight status, as there were only a small number of children with BMI in the overweight range in the cohort.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%