Quantifying the imprecision of energy intake of humans to compensate for imposed energetic errors: A challenge to the physiological control of human food intake

Levitsky, David A.; Sewall, Anna; Zhong, Yingyi; Barre, Laura; Shoen, Stefan; Agaronnik, Nicole; LeClair, Jean-Luc; Zhuo, Wendy; Pacanowski, Carly R.

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2018.11.017

Cited by 18 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the reduction from the 'small-normal' to the 'smaller than normal' portion (412 kcal/day reduction in food provided across two meals) resulted in a reduction to intake from those meals of 327 kcal/day, and an overall reduction in total daily energy intake of 210 kcals. These findings are consistent with the results of a systematic review which demonstrated that energy deficits imposed by experimental manipulation are poorly compensated for [30]. A potential argument against reducing portions of commercially available food products is that consumers may compensate through additional eating for the reduced portions which may result in no overall benefit to total energy intake [31].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Reductions to main meal portion sizes reduce daily energy intake regardless of perceived normality of portion size: a 5 day cross-over laboratory experiment

Haynes

Hardman

Halford

et al. 2020

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Smaller portions may help to reduce energy intake. However, there may be a limit to the magnitude of the portion size reduction that can be made before consumers respond by increasing intake of other food immediately or at later meals. We tested the theoretical prediction that reductions to portion size would result in a significant reduction to daily energy intake when the resulting portion was visually perceived as 'normal' in size, but that a reduction resulting in a 'smaller than normal' portion size would cause immediate or later additional eating. Methods: Over three 5-day periods, daily energy intake was measured in a controlled laboratory study using a randomized crossover design (N = 30). The served portion size of the main meal component of lunch and dinner was manipulated in three conditions: 'large-normal' (747 kcal), 'small-normal' (543 kcal), and 'smaller than normal' (339 kcal). Perceived 'normality' of portion sizes was determined by two pilot studies. Ad libitum daily energy intake from all meals and snacks was measured. Results: Daily energy intake in the 'large-normal' condition was 2543 kcals. Daily energy intake was significantly lower in the 'small-normal' portion size condition (mean difference − 95 kcal/d, 95% CI [− 184, − 6], p = .04); and was also significantly lower in the 'smaller than normal' than the 'small-normal' condition (mean difference − 210 kcal/d, 95% CI [− 309, − 111], p < .001). Contrary to predictions, there was no evidence that the degree of additional food consumption observed was greater when portions were reduced past the point of appearing normal in size. Conclusions: Reductions to the portion size of main-meal foods resulted in significant decreases in daily energy intake. Additional food consumption did not offset this effect, even when portions were reduced to the point that they were no longer perceived as being normal in size.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Reductions to main meal portion sizes reduce daily energy intake regardless of perceived normality of portion size: a 5 day cross-over laboratory experiment

Haynes

Hardman

Halford

et al. 2020

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another study, however, showed that not all of the gained weight is lost following overfeeding [54]. This observation is supported by studies of holiday weight gain [48,49] (Fig 3) and might be explained by homeostatic inaccuracies, which lead to an insufficient lowering of food intake in most people following overfeeding [58,59]. Another explanation for the variation in response to overfeeding is the heterogeneous protocols used in the studies, including differences in the duration of overfeeding [60,61], total caloric surplus [58], and diet composition [62].…”

Section: A Damaged Defense: How Do Modern Humans Respond To Overfeeding?mentioning

confidence: 80%

The unidentified hormonal defense against weight gain

Lund

Morville

et al. 2020

PLoS Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human biology has evolved to keep body fat within a range that supports survival. During the last 25 years, obesity biologists have uncovered key aspects of physiology that prevent fat mass from becoming too low. In contrast, the mechanisms that counteract excessive adipose expansion are largely unknown. Evidence dating back to the 1950s suggests the existence of a blood-borne molecule that defends against weight gain. In this article, we discuss the research supporting an "unidentified factor of overfeeding" and models that explain its role in body weight control. If it exists, revealing the identity of this factor could end a longlasting enigma of energy balance regulation and facilitate a much-needed breakthrough in the pharmacological treatment of obesity. Obesity and its biological roots Historically, fatness was a desirable attribute associated with social status, wealth, and fertility [1,2]. Although this view is still dominant in certain cultures, the Western world recognizes adiposity as a chronic condition that hampers human health [3]. Individuals with obesity are often stigmatized [4], and many lean individuals erroneously believe that severe overweight is a self-inflicted situation caused by eating too much and exercising too little. The simplicity of this thinking is opposed by the complex causes of obesity [5] and by the "brainteasing" biology that makes it very hard for millions of people to fight their own fat mass [3]. Biomedical assistance is likely needed to win this battle, and in order to provide this support, perhaps it is time for obesity scientists to consider the less-beaten research paths. Instead of searching for yet another slimming agent, it might be better to reveal why some people easily put on pounds while others stay lean. In contrast to conventional assumptions about superior self-control and willpower, human studies have demonstrated that weight gain resistance has deep biological roots [6,7] (Fig 1). Characterizing these is among the critical steps toward an improved understanding of obesity etiology. Importantly, geneticists have finally started to uncover the genome of thinness [8,9], but their efforts might be fruitless unless physiologists determine the fundamental features of fat mass regulation encoded by these genes.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have focused on establishing social facilitation effects on eating during a single meal, and so it remains unclear whether such effects persist across multiple meal occasions. Evidence from the wider eating behaviour literature suggests that people are generally poor at compensating for changes in calorie intake [19]. For example, participants who were deprived of breakfast did not compensate for this energy deficit by consuming additional calories at lunch [20].…”

Section: What Are the Longer-term Consequences Of Social Eating For I...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The social facilitation of eating: why does the mere presence of others cause an increase in energy intake?

Ruddock

Brunstrom

Higgs

2021

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantifying the imprecision of energy intake of humans to compensate for imposed energetic errors: A challenge to the physiological control of human food intake

Cited by 18 publications

References 30 publications

Reductions to main meal portion sizes reduce daily energy intake regardless of perceived normality of portion size: a 5 day cross-over laboratory experiment

Reductions to main meal portion sizes reduce daily energy intake regardless of perceived normality of portion size: a 5 day cross-over laboratory experiment

The unidentified hormonal defense against weight gain

The social facilitation of eating: why does the mere presence of others cause an increase in energy intake?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About