1. Does Texture Affect Appetite
Does Texture Affect Appetite? A Study of Sensory Specific Satiety in College-Aged Males
Sc space grant symbol
Project Leader: Amelia Keaton

2. Humans Exhibit Sensory Specific Satiety
Novel sensory properties of foods induce satiated subjects to eat more in a multi-course meal (Rolls,B.J. 1980)
Model of overeating and weight gain
Is this a possible method of increasing food consumption in astronauts who experience a loss of appetite?

3. Sensory Properties That Affect Food Intake in Humans
Portion Size (Rolls, B.J., 2002)
Palatability (Rolls, B.J. et al, 1982; Rolls, E.T., 1996)
Taste
Odor
Appearance
Texture?

4. Why is this important?
If we can manipulate the texture of a limited number of food items, then we can possibly increase food intake in astronauts
This would prove especially important for long-term space missions and lunar or planetary colonization

5. Hypothesis
Hungry subjects fed to satiety on foods of one texture will eat more of the same foods when presented as a different texture.
Due to past research on sensory properties

6. Methods: Meals Crackers (4 kcal/g) Water Crushed or Chunked:
Pineapple (0.6 kcal/g)
Cheese (3.9 kcal/g)
Peanuts (5.8 kcal/g)
Crushed
Chunked

7. Experimental Timeline
Subject
Arrives
(males
age 17-22)
Fasted ~12 hrs
Signs Waiver
Reads instructions
Meal 1: T=0mins
Crushed Meal
Presented
VAS Completed
T=15mins
Meal 1 ends
5min break
Assigned
to crush or chunk
group
for Meal 2
Meal 2: T=20mins
Meal 2 presented
(crush or chunk)
VAS completed
T= 35mins
Meal 2 ends
Subject Released
Instructions: 1) Do not mix food.
2) Drink all water within 15 minute meal.
3) Eat until you’ve had enough during each meal.
4) Do not communicate with other subjects about the food.
Animate-show guidelines
VAS-explain or
Data Collection and Analysis
Consumption was measured by mass and calories after each meal
One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA and post hoc Student Newman Keuls testing
T-tests where appropriate

8. Subjects Crush/crush n= 19 Crush/chunk n= 17 p-value (t-test)
Height (cm)
180.0 ±1.9
181.2 ± 1.7
0.637
Weight (kg)
80.0 ± 3.3
82.1 ± 3.7
0.676
Age (yr)
19.0 ± 0.3
19.8 ± 0.3
0.075
Body Mass Index
(range)
24.3 ± 0.8
20-32
24.9 ± 0.8
0.567

9. Results: Meal 1

10. Visual Analogue Ratings: Meal 1

11. Meal 1 Intake (mass)
Crush/chunk group consumed more food by chance-no sig. difference in individual food weights, just total

12. Meal 1 Intake (Calories)
Pilot Study-not sure why crush/chunk group ate more

13. Results: Meal 2 or or

14. Visual Analogue Ratings: Meal 2*
~40% *
~20%

15. Meal 2 Intake (mass)
P value for cheese was no significant, but close (0.067). Though pineapple consumption was higher by mass in second group, the food is not energy dense and

16. Meal 2 Intake (calories)
While more significantly more mass was not consumed by the crush/chunk group, the fact that it is more energy dense cause total caloric intake for this group to be significantly higher

17. Summary
Subjects offered a different texture in Meal 2 consumed significantly more mass and calories than those offered the same texture
Subjects offered a different texture in Meal 2 rated that meal as more appealing than those offered a second meal of the same texture

18. Conclusions and Applications
Humans demonstrate Texture-Specific Satiety
Changes in texture of some foods are sufficient to increase the amount of food consumed in a multi-course meal
By changing the texture of foods, NASA scientists may be able to increase food intake for astronauts on a long-term spaceflight with limited foods available

19. Future Directions for Human Studies
In order to increase food intake, it may be possible to manipulate the following food properties while subjects are in a head-down tilt model of microgravity:
Palatability
Energy density
Texture

20. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Bio250 and Bio 450 classes at Wofford Colllege for collecting the background data for experiments presented today

21. Visual Analogue Ratings: Meal 2