Table 2.
Studies examining the effect of manipulating eating rate and mastication speed in patients with overweight/obesity.
| First Author, Year, (Ref) | Participants | Study Design | Eating Rate Manipulation | Ad Libitum Meal after Standardized Meal | Hunger Measurements | Biochemical Profile and Hormones Response | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koidis 2014 [32] | N = 14 | Standardized breakfast and 3 h later a test meal | Standardized breakfast: blueberry muffin and orange juice (425 kcal) | no | Type: VAS | Not measured | Overweight/obese individuals ate at a faster rate compared to the normal-weight group |
| 9 females | Two different ER for each group | Test meal: chicken salad sandwich, a yoghurt and a blackcurrant drink (610 kcal) | Time: before test meal and at 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120 and 180 min | ||||
| 5 males | Two separate sessions | Fast ER group: consumption in 8 ± 3 min | |||||
| Age: 22.1 ± 1.7 years | Slow ER group: consumption in 31 ± 10 min | ||||||
| 7 normal-weight group BMI: 20.3 ± 2 kg/m2 | |||||||
| 7 overweight or obese group BMI: 31.7 ± 6.6 kg/m2 | |||||||
| Karl 2011 [9] | N = 25 | Three test meals with different ER | Test meal: corned beef hash | Ad libitum meal 3h after test meal: lasagna | Type: SLIM | Postprandial glucose, insulin, PYY, and leptin were not affected by ER | Eating slowly delayed time to peak fullness, but did not alter peak fullness |
| 15 normal weight | Each volunteer received all three meals | Volunteers consumed 40% of their total energy expenditure | Time: before test meal and at 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120 and 180 min | ER altered the postprandial CCK and PP response, but no effects on AUC were observed | Ad libitum energy intake was not different between sessions | ||
| 8 males | Mandometer: | Meal duration | |||||
| 7 females | constant ER by following a preprogrammed eating curve on a screen | FM: 7 min | |||||
| 10 obese | MM: 14 min | ||||||
| 8 males | SM: 28 min | ||||||
| 2 females | |||||||
| Age: 30 ± 12 years | |||||||
| BMI: 27.3 ± 6.7 kg/m2 | |||||||
| Shah 2014 [33] | N = 70 | Ad libitum meal at two different speeds | Test meal: Vegetable pasta | no | Type: VAS | Not measured | During the slow compared to the fast condition: |
| 36 females | Two separate days | Females: 900 g (1.300 kcal) | Time: before test meal and at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 45, 60 min | Energy intake was significantly lower in normal-weight group | |||
| 34 males | Males: 1.200 g (1.734 kcal) | ||||||
| 35 normal weight | Fast condition: with no pause between bites | ||||||
| Age: 33.3 ± 12.5 years | Slow condition: with pause between bites | ||||||
| BMI: 23.9 ± 2.6 kg/m2 | |||||||
| 35 Overweight or obese | |||||||
| Age: 44.1 ± 13 years | |||||||
| BMI: 31.3 ± 4.6 kg/m2 | |||||||
| Martin 2007 [34] | N=48 | First meal: | Test meal: popcorn chicken (1000 g) cut into standard bite size units 8 g | no | Type: VAS | Not measured | Reduced rate and combined rate meals resulted in less food intake compared to baseline for males, but not for females |
| 22 males | Acclimation meal to determine ER of each participant | Baseline: mimic acclimation rate | Time: each minute during the meal (desire to eat) | ||||
| 26 females | Ad libitum meal at three different ER conditions | Reduced rate: by 50% of acclimation meal | Before and after the meal (hunger, desire to eat, fullness, prospective food consumption, thirst) | ||||
| Age: 30.7 ± 10.2 years | Universal eating monitors to record food intake and generate cumulative food intake curves | Combined rate: acclimation rate at the first half and 50% reduced at the rest of the meal | |||||
| BMI: 30.1 ± 2.9 kg/m2 | |||||||
| Scisco 2011 [35] | N = 30 | Ad libitum test meal at three different speeds | Test meal: mini waffle 72 bite size pieces | no | Type: VAS | Not measured | Energy intake was less in the slow rate condition compared with the feedback condition |
| 23 females | Three separate sessions | Baseline condition | Time: before and after the test meal | ||||
| 7 males | Bite data were collected from an attached athletic wrist-band on the dominant wrist | Feedback: baseline with bite rate feedback | |||||
| Age: 19.7 ± 3.5 years BMI: 25.04 ± 6.49 kg/m2 | Slow bite rate: 50% slower from baseline | ||||||
| Smitt 2011 [36] | N = 11 | Three ad libitum test meals | Test meal: 500 g cooked pasta with pesto (820 kj/100 g) | no | Type: VAS | Not measured | Participants ate 12% less when chewing at 35 CPM compared to 10 CPM |
| 4 males | CPM were measured by | Session 1: Ad libitum chewing | Time: before and after the test meal | 35 CPM resulted in longer meal duration, but also faster chewing (chews/sec) | |||
| 7 females | EMG | Session 2: 10 CPM | |||||
| 6 normal weight | Session 3: 35 CPM | ||||||
| BMI: 22.0 ± 2.0 kg/m2 | |||||||
| 5 obese | |||||||
| BMI: 33.6 ±2.1 kg/m2 | |||||||
| Spiegel 1993 [37] | N = 18 females | Ad libitum test meal with 5 different bite size pieces | Test meal: three bite sizes of tuna or turkey (5 g, 10 g, 15 g pieces) and two bite sizes of bagel with cream cheese (6 g and 12 g pieces) | no | Type: VAS | Not measured | As bite size decreased from 15 g to 5 g, the average ingestion rate decreased from 19.4 ± 2.0 to 15.9 ± 2 g/min |
| 9 normal weight | Five separate sessions | Time: before and after the test meal | The initial ingestion rate was decreased from 30.0 ± 2.9 to 19.6 ± 1.7 g/min | ||||
| Age: 25.1 ± 8.6 years | Chewing was monitored through | ||||||
| BMI: 21.1 ± 1.6 kg/m2 | EMG | ||||||
| 9 obese | |||||||
| Age: 32.4 ± 10.1 years | |||||||
| BMI: 32.6 ± 5.8 kg/m2 |
Abbreviations: N: number; BMI: body mass index; ER: eating rate; VAS: visual analogue scale; FM: fast meal; MM: medium meal; SM: slow meal; SLIM: satiety labeled intensity magnitude scale; PYY: peptide tyrosine tyrosine; CCK: cholecystokinin; PP: pancreatic polypeptide; AUC: area under the curve; CMP: chews per mouthful; EMG: electromyography.