Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

The effect of viscosity on ad libitum food intake

International Journal of Obesity volume 32, pages 676–683 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Background:

Energy-yielding liquids elicit weak suppressive appetite responses and weak compensatory responses, suggesting that liquid calories might lead to a positive energy balance. However, data is often derived from foods differing in many characteristics other than viscosity.

Objective:

To investigate the effect of viscosity on ad libitum food intake in real-life setting and to investigate whether a difference in ad libitum intake is related to eating rate and/or eating effort.

Design:

In real-life setting 108 nonrestrained subjects (26±7 years, BMI 22.7±2.4 kg m−2) received a chocolate flavored liquid, semi-liquid and semi-solid milk-based product, similar in palatability, macronutrient composition and energy density. In laboratory setting 49 nonrestrained subjects (24±6 years, BMI 22.2±2.3 kg m−2) received the liquid or semi-solid product. Effort and eating rate were controlled by means of a peristaltic pump.

Results:

In real-life setting the intake of the liquid (809±396 g) was respectively 14 and 30% higher compared to the semi-liquid (699±391 g) and semi-solid product (566±311 g; P<0.0001). In laboratory setting, removing eating effort, resulted in a 29% (P<0.0001) intake difference between liquid (319±176 g) and semi-solid (226±122 g). Standardizing eating rate resulted in 12% difference between liquid (200±106 g) and semi-solid (176±88 g; P=0.24). If not controlled, the difference in intake between liquid (419±216 g) and semi-solid (277±130 g) was comparable to the real-life setting (34%; P<0.0001).

Conclusions:

Products different in viscosity but similar in palatability, macronutrient composition and energy density lead to significant differences in intake. This difference is partially explained by the higher eating rate of liquids.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hulshof T, De Graaf C, Weststrate JA . The effects of preloads varying in physical state and fat content on satiety and energy intake. Appetite 1993; 21: 273–286.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mattes RD, Rothacker D . Beverage viscosity is inversely related to postprandial hunger in humans. Physiol Behav 2001; 74: 551–557.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tsuchiya A, Almiron-Roig E, Lluch A, Guyonnet D, Drewnowski A . Higher satiety ratings following yogurt consumption relative to fruit drink or dairy fruit drink. J Am Diet Assoc 2006; 106: 550–557.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Haber GB, Heaton KW, Murphy D, Burroughs LF . Depletion and disruption of dietary fibre. Effects on satiety, plasma-glucose, and serum-insulin. Lancet 1977; 2: 679–682.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mattes RD . Dietary compensation by humans for supplemental energy provided as ethanol or carbohydrate in fluids. Physiol Behav 1996; 59: 179–187.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tournier A, Louis-Sylvestre J . Effect of the physical state of a food on subsequent intake in human subjects. Appetite 1991; 16: 17–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. DiMeglio DP, Mattes RD . Liquid versus solid carbohydrate: effects on food intake and body weight. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000; 24: 794–800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. De Castro JM . The effects of the spontaneous ingestion of particular foods or beverages on the meal pattern and overall nutrient intake of humans. Physiol Behav 1993; 53: 1133–1144.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tordoff MG, Alleva AM . Effect of drinking soda sweetened with aspartame or high-fructose corn syrup on food intake and body weight. Am J Clin Nutr 1990; 51: 963–969.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Malik VS, Schulze MB, Hu FB . Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr 2006; 84: 274–288.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schulze MB, Manson JE, Ludwig DS, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC et al. Sugar-sweetened beverages, weight gain, and incidence of type 2 diabetes in young and middle-aged women. JAMA 2004; 292: 927–934.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Raben A, Vasilaras TH, Moller AC, Astrup A . Sucrose compared with artificial sweeteners: different effects on ad libitum food intake and body weight after 10 wk of supplementation in overweight subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 2002; 76: 721–729.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Blundell JE, Green S, Burley V . Carbohydrates and human appetite. Am J Clin Nutr 1994; 59: 728S–734S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hetherington MM . Sensory-specific satiety and its importance in meal termination. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1996; 20: 113–117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Strien T . Eating behaviour personality traits and body mass. PhD thesis, Wageningen, Landbouwhogeschool, 1986.

  16. WHO. Principles for the estimation of energy requirements. Energy and Protein Requirements. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation, 2nd edn. World Health Organization: Geneva, 1985, pp 34–52.

  17. Hulshof K, Ocké M, Van Rossum C, Buurma-Rethans E, Brants H, Drijvers J et al. Resultaten van de Voedselconsumptionpeiling 2003. Report 350030002/2004 RIVM, National Institute for Public Health and the environment, 2003.

  18. Kissileff HR, Klingsberg G, Van Itallie TB . Universal eating monitor for continuous recording of solid or liquid consumption in man. Am J Physiol 1980; 238: R14–R22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wansink B, Painter JE, North J . Bottomless bowls: why visual cues of portion size may influence intake. Obes Res 2005; 13: 93–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Anderson GH, Moore SE . Dietary proteins in the regulation of food intake and body weight in humans. J Nutr 2004; 134: 974S–979S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Halton TL, Hu FB . The effects of high protein diets on thermogenesis, satiety and weight loss: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr 2004; 23: 373–385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mattes R . Hunger ratings are not a valid proxy measure of reported food intake in humans. Appetite 1990; 15: 103–113.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Picciano MF . Human milk: nutritional aspects of a dynamic food. Biol Neonate 1998; 74: 84–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McDaniel MR, Barker E, Lederer CL . Sensory characterization of human milk. J Dairy Sci 1989; 72: 1149–1158.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Davidson TL, Swithers SE . A Pavlovian approach to the problem of obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2004; 28: 933–935.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all participants in these studies and all practical assistants, especially Themistoklis Altinzoglou, Els Siebelink and Miranda Janssen; CineMec cinema in Ede for their hospitality and especially Vico Duisings for his assistance during the real-life setting experiment; NIZO food research, Ede, the Netherlands especially Marja Kanning; Truus Kosmeyer for the chemical analyses and Harry Baptist for the rheological measurements. The studies were funded by Top Institute Food and Nutrition. TI Food and Nutrition, formerly known as WCFS, is a unique public/private partnership that generates vision on scientific breakthroughs in food and nutrition, resulting in the development of innovative products and technologies that respond to consumer demands for safe, tasty and healthy foods. Partners are major Dutch food companies and research organizations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Top Institute Food and Nutrition, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    N Zijlstra, M Mars, R A de Wijk, M S Westerterp-Plantenga & C de Graaf

  2. Division of Human Nutrition, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    N Zijlstra, M Mars & C de Graaf

  3. Centre for Innovative Consumer Studies, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    R A de Wijk

  4. Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    M S Westerterp-Plantenga

Authors
  1. N Zijlstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M Mars
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R A de Wijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M S Westerterp-Plantenga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C de Graaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C de Graaf.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zijlstra, N., Mars, M., de Wijk, R. et al. The effect of viscosity on ad libitum food intake. Int J Obes 32, 676–683 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803776

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803776

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links