Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
3,579-583, 1996
Copyright 1996 Elsevier Science Inc.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
0031-9384/96 $15.00 + .00
ELSEVIER
0031-9384(95)02113-A
Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, 1334 Eckles Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108 USA
Received 12 July 1994
VANDEWA'IZiR, K. AND Z. VICKERS. Higher-proteinfoods produce greater sensory-specific satiety. PHYSIOL
BEHAV 59(3) 579-583, 1996.--The objectives of this study were to determine if high-protein versions of the same
food systems show more sensory-specific satiety than lower-protein versions, and to determine the effect of these
protein differertces on hunger levels following a meal. Subjects ate a high-protein and a low-protein version of a food
system (either strawberry yogurt or a sandwich) as test meals. The high-protein strawberry yogurt test meal consisted
of a serving of strawberry yogurt that contained whey protein isolate; the low-protein yogurt test meal consisted of a
close-to-commercial strawberry yogurt. The high-protein sandwich meal consisted of a ham sandwich; the low-protein
sandwich meal consisted of a bacon sandwich. Subjects tasted small portions of a set of foods (which included a
sample of the test meal), and rated their liking of these foods before and after eating a test meal. Sensory-specific
satiety occurred for all test meals. The decreases in liking when the high-protein versions of the test meals were eaten
were significantly greater than the decreases in liking for the paired low-protein test meals. Higher-protein versions of
the test meals also decreased hunger more than the lower-protein versions.
Sensory-specific satiety
Protein
Hunger
Subjects
Forty subjects (27 females, 13 males) participated in the
sandwich study and 40 subjects (29 females, 11 males) participated in the yogurt study; 11 subjects participated in both. All
subjects were students and staff at the University of Minnesota
who liked both versions of the test meal and the foods used in the
rating set (had tasted and rated them at the midpoint or above on
a 100-mm hedonic line scale). The subjects had viewed models
Published as paper No: 21122 of the contributionseries of the MinnesotaAgriculturalExperimentStation based on research conductedunder Project
18-52.
i To whom requests for reprints should be addressed.
579
580
VANDEWATER
AND VICKERS
TABLE 1
COMPOSITION OF TEST MEALS
Ingredients
Weight
(g)
Calories
(kcal)
Protein
(g/
Fat
(g)
Carbohydrate
Ig)
16
-18.0
--.
34
20%
4.5
----.
4.5
6%
70
40
--
16
57.0
--.
73
43%
4.5
---.
4.5
6%
70
--
2
9
25
--
Yogurts:
Low-protein yogurt
Yogurt
Polycose
W.P.I.
Strawberries
ThickenUp
Strawberry flavor
Total
% of Calories
High-protein yogurt
Yogurt
W.P.I.
Strawberries
ThickenUp
Strawberry flavor
Total
% of Calories
360.0
40.0
18.0
40.0
4.5
0.15
462.65
384
160
72.0
44
18.0
.
678
360.0
57.0
40.0
4.5
0.45
462.95
384
228.0
44
18.0
.
674
11
4.5
125.5
74%
11
4.5
85.5
51%
Sandwiches
BLT
Bread
Bacon
Mayonnaise
Polycose
Lettuce
Tomato
Total
% of Calories
Ham
Bread
Ham
Mayonnaise
Lettuce
Tomato
Total
% of Calories
56.8
18
20
12.0
25.0
50.0
181.8
14.0
110.0
160
48
4
11
473
6.0
6.0
----12.0
11%
42.6
200.0
5.0
13.0
14.0
264.6
100.0
330
40
.
4
474
4.0
35.0
-.
-39.0
33%
16
--
---27
54%
12
1
2.5
40.5
36%
2
21
4
17
---
.
-27
52%
I
18
15%
o f t h e t e s t m e a l s a n d i n d i c a t e d t h e y w e r e w i l l i n g to e a t t h a t
a m o u n t o f f o o d f o r l u n c h . E a c h s u b j e c t p a r t i c i p a t e d in t w o t e s t i n g
sessions for a food system and thus ate both a high-protein and a
low-protein version of the test meal. The subjects were paid for
participating.
Foods
We prepared high- and low-protein versions of two food
systems for the test meals. A bacon, lettuce, and tomato (BLT)
sandwich or a serving of strawberry yogurt served as low-protein
meals. The matched high-protein meals consisted of a ham
TABLE 2
MEAN CHANGES IN LIKING (mm ON A 100-ram LINE SCALE) DURING A TEST MEAL FOR THE RATING SET FOODS
Uneaten Foods
Test Meal
(Eaten Food)
BLT
Ham
Low-protein yogurt
High-protein yogurt
Eaten Foods
M&M
Chip
Cheese
Juice
4.4
(2.4)
2.7
(1.6)
- 1.3
(2.7)
- 4.4
(1.5)
-1.2
(1.6)
-3.1
(2.2)
0.38
(2.3)
1.2
(2.3)
1.2
(2.5)
- 15.7
(3.3)
- 3.9
(1.9)
- 6.2
(2.1)
2.9
(2.1)
1.6
(2.5)
- 9.2
(3.2)
- 7.1
(2.0)
Mini
BLT
Mini
Ham
-27.2
(2.4)
--
-44.4
(3.9)
--
-.
Sandwich Components
Lo-Pro
Yog
-- 16.9
(2.3)
.
Hi-Pro
Yog
.
--32.6
(3.1)
Lettuce
Tomato
Ham
7.2
(2.2)
-11.9
(2.3)
- 8.6
(2.4)
- 5.1
(2.4)
-8.9
(1.9)
-11.7
(2.6)
- 9.9
(2.7)
- 11.4
(2.6)
--28.3
(3.4)
- 7.0
(2.7)
- 7.0
(2.4)
Bacon
Bread
-17.3
(2.3)
--
-9.1
(2.1)
-11.1
(2.7)
- 4.7
(1.6)
- 3.9
(2.2)
---
SENDORY-SPECIFIC SATIETY
581
TABLE 3
MEAN INITIALLIKING SCORES
Test Meal
BLT sandwich
Ham sandwich
Mean difference
SEM differelace
Low-protein Yogurt
High-protein Yogurt
Mean difference
SEM difference
86a
82 a
- 4.0
(2.5)
71 b
80a
9.2
(3.4)
Data Analysis
Ratings for liking, hunger, "how much could you eat," and
stomach fullness were measured in millimeters from the left
(low) end of the scale. Changes in the ratings were determined by
subtracting the ratings before a subject consumed a test meal
from the ratings 2 min after consuming a test meal. The data for
the sandwiches were analyzed separately from the data from the
yogurts.
SAS (15) was used to perform all of the analyses. We used an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine if the test meal
(eaten food) decreased significantly more in liking than the
uneaten foods. For this ANOVA, changes in liking served as the
dependent variable, subjects as blocks, and type of food as a
treatment factor. We created a new variable called sensoryspecific satiety by subtracting each judge's change in liking of
the eaten food from that judge's mean change in liking of the
uneaten foods (the M & M , cheese, potato chip, and juice).
ANOVAs with sensory-specific satiety as the dependent variable,
subjects as blocks, and gender or protein as treatment factors
were used to determine if the gender of the subjects or the protein
content of the test meals related to different amounts of sensoryspecific satiety.
We used paired t-tests to determine if there were differences
in the initial liking and hunger indices for the low- vs. high-protein pairs.
Procedure
RESULTS
In all cases the foods that were eaten as test meals decreased
significantly more in liking than the uneaten foods; thus,
sensory-specific satiety was observed (Table 2). The decreases in
liking for the high-protein test meals (ham sandwich, high-protein
yogurt) were significantly greater than the decreases in liking for
the low-protein versions of the test meals (BLT sandwich, lowprotein yogurt) [for sandwiches, F ( I , 79) ~ 21.2, p < 0.0001; for
yogurt, F(1, 7 9 ) = 2 0 . 4 , p <0.0001]. The mean changes in
liking for each of the test meals are shown in Table 2.
The initial liking ratings for the ham sandwich and the BLT
were not significantly different from each other. The initial liking
TABLE 4
MEAN INITIALHUNGER INDICESRATINGS* AND MEAN CHANGESFOR EACH TEST MEAL(mm)
TestMeal
B L T s~Lndwich
H a m s~mdwich
Low-protein yogurt
High-protein yogurt
Initial
Hunger
108 a
109 a
103 b
115 a
(3.5)
(2.8)
(4.1)
(3.4)
Hunger
Change
-
68 b
95 a
67 b
88 a
(4.1)
(4.0)
(3.4)
(5.2)
Initial
Fullness
25 a
28 a
39 a
31 a
(3.0)
(2.8)
(4.0)
(3.5)
Fullness
Change
67 b
100 a
71 b
89 a
(5.3)
(3.6)
(4.0)
(4.9)
Initial
"How Much
CouldYouEat"
104 a
95 a
102 a
111 a
(3.4)
(4.4)
(3.8)
(3.3)
"How Much
CouldYouEat"
Change
--
59 b
71 a
55 b
81 a
(3.8)
(6.6)
(4.1)
(4.6)
582
4).
DISCUSSION
The high-protein test meals produced more sensory-specific
satiety in both the sandwich and the yogurt food systems. These
differences are likely due to the amount of protein instead of the
amounts of other macronutrients because in the sandwich system
the low-protein BLT was relatively high in fat whereas in the
yogurt system the low-protein meal was relatively high in carbohydrate. Our results are similar to those of Hill and Blundell (5),
who observed a larger decrease in preference for high-protein
foods after a high-protein meal. Barkeling et al. (I) provided
subjects with a high-protein lunch and a high-carbohydrate lunch
and then measured subjects' motivation to eat at a subsequent
meal. Both meals produced a relative aversion for high-protein
foods, but again the effect was greater after the high-protein meal
than after the high-carbohydrate meal. Experiments done by Rolls
et al. (14) and Johnson and Vickers (6) also showed trends for
high-protein preloads to decrease more in liking than low-protein
preloads. However, neither of those studies showed significantly
greater decreases in liking for the high-protein foods.
Our observation that the high-protein versions of the test
meals produced significantly greater decreases in hunger than the
low-protein versions is also supported by several other studies.
Booth et al. (2), found that subjects consumed less at a supplemental meal after eating a high-protein lunch than after eating a
low-protein lunch. Hill and Blundell (5), found that subjects
reported significantly greater feelings of stomach fullness and
less motivation to eat after consuming a high-protein meal,
compared with consuming a high-carbohydrate meal. Johnson
and Vickers (7) found that a high-protein food was more satiating
than a high-fat food, but not more satiating than a high-carbohydrate food. Rolls et al. (13) found a trend for a decreased
intake of food after both a high-protein or a high-carbohydrate
preload.
We wanted the initial liking ratings for both versions of a test
REFERENCES
1. Barkeling, B.; Rossner, S.; Bjorvell, H. Effects of a high protein meal
(meat) and a high carbohydrate meal (vegetarian) on satiety measured
by automated computerized monitoring of subsequent food intake,
SENDORY-SPECIFIC SATIETY
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
583