Claudia S. Tang , Keri McCrickerd , Ciaran G. Forde
{"title":"胡萝卜测试\":描述口腔加工行为和进食率个体差异的方法","authors":"Claudia S. Tang , Keri McCrickerd , Ciaran G. Forde","doi":"10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Eating rate is a modifiable risk factor for obesity and efficient methods to objectively characterise an individual’s oral processing behaviours could help better identify people at risk of increased energy consumption. Many previous approaches to characterise oral processing and eating rate have relied on specialised equipment or wearable devices that are time consuming, expensive or require expertise to administer. The current trial used video-coding of the consumption of a standardised test food (the ‘carrot test’) to measure oral processing.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>We sought (i) to test whether self-reported eating rate (SRER) is predictive of food oral processing derived from coded eating behaviours captured in the laboratory with a standardised test food, and (ii) to test whether differences in SRER are predictive of oral processing behaviours, eating rate and intake of a test meal.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Two hundred and fifty-three volunteers (86 male and 167 female, mean age 39.5 ± 13.6 years, mean BMI 22.2 ± 3.4 kg/m<sup>2</sup>) provided their SRER and anthropometric measurements of height, weight and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) percentage fat mass. Participants were also video recorded eating a fixed 50 g portion of carrot and an <em>ad libitum</em> lunch meal of fried rice. Average eating rate (g/min), bite size (g) and number of chews per bite for the carrot and lunch were derived through behavioural coding of the videos. Energy intake (kcal) was recorded at lunch and a later afternoon snack.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Faster SRER significantly predicted faster eating rate, larger bite size and more chews per bite observed during intake of the carrot (<em>ß</em> = −0.26–0.21, <em>p</em> ≤ 0.001) and the lunch (<em>ß</em> = −0.26–0.35, <em>p</em> ≤ 0.014). SRER did not significantly predict intake at lunch or during the afternoon snack (<em>ß</em> = 0.05–0.07, <em>p</em> ≥ 0.265). Participants’ oral processing of the carrot significantly predicted oral processing of the lunch (<em>ß</em> = −0.25–0.40, <em>p</em> ≤ 0.047) and faster eating rate of the carrot significantly predicted increased lunch intake (<em>ß</em> = 0.119, <em>p</em> = 0.045). None of the oral processing behaviours predicted afternoon snack intake (<em>ß</em> = −0.01–0.05, <em>p</em> ≥ 0.496). None of these associations were moderated by BMI or body composition.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We confirm that SRER is a valid measure of group level differences in individual oral processing behaviours, but did not predict an individual’s energy intake at a lunch-time meal. With this approach, it is possible to characterise differences in eating rate by coding eating behaviours for a standardized test food (in this case, a fixed portion of raw carrot). This approach could be used to provide an objective measure of a person’s habitual oral processing behaviour, and was shown to be a significant predictor of eating rate and energy intake for a later test meal.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":322,"journal":{"name":"Food Quality and Preference","volume":"122 ","pages":"Article 105266"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095032932400168X/pdfft?md5=fe632d940d63328898f3cfa8ccc2b81c&pid=1-s2.0-S095032932400168X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ‘Carrot Test’: An approach to characterize individual differences in oral processing behaviour and eating rate\",\"authors\":\"Claudia S. Tang , Keri McCrickerd , Ciaran G. Forde\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Eating rate is a modifiable risk factor for obesity and efficient methods to objectively characterise an individual’s oral processing behaviours could help better identify people at risk of increased energy consumption. Many previous approaches to characterise oral processing and eating rate have relied on specialised equipment or wearable devices that are time consuming, expensive or require expertise to administer. The current trial used video-coding of the consumption of a standardised test food (the ‘carrot test’) to measure oral processing.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>We sought (i) to test whether self-reported eating rate (SRER) is predictive of food oral processing derived from coded eating behaviours captured in the laboratory with a standardised test food, and (ii) to test whether differences in SRER are predictive of oral processing behaviours, eating rate and intake of a test meal.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Two hundred and fifty-three volunteers (86 male and 167 female, mean age 39.5 ± 13.6 years, mean BMI 22.2 ± 3.4 kg/m<sup>2</sup>) provided their SRER and anthropometric measurements of height, weight and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) percentage fat mass. Participants were also video recorded eating a fixed 50 g portion of carrot and an <em>ad libitum</em> lunch meal of fried rice. Average eating rate (g/min), bite size (g) and number of chews per bite for the carrot and lunch were derived through behavioural coding of the videos. Energy intake (kcal) was recorded at lunch and a later afternoon snack.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Faster SRER significantly predicted faster eating rate, larger bite size and more chews per bite observed during intake of the carrot (<em>ß</em> = −0.26–0.21, <em>p</em> ≤ 0.001) and the lunch (<em>ß</em> = −0.26–0.35, <em>p</em> ≤ 0.014). SRER did not significantly predict intake at lunch or during the afternoon snack (<em>ß</em> = 0.05–0.07, <em>p</em> ≥ 0.265). Participants’ oral processing of the carrot significantly predicted oral processing of the lunch (<em>ß</em> = −0.25–0.40, <em>p</em> ≤ 0.047) and faster eating rate of the carrot significantly predicted increased lunch intake (<em>ß</em> = 0.119, <em>p</em> = 0.045). None of the oral processing behaviours predicted afternoon snack intake (<em>ß</em> = −0.01–0.05, <em>p</em> ≥ 0.496). None of these associations were moderated by BMI or body composition.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We confirm that SRER is a valid measure of group level differences in individual oral processing behaviours, but did not predict an individual’s energy intake at a lunch-time meal. With this approach, it is possible to characterise differences in eating rate by coding eating behaviours for a standardized test food (in this case, a fixed portion of raw carrot). This approach could be used to provide an objective measure of a person’s habitual oral processing behaviour, and was shown to be a significant predictor of eating rate and energy intake for a later test meal.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Food Quality and Preference\",\"volume\":\"122 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105266\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095032932400168X/pdfft?md5=fe632d940d63328898f3cfa8ccc2b81c&pid=1-s2.0-S095032932400168X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Food Quality and Preference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095032932400168X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Quality and Preference","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095032932400168X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The ‘Carrot Test’: An approach to characterize individual differences in oral processing behaviour and eating rate
Background
Eating rate is a modifiable risk factor for obesity and efficient methods to objectively characterise an individual’s oral processing behaviours could help better identify people at risk of increased energy consumption. Many previous approaches to characterise oral processing and eating rate have relied on specialised equipment or wearable devices that are time consuming, expensive or require expertise to administer. The current trial used video-coding of the consumption of a standardised test food (the ‘carrot test’) to measure oral processing.
Objective
We sought (i) to test whether self-reported eating rate (SRER) is predictive of food oral processing derived from coded eating behaviours captured in the laboratory with a standardised test food, and (ii) to test whether differences in SRER are predictive of oral processing behaviours, eating rate and intake of a test meal.
Methods
Two hundred and fifty-three volunteers (86 male and 167 female, mean age 39.5 ± 13.6 years, mean BMI 22.2 ± 3.4 kg/m2) provided their SRER and anthropometric measurements of height, weight and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) percentage fat mass. Participants were also video recorded eating a fixed 50 g portion of carrot and an ad libitum lunch meal of fried rice. Average eating rate (g/min), bite size (g) and number of chews per bite for the carrot and lunch were derived through behavioural coding of the videos. Energy intake (kcal) was recorded at lunch and a later afternoon snack.
Results
Faster SRER significantly predicted faster eating rate, larger bite size and more chews per bite observed during intake of the carrot (ß = −0.26–0.21, p ≤ 0.001) and the lunch (ß = −0.26–0.35, p ≤ 0.014). SRER did not significantly predict intake at lunch or during the afternoon snack (ß = 0.05–0.07, p ≥ 0.265). Participants’ oral processing of the carrot significantly predicted oral processing of the lunch (ß = −0.25–0.40, p ≤ 0.047) and faster eating rate of the carrot significantly predicted increased lunch intake (ß = 0.119, p = 0.045). None of the oral processing behaviours predicted afternoon snack intake (ß = −0.01–0.05, p ≥ 0.496). None of these associations were moderated by BMI or body composition.
Conclusion
We confirm that SRER is a valid measure of group level differences in individual oral processing behaviours, but did not predict an individual’s energy intake at a lunch-time meal. With this approach, it is possible to characterise differences in eating rate by coding eating behaviours for a standardized test food (in this case, a fixed portion of raw carrot). This approach could be used to provide an objective measure of a person’s habitual oral processing behaviour, and was shown to be a significant predictor of eating rate and energy intake for a later test meal.
期刊介绍:
Food Quality and Preference is a journal devoted to sensory, consumer and behavioural research in food and non-food products. It publishes original research, critical reviews, and short communications in sensory and consumer science, and sensometrics. In addition, the journal publishes special invited issues on important timely topics and from relevant conferences. These are aimed at bridging the gap between research and application, bringing together authors and readers in consumer and market research, sensory science, sensometrics and sensory evaluation, nutrition and food choice, as well as food research, product development and sensory quality assurance. Submissions to Food Quality and Preference are limited to papers that include some form of human measurement; papers that are limited to physical/chemical measures or the routine application of sensory, consumer or econometric analysis will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution in line with the journal''s coverage as outlined below.