-
Fifty-six participants were included in our study, filtered by VAS questionnaire of familiarity, 14 subjects in each group. The subjects' height, weight, waist circumference, hip circumference, BMI, waist-to-hip ratio and energy intake during breakfast in first study day were described in Table 1. There was no significant difference in these parameters between OF and OS groups, as well as between LF and LS groups.
Table 1. Basic Characteristics of the Lean and Overweight Participants
Items LF (n = 14) LS (n = 14) OF (n = 14) OS (n = 14) Age (y) 20.7 ± 0.8 20.9 ± 1.2 21.1 ± 1.0 20.8 ± 1.1 Height (cm) 172.2 ± 4.2 173.3 ± 5.1 173.1 ± 5.3 173.6 ± 7.0 Weight (kg) 64.2 ± 2.9 65.6 ± 3.3 80.2 ± 6.1 79.9 ± 7.2 BMI (kg/m2) 21.7 ± 0.6 21.9 ± 0.8 26.7 ± 1.5 26.5 ± 1.3 Body fat (%) 17.1 ± 0.8 17.5 ± 1.6 23.1 ± 3.2 23.4 ± 3.7 Waist circumference (cm) 79.3 ± 4.4 81.5 ± 4.4 91.3 ± 5.9 90.8 ± 6.7 Hip circumference (cm) 95.1 ± 3.7 96.9 ± 3.9 102.8 ± 4.0 103.4 ± 5.2 Waist-to-hip ratio 0.83 ± 0.03 0.84 ± 0.03 0.89 ± 0.04 0.88 ± 0.03 Food intake in first day (g) 292 ± 48 289 ± 45 311 ± 53 306 ± 49 Energy intake in first day (kcal) 1, 489 ± 242 1, 472 ± 228 1, 586 ± 269 1, 563 ± 250 Note. LF: lean friends; LS: lean strangers; OF: overweight friends; OS: overweight strangers. Data are expressed as means ± SD. As shown in Table 2, a significant difference of familiarity VAS values was found between friends and strangers groups (P < 0.01) both in lean and overweight participants. Preprandial appetite VAS, glucose and insulin concentration, and dietary satisfaction VAS were not significantly different between familiar and unfamiliar peers of both weight statures.
Table 2. VAS, Glucose and Insulin Concentration in the Lean and Overweight Participants
Items Lean Overweight LF (n = 14) LS (n = 14) OF (n = 14) OS (n = 14) Familiarity VAS (mm) 85.7 ± 14.9 26.0 ± 12.9## 87.5 ± 10.4 13.7 ± 8.4** Dietary satisfaction VAS (mm) 69.9 ± 13.2 67.6 ± 9.9 73.3 ± 11.7 70.0 ± 10.8 Preprandial hunger VAS (mm) 64.6 ± 9.4 67.0 ± 9.2 70.9 ± 9.8 68.6 ± 8.4 Preprandial satiety VAS (mm) 35.4 ± 9.0 33.9 ± 8.7 34.1 ± 8.8 33.2 ± 8.1 Preprandial glucose (mmol/L) 5.3 ± 0.4 5.2 ± 0.4 5.8 ± 0.4 5.9 ± 0.3 Preprandial insulin (μIU/mL) 1.3 ± 0.3 1.1 ± 0.3 3.2 ± 1.1 3.5 ± 1.0^^ Note. LF: lean friends; LS: lean strangers; OF: overweight friends; OS: overweight strangers. **Significantly different from OF group, P < 0.01; ##Significantly different from LF group, P < 0.01. ^^Significant difference between lean and overweight groups, P < 0.01. Data are expressed as means ± SD. -
Main effects of status (P = 0.010) and familiarity (P = 0.001) were observed, but no significant interaction between status and familiarity (P = 0.137) on energy intake during breakfast was observed (Figure 2). Regardless of status, familiar subjects' energy intake was higher than unfamiliar dyads' during their breakfast (mean ± SD: energy intake, 1, 829 ± 339 vs. 1, 548 ± 266 kcal, P = 0.001). Compared with OS group, the subjects' energy intake was significantly higher in OF group when they had breakfast with companions (mean ± SD: energy intake, 1, 989 ± 365 vs. 1, 592 ± 297 kcal, P = 0.004, Figure 2). However, no difference was found in the LF and LS groups (mean ± SD: energy intake, 1, 670 ± 228 vs. 1, 505 ± 233 kcal, Figure 2).
Figure 2. Mean ± SD energy intake by friends and strangers in lean (lean friends, n = 14; lean strangers n = 14) and overweight (overweight friends, n = 14; overweight strangers n = 14) subjects when they had breakfast with companions. A 2-factor ANOVA showed significant main effects of status (P = 0.010) and familiarity (P = 0.001) but no significant status · familiarity interaction (P = 0.451) on energy intake. **Significant difference between overweight friends and strangers (P = 0.001).
-
As shown in Table 3, a significant difference in meal duration (F = 0.189, P = 0.67; t = 0.85, P = 0.001), talking time (F = 6.10, P = 0.02; t = 9.63, P < 0.01), and chewing frequency per 10 g food (F = 0.39, P = 0.54; t = -3.89, P = 0.001) was found between OF and OS groups. However, in the same situation, only talking time was shown to exhibit significant difference between LF and LS groups (F = 19.89, P < 0.01; t = 6.79, P < 0.01).
Table 3. Influence of Familiarity on the Food Intake Parameters
Items Lean Overweight LF (n = 14) LS (n = 14) OF (n = 14) OS (n = 14) Meal duration (s) 436 ± 54 411 ± 54 482 ± 51 403 ± 59** Talking time (s) 98 ± 36 30 ± 10## 124 ± 31 35 ± 16** Chews/10 g 19.1 ± 1.9 20.5 ± 3.2 15.3 ± 1.9 17.9 ± 1.6** Note: LF: lean friends; LS: lean strangers; OF: overweight friends; OS: overweight strangers. **Significantly different from OF group, P < 0.01; ##Significantly different from LF group, P < 0.01. Data are expressed as means ± SD. -
Postprandial CCK-8 concentration rapidly increased and peaked at 30 min, and then slowly decreased. Compared with that in the OS group, the plasma concentration of CCK-8 was significantly lower in OF group at 30 (F = 4.71, P = 0.039), 60 (F = 5.73, P = 0.024), and 90 min (F = 4.87, P = 0.036), but not at 120 min. In the lean subjects, no significant differences were found between LF and LS groups at all time points (Figure 3A). Among all participants, plasma GLP-1 concentration rapidly increased and then decreased. The OS group had higher GLP-1 concentration than the OF group, and significant difference was found at 60 (F = 5.63, P = 0.025) and 90 min (F = 4.58, P = 0.042). The LS group had higher GLP-1 concentration than the LF group, but no significant differences were found at all time points (Figure 3B). Postprandial ghrelin concentration decreased for a brief period, and then increased thereafter. Plasma ghrelin concentration was significantly higher in the OF group than in the OS group at 90 (F = 5.54, P = 0.026) and 120 min (F = 4.66, P = 0.040). Compared with the LS group, no significant difference was found at all time points in the LF group (Figure 3C).
doi: 10.3967/bes2018.099
Influence of Familiarity on Energy Intake and Plasma Gut Hormone Concentration in Lean and Overweight Young Male Students
-
Abstract:
Objective This study is to examine the influence of familiarity on energy intake, eating behavior, and concentration of the plasma gut hormones in lean and overweight young male subjects. Methods Twenty-eight lean and twenty-eight overweight participants were recruited. Their food consumption was documented and analyzed when they had a test meal while they were paired with friends or strangers at the same weight stature. Their eating behavior was recorded with cameras hidden in the carton, and postprandial plasma gut hormone concentration were measured. Results Compared with overweight strangers (OS), overweight friends (OF) had increased food consumption, prolonged and decreased number of chews per 10 g food. Compared with OS, postprandial plasma concentration of cholecystokinin-8 was significantly lower in OF group at 30, 60, and 90 min, whereas the concentration of glucagon-like peptide 1 was significantly lower at 60 and 90 min. Plasma ghrelin concentration was significantly higher in the OF group than that in the OS group at 90 and 120 min. No significant differences in gut hormone concentration were observed between lean strangers (LS) and lean friends (LF) groups at all time points. Conclusion Familiarity plays an important role in increasing energy intake and in changing of postprandial gut hormone concentration in overweight individuals. -
Key words:
- Familiarity /
- Overweight /
- Energy intake /
- Gut hormone
-
Figure 2. Mean ± SD energy intake by friends and strangers in lean (lean friends, n = 14; lean strangers n = 14) and overweight (overweight friends, n = 14; overweight strangers n = 14) subjects when they had breakfast with companions. A 2-factor ANOVA showed significant main effects of status (P = 0.010) and familiarity (P = 0.001) but no significant status · familiarity interaction (P = 0.451) on energy intake. **Significant difference between overweight friends and strangers (P = 0.001).
Table 1. Basic Characteristics of the Lean and Overweight Participants
Items LF (n = 14) LS (n = 14) OF (n = 14) OS (n = 14) Age (y) 20.7 ± 0.8 20.9 ± 1.2 21.1 ± 1.0 20.8 ± 1.1 Height (cm) 172.2 ± 4.2 173.3 ± 5.1 173.1 ± 5.3 173.6 ± 7.0 Weight (kg) 64.2 ± 2.9 65.6 ± 3.3 80.2 ± 6.1 79.9 ± 7.2 BMI (kg/m2) 21.7 ± 0.6 21.9 ± 0.8 26.7 ± 1.5 26.5 ± 1.3 Body fat (%) 17.1 ± 0.8 17.5 ± 1.6 23.1 ± 3.2 23.4 ± 3.7 Waist circumference (cm) 79.3 ± 4.4 81.5 ± 4.4 91.3 ± 5.9 90.8 ± 6.7 Hip circumference (cm) 95.1 ± 3.7 96.9 ± 3.9 102.8 ± 4.0 103.4 ± 5.2 Waist-to-hip ratio 0.83 ± 0.03 0.84 ± 0.03 0.89 ± 0.04 0.88 ± 0.03 Food intake in first day (g) 292 ± 48 289 ± 45 311 ± 53 306 ± 49 Energy intake in first day (kcal) 1, 489 ± 242 1, 472 ± 228 1, 586 ± 269 1, 563 ± 250 Note. LF: lean friends; LS: lean strangers; OF: overweight friends; OS: overweight strangers. Data are expressed as means ± SD. Table 2. VAS, Glucose and Insulin Concentration in the Lean and Overweight Participants
Items Lean Overweight LF (n = 14) LS (n = 14) OF (n = 14) OS (n = 14) Familiarity VAS (mm) 85.7 ± 14.9 26.0 ± 12.9## 87.5 ± 10.4 13.7 ± 8.4** Dietary satisfaction VAS (mm) 69.9 ± 13.2 67.6 ± 9.9 73.3 ± 11.7 70.0 ± 10.8 Preprandial hunger VAS (mm) 64.6 ± 9.4 67.0 ± 9.2 70.9 ± 9.8 68.6 ± 8.4 Preprandial satiety VAS (mm) 35.4 ± 9.0 33.9 ± 8.7 34.1 ± 8.8 33.2 ± 8.1 Preprandial glucose (mmol/L) 5.3 ± 0.4 5.2 ± 0.4 5.8 ± 0.4 5.9 ± 0.3 Preprandial insulin (μIU/mL) 1.3 ± 0.3 1.1 ± 0.3 3.2 ± 1.1 3.5 ± 1.0^^ Note. LF: lean friends; LS: lean strangers; OF: overweight friends; OS: overweight strangers. **Significantly different from OF group, P < 0.01; ##Significantly different from LF group, P < 0.01. ^^Significant difference between lean and overweight groups, P < 0.01. Data are expressed as means ± SD. Table 3. Influence of Familiarity on the Food Intake Parameters
Items Lean Overweight LF (n = 14) LS (n = 14) OF (n = 14) OS (n = 14) Meal duration (s) 436 ± 54 411 ± 54 482 ± 51 403 ± 59** Talking time (s) 98 ± 36 30 ± 10## 124 ± 31 35 ± 16** Chews/10 g 19.1 ± 1.9 20.5 ± 3.2 15.3 ± 1.9 17.9 ± 1.6** Note: LF: lean friends; LS: lean strangers; OF: overweight friends; OS: overweight strangers. **Significantly different from OF group, P < 0.01; ##Significantly different from LF group, P < 0.01. Data are expressed as means ± SD. -
[1] Wang Y, T Lobstein. Worldwide trends in childhood overweight and obesity. Int J Pediatr Obes, 2006; 1, 11-25. doi: 10.1080/17477160600586747 [2] Ladhani M, JC Craig, M Irving, et al. Obesity and the risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in chronic kidney disease:a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2017; 32, 439-49. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27190330 [3] Kearns K, A Dee, AP Fitzgerald, et al. Chronic disease burden associated with overweight and obesity in Ireland:the effects of a small BMI reduction at population level. BMC Public Health, 2014; 14, 143. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-143 [4] Eguaras S, E Toledo, A Hernandez-Hernandez, et al. Better Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet Could Mitigate the Adverse Consequences of Obesity on Cardiovascular Disease:The SUN Prospective Cohort. Nutrients, 2015; 7, 9154-62. doi: 10.3390/nu7115457 [5] Potteiger JA, RP Claytor, MW Hulver, et al. Resistance exercise and aerobic exercise when paired with dietary energy restriction both reduce the clinical components of metabolic syndrome in previously physically inactive males. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2012; 112, 2035-44. doi: 10.1007/s00421-011-2174-y [6] Hermans RC, A Lichtwarck-Aschoff, KE Bevelander, et al. Mimicry of food intake:the dynamic interplay between eating companions. PLoS One, 2012; 7, e31027. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031027 [7] Salvy SJ, D Jarrin, R Paluch, et al. Effects of social influence on eating in couples, friends and strangers. Appetite, 2007; 49, 92-9. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2006.12.004 [8] Salvy SJ, M Howard, M Read, et al. The presence of friends increases food intake in youth. Am J Clin Nutr, 2009; 90, 282-7. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27658 [9] Hermans RC, CP Herman, JK Larsen, et al. Social modeling effects on snack intake among young men. The role of hunger. Appetite, 2010; 54, 378-83. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2010.01.006 [10] Maric G, T Gazibara, I Zaletel, et al. The role of gut hormones in appetite regulation (review). Acta Physiol Hung, 2014; 101, 395-407. doi: 10.1556/APhysiol.101.2014.4.1 [11] Chaudhri O, C Small, S Bloom. Gastrointestinal hormones regulating appetite. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 2006; 361, 1187-209. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1856 [12] Stimac D, S Klobucar Majanovic, N Franjic. Stomach——key player in the regulation of metabolism. Dig Dis, 2014; 32, 192-201. doi: 10.1159/000357849 [13] Turton MD, D O'Shea, I Gunn, et al. A role for glucagon-like peptide-1 in the central regulation of feeding. Nature, 1996; 379, 69-72. doi: 10.1038/379069a0 [14] Nakajima S, T Hira, H Hara. Postprandial glucagon-like peptide-1 secretion is increased during the progression of glucose intolerance and obesity in high-fat/high-sucrose diet-fed rats. Br J Nutr, 2015; 113, 1477-88. doi: 10.1017/S0007114515000550 [15] Madsbad S. The role of glucagon-like peptide-1 impairment in obesity and potential therapeutic implications. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2014; 16, 9-21. doi: 10.1111/dom.2014.16.issue-1 [16] Drucker DJ. The biology of incretin hormones. Cell Metab, 2006; 3, 153-65. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2006.01.004 [17] Yu JH, MS Kim. Molecular mechanisms of appetite regulation. Diabetes Metab J, 2012; 36, 391-8. doi: 10.4093/dmj.2012.36.6.391 [18] Ballinger AB, ML Clark. L-phenylalanine releases cholecystokinin (CCK) and is associated with reduced food intake in humans:evidence for a physiological role of CCK in control of eating. Metabolism, 1994; 43, 735-8. doi: 10.1016/0026-0495(94)90123-6 [19] Maggio CA, E Haraczkiewicz, JR Vasselli. Diet composition alters the satiety effect of cholecystokinin in lean and obese Zucker rats. Physiol Behav, 1988; 43, 485-91. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(88)90123-0 [20] Arosio M, CL Ronchi, P Beck-Peccoz, et al. Effects of modified sham feeding on ghrelin levels in healthy human subjects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2004; 89, 5101-4. doi: 10.1210/jc.2003-032222 [21] Smeets AJ, MP Lejeune, MS Westerterp-Plantenga. Effects of oral fat perception by modified sham feeding on energy expenditure, hormones and appetite profile in the postprandial state. Br J Nutr, 2009; 101, 1360-8. doi: 10.1017/S0007114508079592 [22] Qi Y, K Inoue, M Fu, et al. Chronic overproduction of ghrelin in the hypothalamus leads to temporal increase in food intake and body weight. Neuropeptides, 2015; 50, 23-8. doi: 10.1016/j.npep.2015.02.002 [23] Zhou BF. Effect of body mass index on all-cause mortality and incidence of cardiovascular diseases——report for meta-analysis of prospective studies open optimal cut-off points of body mass index in Chinese adults. Biomed Environ Sci, 2002; 15, 245-52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10974162_Effect_of_Body_Mass_Index_on_All-cause_Mortality_and_Incidence_of_Cardiovascular_Diseases_Report_for_Meta-analysis_of_Prospective_Studies_Open_Optimal_Cut-off_Points_of_Body_Mass_Index_in_Chinese_Adul [24] Kaisari P, S Higgs. Social modelling of food intake. The role of familiarity of the dining partners and food type. Appetite, 2015; 86, 19-24. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.09.020 [25] Hill AJ, JE Blundell. Nutrients and behaviour:research strategies for the investigation of taste characteristics, food preferences, hunger sensations and eating patterns in man. J Psychiatr Res, 1982; 17, 203-12. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(82)90023-1 [26] Eliasziw M, SL Young, MG Woodbury, et al. Statistical methodology for the concurrent assessment of interrater and intrarater reliability:using goniometric measurements as an example. Phys Ther, 1994; 74, 777-88. doi: 10.1093/ptj/74.8.777 [27] Christakis NA, JH Fowler. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N Engl J Med, 2007; 357, 370-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa066082 [28] de Castro, JM. Family and friends produce greater social facilitation of food intake than other companions. Physiol Behav, 1994; 56, 445-5. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(94)90286-0 [29] Howland M, JM Hunger, T Mann. Friends don't let friends eat cookies:effects of restrictive eating norms on consumption among friends. Appetite, 2012; 59, 505-9. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.06.020 [30] Salvy SJ, LR Vartanian, JS Coelho, et al. The role of familiarity on modeling of eating and food consumption in children. Appetite, 2008; 50, 514-8. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2007.10.009 [31] Leary MR, JB Nezlek, D Downs, et al. Self-presentation in everyday interactions:effects of target familiarity and gender composition. J Pers Soc Psychol, 1994; 67, 664-73. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.664 [32] Clendenen VI, CP Herman, J Polivy. Social facilitation of eating among friends and strangers. Appetite, 1994; 23, 1-13. doi: 10.1006/appe.1994.1030 [33] Hermans RC, CP Herman, JK Larsen, et al. Social modeling effects on young women's breakfast intake. J Am Diet Assoc, 2010; 110, 1901-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2010.09.007 [34] Cruwys T, K E Bevelander, RC Hermans. Social modeling of eating:a review of when and why social influence affects food intake and choice. Appetite, 2015; 86, 3-18. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.035 [35] Salvy SJ, E Kieffer, LH Epstein. Effects of social context on overweight and normal-weight children's food selection. Eat Behav, 2008; 9, 190-6. doi: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2007.08.001 [36] Vartanian LR, CP Herman, J Polivy. Consumption stereotypes and impression management:how you are what you eat. Appetite, 2007; 48, 265-77. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2006.10.008 [37] Vartanian LR, CP Herman, J Polivy. Judgments of body weight based on food intake:a pervasive cognitive bias among restrained eaters. Int J Eat Disord, 2008; 41, 64-71. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1098-108X [38] Bell R, P L Pliner. Time to eat:the relationship between the number of people eating and meal duration in three lunch settings. Appetite, 2003; 41, 215-8. doi: 10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00109-0 [39] Salvy SJ, JS Coelho, E Kieffer, et al. Effects of social contexts on overweight and normal-weight children's food intake. Physiol Behav, 2007; 92, 840-6. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.06.014 [40] Wagner M, MI Hewitt. Oral satiety in the obese and nonobese. J Am Diet Assoc, 1975; 67, 344-6. http://med.wanfangdata.com.cn/Paper/Detail/PeriodicalPaper_PM1159256 [41] Li J, N Zhang, L Hu, et al. Improvement in chewing activity reduces energy intake in one meal and modulates serum gut hormone concentrations in obese and lean young Chinese men. Am J Clin Nutr, 2011; 94, 709-16. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.015164 [42] Gibson CD, S Carnell, CN Ochner, et al. Neuroimaging, gut peptides and obesity:novel studies of the neurobiology of appetite. J Neuroendocrinol, 2010; 22, 833-45. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20553371/ [43] Chaudhri OB, V Salem, KG Murphy, et al. Gastrointestinal satiety signals. Annu Rev Physiol, 2008; 70, 239-55. doi: 10.1146/annurev.physiol.70.113006.100506 [44] Folgueira C, LM Seoane, FF Casanueva. The brain-stomach connection. Front Horm Res, 2014; 42, 83-92. doi: 10.1159/000358316 [45] Lean ME, D Malkova. Altered gut and adipose tissue hormones in overweight and obese individuals:cause or consequence? Int J Obes (Lond), 2016; 40, 622-32. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2015.220 [46] Matzinger D, JP Gutzwiller, J Drewe, et al. Inhibition of food intake in response to intestinal lipid is mediated by cholecystokinin in humans. Am J Physiol, 1999; 277, R1718-24. [47] Forsyth PA, HP Weingarten, SM Collins. Role of oropharyngeal stimulation in cholecystokinin-induced satiety in the sham feeding rat. Physiol Behav, 1985; 35, 539-43. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(85)90137-4 [48] Adam TC, MS Westerterp-Plantenga. Glucagon-like peptide-1 release and satiety after a nutrient challenge in normal-weight and obese subjects. Br J Nutr, 2005; 93, 845-51. doi: 10.1079/BJN20041335