Effects of processing level and nutritional quality on energy intake, ingestive behaviors, palatability, and satiety in a young adult population

This randomized crossover trial examined differences in energy intake (EI), ingestive behaviors, palatability, and satiety in meals differing in processing and nutritional quality (NQ). At each visit, participants consumed one of three meals containing similar food items matched for energy, macronutrients, flavor profile, and texture: 1) Non-ultra-processed (UPF), high NQ (NUPF-HNQ), 2) UPF, high NQ (UPF-HNQ), and 3) UPF, low NQ (UPF-LNQ). Participants rated appetite (pre-meal, post-meal, and every half hour) and palatability using visual analog scales. Composite hedonic scores (CHS) were calculated. Repeated measures analysis of variance examined differences in EI, CHS, eating time (ET), eating rate (ER), energy intake rate (EIR), hunger, satiety, and desire to eat (DTE), at p < 0.05. Linear regression examined associations between CHS and EI, ET, ER, and EIR, adjusting for meal. Forty healthy young adults (mean age 24.7 ± 5.1 years), predominantly white (67 %) females (70 %) with a mean BMI 25.3 ± 4.4 kg/m<sup>2</sup>, were included. EI was similar for NUPF-HNQ (585.7 ± 163 kcal) and UPF-HNQ (609.7 ± 151.8 kcal) but significantly lower for UPF-LNQ (503.0 ± 164.1 kcal). CHS was higher for NUPF-HNQ (65.3 ± 22.9 mm) than UPF-LNQ (45.4 ± 20.9 mm). EIR was higher for UPF-HNQ (67.7 ± 23.1 kcal/min) than NUPF-HNQ (54.1 ± 18.4 kcal/min) and UPF-LNQ (50.1 ± 15.1 kcal/min). Hunger and DTE were higher for UPF-LNQ (159.7 ± 94.2 and 168.2 ± 94.9 mm∗min) than NUPF-HNQ (98.4 ± 69.9 and M = 107.3 ± 70.3 mm∗min). CHS was positively associated with EI (p < 0.01, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.23) and ET (p = 0.02, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.08). EI was lower in a UPF-LNQ compared to non-UPF meals. Palatability ratings were lowest in the UPF-LNQ meal and were associated with EI and ET, potentially explaining results.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Appetite
Published
2025-10-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2025.108352
Primary Topic
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Effects of processing level and nutritional quality on energy intake, ingestive behaviors, palatability, and satiety in a young adult population

Ingrid E. Lofgren, Kathleen J. Melanson, Alexandra B Larcom, Amanda Missimer et al.
Appetite
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
article

Effects of processing level and nutritional quality on energy intake, ingestive behaviors, palatability, and satiety in a young adult population

Ingrid E. Lofgren, Kathleen J. Melanson, Alexandra B Larcom, Amanda Missimer, Matthew J. Delmonico
article en

Abstract

This randomized crossover trial examined differences in energy intake (EI), ingestive behaviors, palatability, and satiety in meals differing in processing and nutritional quality (NQ). At each visit, participants consumed one of three meals containing similar food items matched for energy, macronutrients, flavor profile, and texture: 1) Non-ultra-processed (UPF), high NQ (NUPF-HNQ), 2) UPF, high NQ (UPF-HNQ), and 3) UPF, low NQ (UPF-LNQ). Participants rated appetite (pre-meal, post-meal, and every half hour) and palatability using visual analog scales. Composite hedonic scores (CHS) were calculated. Repeated measures analysis of variance examined differences in EI, CHS, eating time (ET), eating rate (ER), energy intake rate (EIR), hunger, satiety, and desire to eat (DTE), at p < 0.05. Linear regression examined associations between CHS and EI, ET, ER, and EIR, adjusting for meal. Forty healthy young adults (mean age 24.7 ± 5.1 years), predominantly white (67 %) females (70 %) with a mean BMI 25.3 ± 4.4 kg/m<sup>2</sup>, were included. EI was similar for NUPF-HNQ (585.7 ± 163 kcal) and UPF-HNQ (609.7 ± 151.8 kcal) but significantly lower for UPF-LNQ (503.0 ± 164.1 kcal). CHS was higher for NUPF-HNQ (65.3 ± 22.9 mm) than UPF-LNQ (45.4 ± 20.9 mm). EIR was higher for UPF-HNQ (67.7 ± 23.1 kcal/min) than NUPF-HNQ (54.1 ± 18.4 kcal/min) and UPF-LNQ (50.1 ± 15.1 kcal/min). Hunger and DTE were higher for UPF-LNQ (159.7 ± 94.2 and 168.2 ± 94.9 mm∗min) than NUPF-HNQ (98.4 ± 69.9 and M = 107.3 ± 70.3 mm∗min). CHS was positively associated with EI (p < 0.01, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.23) and ET (p = 0.02, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.08). EI was lower in a UPF-LNQ compared to non-UPF meals. Palatability ratings were lowest in the UPF-LNQ meal and were associated with EI and ET, potentially explaining results.

AppetiteVol. 217
University of Rhode Island (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 60%
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.