Research reportEffects of chewing gum on short-term appetite regulation in moderately restrained eaters☆
Highlights
► Chewing gum for up to 45 min after lunch reduces subsequent snack intake by ∼10%. ► Chewing gum suppressed the return of hunger following lunch and reduced cravings for sweet and salty snacks. ► Chewing gum could be a useful adjunct to those who wish to control appetite.
Introduction
Excessive consumption of energy-dense foods high in saturated fats and sugars in the form of snacks has been identified as problematic for weight control (WHO, 2002). A causal link between increased snack intake and the development of overweight cannot be assumed. For example, studies have reported a strong correlation between eating frequency and body mass index (Howarth, Huang, Roberts, Lin, & McCrory, 2007); whereas Keast, Nicklas, and O’Neil (2010) show no increased risk of overweight and obesity in adolescents who snack.
Restrained eaters are defined as consumers who tend to restrict food intake in order to lose weight or to maintain a healthy body weight. Restraint is a construct that should not be confused with dieting (Lowe, 1993), since many restrained eaters are not actively trying to lose weight (Lowe, 1993) but watching their weight (Reid, Hammersley, & Rance, 2005). In any case, individuals who express a desire to lose weight are often advised to cut back or avoid snacking between meals. This advice may be appropriate but fails to address the difficulty experienced by dieters to comply. In part this may be due to cravings for food during periods of energy restriction (Lowe, 1993, Lowe, 1995); to an increased risk of binge eating with restraint (Engelberg, Gauvin, & Steiger, 2005); or to heightened reactivity to food stimuli associated with restrained eating (e.g. Brunstrom, Yates, & Witcomb, 2004). In preparation for intake of a palatable food, there is a cephalic phase release of hormones such as insulin (cephalic phase insulin release: CPIR; see Teff, Devine, & Engelman, 1995) and release of salivation in anticipation of digestion. Restrained eaters salivate more in anticipation of eating a palatable food (Tepper, 1992) and have a significantly higher CPIR after sham feeding a palatable or unpalatable food relative to unrestrained eaters (Teff & Engelman, 1996). Thus, despite attempts to restrict foods in order to lose weight, restrained eaters may show a greater physiological responsiveness to foods, which may interfere with attempts to avoid snacking.
If consumers could satisfy cravings and feel less tempted by high energy snacks, then this may be a useful adjunct to weight control. Studies of the importance of orosensory stimulation in the development of satiation have shown that chewing produces a greater reduction in food intake than the same energy provided as a drink or semi-solid (Lavin, French, Ruxton, & Read, 2002). Similarly, soups administered intragastrically (covert or overt) have a much weaker impact on rated appetite and gastric emptying than soup consumed orally (Cecil, Francis, & Read, 1998). Therefore, orosensory stimulation forms an integral part of the satiation process.
Given the role of orosensory stimulation in promoting satiation, chewing gum has been identified as a possible adjunct to weight control for its potential effects on appetite and food intake. Gum provides orosensory stimulation (smell, taste, texture), is relatively low in energy (5–10 kcal per stick), and increases energy expenditure, according to Levine, Baukoi, and Pavlidis (1999) by around 11 kcal/h. Under laboratory conditions, both subjective ratings of appetite and measured energy intake are reduced by chewing gum for at least 15 min each hour during the 3 h between lunch and an afternoon snack (Hetherington & Boyland, 2007). In contrast, chewing gum for 20 min at a fixed time point of 2 h after lunch or self-determined time point just before the next eating or drinking occasion after lunch, had no effect on intake (Julis & Mattes, 2007). These contrasting findings might be due to differences in duration of chewing (3 × 15 min of gum chewing versus a single, brief exposure), to methodological differences in the measurement of later food intake (self-report in a diary versus measured snack intake in the laboratory) or to cultural or individual differences between participants involved in each study.
Nevertheless chewing gum may not, in all consumers, reduce food intake. Modified sham feeding permits assessment of the learned anticipatory responses that help minimise the impact of consuming foods on the body (Woods, 1991) without the presence of nutrients in the gut. Sham feeding a meal has been shown to increase CPIR and pancreatic polypeptide (PP) release (Teff, 2010). Thus, chewing a sweetened gum may increase hunger in some individuals (Tordoff & Alleva, 1990). Since chewing a sweetened gum might stimulate salivation and CPIR in preparation for digestion, which is then not followed up with an energetic load gum chewing might promote rather than suppress food intake. This will depend on prior learning and exposure to chewing gum.
Consumers who regularly restrict food intake for weight management might benefit from chewing gum in order to control overconsumption or the temptation to snack, but only if gum is shown to suppress hunger, craving and food intake. Therefore, the present study set out to test the experimental hypothesis that prior chewing of sweetened gum will reduce subsequent snack food intake and subjective appetite in moderately restrained eaters.
Section snippets
Participants
Restrained eaters were recruited using a poster campaign around the university for a study of the effects of chewing gum on mood, stress, appetite and snacking. Volunteers were initially screened using a questionnaire (sent by email) and were subsequently interviewed (this included measurement of body mass index and completion of the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire: DEBQ, Van Strien, Frijters, Bergers, & Defares, 1986) if the questionnaire responses matched the selection criteria.
Participant characteristics
Of the 68 participants recruited to the study, eight individuals did not complete the study and these data were removed. Reasons given for failure to complete were timetable problems (n = 7) and in one case the participant failed to return for snack following lunch on the first day, with no reason provided. The remaining 60 participants (53 women, 7 men) ranged in BMI from 19.6 to 37.3 kg/m2 (mean = 26.2 ± 4 kg/m2 and ranged in age from 18 to 54 years (mean = 32.3 ± 10.7 years. Most participants (n = 32;
Discussion
The present study confirms and extends the observation by Hetherington and Boyland (2007) that chewing gum reduces subjective ratings of hunger and desire to eat a snack as well as the amount eaten of a highly palatable snack food, in this case in restrained eaters. Whilst in this experiment the difference in amount consumed was smaller than that reported previously (Hetherington & Boyland, 2007), this may be attributable to the fact that in this experiment restrained eaters consumed less snack
References (28)
- et al.
Dietary restraint and heightened reactivity to food
Physiology & Behavior
(2004) - et al.
Relative contributions of intestinal, gastric, oro-sensory influences and information to changes in appetite induced by the same liquid meal
Appetite
(1998) - et al.
The effects of food viscosity on bite size, bite effort and food intake
Physiology & Behavior
(2008) - et al.
Short-term effects of chewing gum on snack intake and appetite
Appetite
(2007) - et al.
Influence of sweetened chewing gum on appetite, meal patterning and energy intake
Appetite
(2007) - et al.
Snacking is associated with reduced risk of overweight and reduced abdominal obesity in adolescents. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999–2004
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
(2010) Restrained eating and dieting. Replication of their divergent effects on eating regulation
Appetite
(1995)- et al.
The effects of sham feeding-induced sensory specific satiation and food variety on subsequent food intake in humans
Appetite
(2009) - et al.
Comparison of the effects of aspartame and sucrose on appetite and food intake
Appetite
(1988) - et al.
Sensory stimulation and energy density in the development of satiety
Physiology & Behavior
(1988)
Oral exposure and sensory-specific satiety
Physiology & Behavior
The controls of eating: a shift from nutritional homeostasis to behavioral neuroscience
Nutrition
Cephalic phase pancreatic polypeptide responses to liquid and solid stimuli in humans
Physiology & Behavior
Sweet taste. Effect on cephalic phase insulin release in men
Physiology & Behavior
Cited by (41)
Optimization of a functional food product based on fibers and proteins: Rheological, textural, sensory properties, and in vitro gastric digestion related to enhanced satiating capacity
2021, LWTCitation Excerpt :Eating rate is decreased by increasing chewiness, springiness, resilience, cohesiveness, and decreasing adhesiveness, which in turns leads to an increase in salivary content and thus, an increase in the food volume in the stomach and causes satiety (McCrickerd, Lim, Leong, Chia, & Forde, 2017). Also, increasing chewing time causes the mouth muscles to be involved more frequently, and the body has much time to send satiation signals to the brain (Hetherington & Regan, 2011). The present study, it was primarily tried to design products with the desired textural characteristics by selecting different types of fiber and protein.
Effects of gum chewing on glycaemic control in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: A randomized controlled trial. Impact of chewing on hyperglycaemia in women with GDM
2020, European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive BiologyThe influence of oral lubrication on food intake: A proof-of-concept study
2019, Food Quality and PreferenceCitation Excerpt :Both satiation and satiety responses contribute to the termination of a meal, and therefore understanding these processes is important for designing food-based approaches to limit overeating with potential in the longer term to influence weight management (Hetherington et al., 2013). Although the role of oral processing on satiation and satiety has been well established, the quantitative understanding of which dimensions of oral processing influence this has remained elusive (Hetherington & Regan, 2011; Krop et al., 2018; Lasschuijt et al., 2017; Lavin, French, Ruxton, & Read, 2002). Based on a recent systematic review and meta-analysis on relating oral processing to satiety, it was demonstrated that extending the oro-sensory exposure time to foods leads to a significant reduction in self-reported hunger and food intake (Krop et al., 2018).
- ☆
This research was funded, in part, by an educational award from the Wrigley Science Institute to the first author.