Randomized controlled trial2026Open access

Eating rate has sustained effects on energy intake from ultraprocessed diets: a 2-week ad libitum dietary randomized controlled crossover trial

Forde CG, Heuven LA, van Bruinessen M, Liu Z, Stieger M, de Graaf K, Lasschuijt MP

The American journal of clinical nutrition · 10 citations

Review labels

Author industry tiesControlled feeding

Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.

How it was studied

Design
Randomized controlled trial (indexed by PubMed)
Studied in
People
Main outcome
Health markers and function
Intake measured by
Food provided by researchers

Who paid for it

Funding
Possibly industry funded
Government
Topconsortium voor Kennis en Innovatie
Authors
At least one author declares a financial tie to industry

Based on 1 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.

Publication

Published
2025-11-26 · Am J Clin Nutr · vol. 123 · issue 4 · p. 101122
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Cited
11 citations · more than 97% of similar papers · 5.6× the field average
Impact
Top 10% most cited in its field
References
61 works
Access
Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY
Research areas
Food composition and properties · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Diet and metabolism studies
Keywords
Crossover study, Food intake, Meal, Food energy, Randomized controlled trial, Taste
MeSH
humans, diet, cross-over studies, single-blind method, feeding behavior, energy intake, eating, food handling, adult, female, male, young adult, meals

7 authors

From NL

  • Ciaran Gerard Forde · correspondingWageningen University & Research
  • Lise A.J. HeuvenWageningen University & Research
  • Marieke van BruinessenWageningen University & Research
  • Zhen LiuWageningen University & Research
  • Markus StiegerWageningen University & Research
  • Kees de GraafWageningen University & Research

Abstract

Background

Previous research has shown that diets dominated by ultraprocessed foods (UPF) are associated with higher dietary energy intakes. This association may be attributable in part to meal texture and associated eating rate (ER). Experimental studies are needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms.

Objectives

The objective was to compare daily energy intake (kcal/d) from diets with different meal texture-derived ER (g/min) (UPF Slow-ER compared to UPF Fast-ER) across a 14-day period. Two UPF diets comprised of foods selected to have textures known to lead to a slower or faster ER.

Methods

Forty-one participants [n = 21 male, mean (± standard deviation) age 27 ± 5; weight 70 ± 10 kg; body mass index 23.4 ± 1.9] completed a single-blind, block-randomized crossover study including 2 14-day diets; UPF Slow-ER and UPF Fast-ER, with a 2-wk washout. Diets were served ad libitum and matched for palatability, portion size served, total energy served, non-beverage energy density, and meal variety.

Results

Daily energy intake was 369 kcal/d (95% confidence interval: 221, 517) lower on the UPF Slow-ER diet compared with the UPF Fast-ER diet [main effect; F (1, 1051) = 23.98, P 0.05). There was no change in body weight pre-diets to post-diets, and no differences in body weight between the 2 diets. Body fat mass decreased on the UPF Slow-ER diet by 0.43 kg [main effect; F (1, 119) = 14.68, P = 0.0002].

Conclusions

Food texture-derived ER has a significant and sustained effect on energy intake of ultraprocessed diets over a 2-wk period. This finding highlights the importance of food texture in guiding ER and the central role of sensory cues in regulating meal size. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT06113146.

Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).

Community trust

Loading…

How much do you trust this study's findings?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something wrong here?

Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.