Previous attempts to identify an 'obese eating style' have led to conflicting findings. This observational study compared the chewing features of overweight or obese young adults with those of normal range BMI. We hypothesised that chewing features are individual-specific and differ between participants of a normal BMI and high BMI.
Fourteen overweight to obese participants (BMI≥25.0) were pairwise matched with 14 normal range BMI participants (18.5<BMI<25.0). Masticatory muscle activity was recorded using portable recorders during consumption of two rice meals in a laboratory setting and one pizza meal in the natural environment. A previously validated algorithm was used to assess time-frequency features of chewing episodes, including rate, duration, and power. Masticatory performance was assessed by a sieve test and was expressed as the percentage of particles ≤2mm after a standardised chewing test.
Regardless of the meal, chewing rate was remarkably consistent among participants (ICC=0.89; 95% CI=0.79-0.94). Chewing rate did not differ between high and normal BMI participants (p>0.05), whereas chewing power was significantly higher in high BMI participants (p<0.05). No other differences in chewing characteristics were found between BMI groups. Participants chewed at similar rate in the natural environment (pizza) and in the laboratory (rice) setting (p>0.05). Masticatory performance did not differ significantly (p>0.05) between the high (55.9%) and normal (52.4%) BMI groups.
Within the limitations of the present study, chewing characteristics appear to be individual-specific with wide variability. Overweight participants chew at a similar rate to control participants, albeit slightly stronger. Our preliminary findings need to be replicated in larger samples.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2015.
All research outputs
#22,096,211
of 34,630,533 outputs
Outputs from Physiology & Behavior
#3,689
of 6,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,520
of 307,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physiology & Behavior
#30
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,630,533 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,092 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 307,453 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.
