↓ Skip to main content

The Effects of a Normal Rate versus a Slow Intervalled Rate of Oral Nutrient Intake and Intravenous Low Rate Macronutrient Application on Psychophysical Function – Two Pilot Studies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Effects of a Normal Rate versus a Slow Intervalled Rate of Oral Nutrient Intake and Intravenous Low Rate Macronutrient Application on Psychophysical Function – Two Pilot Studies
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01031
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melanie Y. Denzer-Lippmann, Stephan Bachlechner, Jan Wielopolski, Marie Fischer, Andrea Buettner, Arndt Doerfler, Christof Schöfl, Gerald Münch, Johannes Kornhuber, Norbert Thürauf

Abstract

Stomach distension and energy per time are factors influencing satiety. Moreover, different rates of nutrient intake induce different stomach distension. The goal of our studies was to elucidate the influence of different oral rates of nutrient intake (normal rate versus slow intervalled rate; study I) and intravenous low rate macronutrient application (protein, carbohydrate, fat) or placebo (study II) on psychophysical function. The pilot studies investigated the effects of 1) study I: a mixed nutrient solution (1/3 protein, 1/3 fat, 1/3 carbohydrates) 2) study II: intravenous macronutrient infusions (protein, carbohydrate, fat) or placebo on psychophysical function (mood, hunger, food craving, alertness, smell intensity ratings and hedonic ratings) in human subjects. In study I 10 male subjects (age range: 21-30 years) completed the study protocol participating in both test conditions and in study II 20 male subjects (age range: 19-41 years) completed the study protocol participating in all test conditions. Additionally, metabolic function was analyzed and cognitive and olfactory tests were conducted twice starting 100 min before the beginning of the intervention and 240 min after. Psychophysical (mood, hunger, fat-, protein-, carbohydrate-, sweets- and vegetable-craving), alertness and metabolic function tests were performed seven times on each examination day. Greater effects on hunger and food cravings were observed for normal rate of intake compared to slow intervalled rate of intake and intravenous low rate macronutrient application. Our findings potentially confirm that volume of the food ingested and a higher rate of energy per time contribute to satiety during normal rate of food intake, while slow intervalled rate of food intake and intravenous low rate macronutrient application showed no effects on satiation. Our results motivate the view that a certain amount of volume of the food ingested and a certain energy per time ratio are necessary to reduce hunger and food craving.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 33%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Student > Postgraduate 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 3 33%
Psychology 2 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,429,992
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,342
of 30,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,129
of 315,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#545
of 612 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 315,496 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 612 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.