Design and testing of foods differing in protein to energy ratios

• Published in: Appetite 2010-10, Vol.55 (2), p.367-370
• Main Authors: Gosby, Alison K., Soares-Wynter, Suzanne, Campbell, Claudia, Badaloo, Asha, Antonelli, Marion, Hall, Rosemary M., Martinez-Cordero, Claudia, Jebb, Susan A., Brand-Miller, Jennie, Caterson, Ian D., Conigrave, Arthur D., Forrester, Terrence G., Raubenheimer, David, Simpson, Stephen J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Australia; Biological and medical sciences; Cultural Diversity; design; Diet manipulation; Dietary Carbohydrates - metabolism; Dietary Fats - metabolism; Dietary Proteins - administration & dosage; Dietary Proteins - metabolism; Eating; Energy; energy content; Energy Intake; Feeding. Feeding behavior; Female; food analysis; food composition; foods; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Humans; Jamaica; Male; Medical sciences; Metabolic diseases; Middle Aged; Palatability; Pleasantness; protein content; Protein leverage hypothesis; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; sensory properties; Surveys and Questionnaires; Vertebrates: anatomy and physiology, studies on body, several organs or systems; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0195-6663; 1095-8304
• DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2010.06.009

Our aim was to design a selection of foods with differing proportions of protein but equal palatability in two settings, Sydney Australia and Kingston Jamaica. The foods were manipulated to contain 10, 15 or 25% E as protein with reciprocal changes in carbohydrate to 60, 55 or 45% E and dietary fat was kept constant at 30%. Naïve participants did not identify a difference in protein between the versions. On average, the versions were rated equal in pleasantness (Sydney-10%: 44±2, 15%: 49±2 and 25%: 49±2 Kingston-10%: 41±3, 15%: 41±3 and 25%: 37±3).