Effect of food variety on intake of a meal: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
dietary diversity
food variety
intake
meta-analysis
systematic review
Journal
The American journal of clinical nutrition
ISSN: 1938-3207
Titre abrégé: Am J Clin Nutr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376027
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 03 2021
11 03 2021
Historique:
received:
05
08
2020
accepted:
28
10
2020
pubmed:
31
1
2021
medline:
20
3
2021
entrez:
30
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Many studies have shown that food variety-the presence of multiple foods and/or sensory characteristics within and across meals-increases intake. However, studies report mixed findings, and effect size remains unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to 1) synthesize data across experimental studies that examined effects of variety on total meal intake, relative to a control condition with comparatively less variety; 2) quantify support for this effect; and 3) assist in the identification of important moderating factors (registration: CRD42019153585). In November 2019, we searched the following databases for relevant experimental studies, published in English from 1980, with human participants: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, PsycINFO, and OpenGrey. This search was updated in September 2020. Means, standard deviations, and sample sizes were extracted from included articles, and Hedges' g was used to calculate effect sizes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Of 7259 references identified in an initial search, 34 articles consisting of 37 studies contained sufficient information for review, and data from 30 studies (39 comparisons) were included in the meta-analysis. Results from a random-effects model showed a significant small to medium effect of variety on intake (in weight and energy), with greater variety being associated with increased consumption (Hedges' g = 0.405; 95% CI: 0.259, 0.552). However, heterogeneity was considerable across studies (I2 = 84%), and this was unexplained by subgroup analyses based on form of variety, test foods, sensory characteristics, age, sex, and body weight. Our findings support the conclusion that variety is a robust driver of food intake. However, risk of bias was high across studies, and this review highlights methodologic limitations of studies. It is recommended that further attention is given to the development of preregistered, well-powered randomized controlled studies in eating behavior research.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Many studies have shown that food variety-the presence of multiple foods and/or sensory characteristics within and across meals-increases intake. However, studies report mixed findings, and effect size remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to 1) synthesize data across experimental studies that examined effects of variety on total meal intake, relative to a control condition with comparatively less variety; 2) quantify support for this effect; and 3) assist in the identification of important moderating factors (registration: CRD42019153585).
METHODS
In November 2019, we searched the following databases for relevant experimental studies, published in English from 1980, with human participants: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, PsycINFO, and OpenGrey. This search was updated in September 2020. Means, standard deviations, and sample sizes were extracted from included articles, and Hedges' g was used to calculate effect sizes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool.
RESULTS
Of 7259 references identified in an initial search, 34 articles consisting of 37 studies contained sufficient information for review, and data from 30 studies (39 comparisons) were included in the meta-analysis. Results from a random-effects model showed a significant small to medium effect of variety on intake (in weight and energy), with greater variety being associated with increased consumption (Hedges' g = 0.405; 95% CI: 0.259, 0.552). However, heterogeneity was considerable across studies (I2 = 84%), and this was unexplained by subgroup analyses based on form of variety, test foods, sensory characteristics, age, sex, and body weight.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings support the conclusion that variety is a robust driver of food intake. However, risk of bias was high across studies, and this review highlights methodologic limitations of studies. It is recommended that further attention is given to the development of preregistered, well-powered randomized controlled studies in eating behavior research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33515033
pii: S0002-9165(22)00635-9
doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa352
pmc: PMC7948867
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
716-741Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition.
Références
Eat Behav. 2015 Apr;17:140-3
pubmed: 25706950
Am J Clin Nutr. 2013 Sep;98(3):693-9
pubmed: 23902783
Appetite. 2015 Jan;84:139-47
pubmed: 25445198
Appetite. 2012 Dec;59(3):662-7
pubmed: 22885982
Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Jun;95(6):1305-14
pubmed: 22552025
Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Jun;73(6):1080-5
pubmed: 11382663
Int J Obes (Lond). 2019 Oct;43(10):1891-1902
pubmed: 31320694
Appetite. 2015 Dec;95:571-6
pubmed: 26321418
Int J Obes (Lond). 2007 Jun;31(6):987-95
pubmed: 17160089
Appetite. 1990 Aug;15(1):47-61
pubmed: 2241142
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Jul;59(7):697-703
pubmed: 16765272
Curr Obes Rep. 2018 Mar;7(1):68-75
pubmed: 29435958
Appetite. 1984 Dec;5(4):337-48
pubmed: 6529260
Physiol Behav. 2009 Apr 20;97(1):44-51
pubmed: 19419673
Br J Nutr. 2013 May;109(9):1557-72
pubmed: 23445540
Physiol Behav. 1981 Jul;27(1):137-42
pubmed: 7267792
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Appetite. 2006 Mar;46(2):168-76
pubmed: 16488056
Clin Interv Aging. 2010 Aug 09;5:207-16
pubmed: 20711440
Appetite. 2011 Feb;56(1):179-82
pubmed: 21056068
Psychol Bull. 2009 May;135(3):434-51
pubmed: 19379024
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012 Aug;112(8):1211-5
pubmed: 22818729
Physiol Behav. 2006 Feb 28;87(2):263-71
pubmed: 16405929
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2001 Jan;55(1):19-28
pubmed: 11303491
Eat Behav. 2012 Dec;13(4):317-20
pubmed: 23121781
Front Public Health. 2016 Jan 05;3:277
pubmed: 26779472
Food Qual Prefer. 2019 Jan;71:301-310
pubmed: 31105386
J Hum Nutr Diet. 2007 Aug;20(4):345-51
pubmed: 17635312
Appetite. 2018 Nov 1;130:321-326
pubmed: 30041813
Appetite. 2010 Oct;55(2):325-31
pubmed: 20633585
Physiol Behav. 1981 Feb;26(2):215-21
pubmed: 7232526
Nutrients. 2018 Dec 03;10(12):
pubmed: 30513873
Eat Behav. 2012 Aug;13(3):183-7
pubmed: 22664394
Clin Nutr. 2018 Jun;37(3):970-977
pubmed: 28431774
Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Mar;89(3):746-54
pubmed: 19176724
Appetite. 2007 Jan;48(1):119-22
pubmed: 16959373
J Gen Psychol. 2010 Jan-Mar;137(1):63-83
pubmed: 20198817
Appetite. 2017 Jan 1;108:391-398
pubmed: 27784633
Appetite. 2009 Feb;52(1):161-5
pubmed: 18840490
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10:ED000142
pubmed: 31643080
Appetite. 2016 Jan 1;96:628-635
pubmed: 26275333
Psychol Bull. 2001 May;127(3):325-41
pubmed: 11393299
Appetite. 2020 Oct 1;153:104749
pubmed: 32450092
Appetite. 2011 Aug;57(1):6-13
pubmed: 21477632
Appetite. 2013 Jan;60(1):40-50
pubmed: 23085682
Appetite. 1998 Jun;30(3):283-95
pubmed: 9632459
Physiol Behav. 2006 Apr 15;87(4):714-22
pubmed: 16516251
Physiol Behav. 1982 Sep;29(3):409-17
pubmed: 7178247
Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Feb;91(2):349-56
pubmed: 20007305
Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Dec;54(6):988-96
pubmed: 1957832
Physiol Behav. 2000 Jul 1-15;70(1-2):119-25
pubmed: 10978486
Nutrients. 2016 Jan 07;8(1):
pubmed: 26751475
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018 Jul 9;15(1):66
pubmed: 29986712
Front Psychol. 2013 Nov 26;4:863
pubmed: 24324449
Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Mar;69(3):440-7
pubmed: 10075328
Int J Obes (Lond). 2008 Apr;32(4):708-14
pubmed: 18059403
Physiol Behav. 2018 May 1;188:48-57
pubmed: 29421338
Eat Behav. 2006 Jan;7(1):1-14
pubmed: 16360618
Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Oct;80(4):823-31
pubmed: 15447886
Am J Prev Med. 2015 Dec;49(6):974-9
pubmed: 26342633
Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul;112(1):155-9
pubmed: 19565683