Summary: The sensory experience of eating is an important determinant of food intake control, often attributed to the positive hedonic response associated with certain sensory cues. However, palatability is just one aspect of the sensory experience. Sensory cues based on a food's sight, smell, taste and texture are operational before, during and after an eating event. The focus of this review is to look beyond palatability and highlight recent advances in our understanding of how certain sensory characteristics can be used to promote better energy intake control. We consider the role of visual and odour cues in identifying food in the near environment, guiding food choice and memory for eating, and highlight the ways in which tastes and textures influence meal size and the development of satiety after consumption. Considering sensory characteristics as a functional feature of the foods and beverages we consume provides the opportunity for research to identify how sensory enhancements might be combined with energy reduction in otherwise palatable foods to optimize short‐term energy intake regulation in the current food environment. Moving forward, the challenge for sensory nutritional science will be to assess the longer‐term impact of these principles on weight management.

Foods that generate strong satiety sensations have obvious benefits for weight management. This review builds on the understanding that a food's satiating power is dependent on the amount of protein, carbohydrate, fat and fibre it contains by examining evidence that the consumer's sensory and cognitive appraisal of the food is also important. It is concluded that numerous features of a food product can be manipulated to enhance the consumer's experience of satiety but the combination of these features will ultimately determine its effect on appetite control. Taking this integrated approach to satiety will optimise the development of high satiety foods

Consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked with higher energy intakes. Food texture is known to influence eating rate (ER) and energy intake to satiation, yet it remains unclear whether food texture influences energy intakes from minimally processed and ultra-processed meals. We examined the independent and combined effects of food texture and degree of processing on ad libitum food intake. We also investigated whether differences in energy intake during lunch influenced postmeal feelings of satiety and later food intake. In this crossover study, 50 healthy-weight participants [n = 50 (24 men); mean ± SD age: 24.4 ± 3.1 y; BMI: 21.3 ± 1.9 kg/m²] consumed 4 ad libitum lunch meals consisting of “soft minimally processed,” “hard minimally processed,” “soft ultra-processed,” and “hard ultra-processed” components. Meals were matched for total energy served, with some variation in meal energy density (±0.20 kcal/g). Ad libitum food intake (kcal and g) was measured and ER derived using behavioral coding of videos. Subsequent food intake was self-reported by food diary. There was a main effect of food texture on intake, whereby “hard minimally processed” and “hard ultra-processed” meals were consumed slower overall, produced a 21% and 26% reduction in food weight (g) and energy (kcal) consumed, respectively. Intakes were higher for “soft ultra-processed” and “soft minimally processed” meals (P < 0.001), after correcting for meal pleasantness. The effect of texture on food weight consumed was not influenced by processing levels (weight of food: texture*processing-effect, P = 0.376), but the effect of food texture on energy intake was (energy consumed: texture*processing-effect, P = 0.015). The least energy was consumed from the “hard minimally processed” meal (482.9 kcal; 95% CI: 431.9, 531.0 kcal) and the most from the “soft ultra-processed” meal (789.4 kcal; 95% CI: 725.9, 852.8 kcal; Δ=↓∼300 kcal). Energy intake was lowest when harder texture was combined with the “minimally processed” meals. Total energy intake across the day varied directly with energy intakes of the test meals (Δ15%, P < 0.001). Findings suggest that food texture–based differences in ER and meal energy density contribute to observed differences in energy intake between minimally processed and ultra-processed meals. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04589221.

Background: Large portions and high dietary energy density promote overconsumption at meal times. This could be reduced by eating slowly.Objective: T

The structural properties of foods have a functional role to play in oral processing behaviours and sensory perception, and also impact on meal size and the experience of fullness. This study adopted a new approach by using behavioural coding analysis of eating behaviours to explore how a range of food textures manifest as the microstructural properties of eating and expectations of fullness. A selection of 47 Asian foods were served in fixed quantities to a panel of participants (N = 12) and their eating behaviours were captured via web-camera recordings. Behavioural coding analysis was completed on the recordings to extract total bites, chews and swallows and cumulative time of the food spent in the mouth. From these measurements a series of microstructural properties including average bite size (g), chews per bite, oro-sensory exposure time (seconds) and average eating rate (g min⁻¹) were derived per food. The sensory and macronutrient properties of each food were correlated with the microstructure of eating to compare the differences in eating behaviour on a gram for gram basis. There were strong relationships between the perceived food textural properties and its eating behaviours and a food's total water content was the best predictor of its eating rate. Foods that were eaten at a slower eating rate, with smaller bites and more chews per bite were rated as higher in the expected fullness. These relationships are important as oral processing behaviours and beliefs about the potential satiating value of food influence portion decisions and moderate meal size. These data support the idea that naturally occurring differences in the food structure and texture could be used to design meals that slow the rate of eating and maximise fullness.