In a previous study, we demonstrated that women enjoyed and tolerated lower meal loads than men. Hence, we hypothesized that with the same meal load, their postprandial response is more pronounced than in men. We performed a randomized parallel trial in 12 women and 12 men comparing the postprandial responses to a palatable comfort meal. We measured homeostatic sensations (hunger/satiety, fullness) and hedonic sensations (digestive well-being, mood) on 10 cm scales, vagal tone by heart ratio variability and the metabolomic profile before and after meal ingestion. Gender differences were analyzed by repeated measures ANCOVA. Overall (n = 24), ingestion of the probe meal induced satiation, fullness, digestive well-being and improved mood (main time-effect p ≤ 0.005 for all). Women exhibited a more intense sensory experience, specially more postprandial fullness, than men [main gender-effect F (1, 21) = 7.14; p = 0.014]; hedonic responses in women also tended to be stronger than in men. Women exhibited more pronounced effects on vagal tone [main gender-effect F (1, 21) = 5.5; p = 0.029] and a different lipoprotein response than men. In conclusion, our data indicate that gender influences the responses to meal ingestion, and these differences may explain the predisposition and higher incidence in women of meal-related functional disorders.

Various conditioning factors influence the sensory response to a meal (inducible factors). We hypothesized that inherent characteristics of the eater (constitutive factors) also play a role. The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to determine the role of gender, as an individual constitutive factor, on the meal-related experience. Randomized parallel trial in 10 women and 10 men, comparing the sensations before, during, and after stepwise ingestion of a comfort meal up to full satiation. Comparisons were performed by repeated Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) measures. During stepwise ingestion, satisfaction initially increased up to a peak, and later decreased down to a nadir at the point of full satiation. Interestingly, the amount of food consumed at the well-being peak was lower, and induced significantly less fullness in women than in men. Hence, men required a larger meal load and stronger homeostatic sensations to achieve satisfaction. The same pattern was observed at the level of full satiation: men ate more and still experienced positive well-being, whereas in women, well-being scores dropped below pre-meal level. The effect of gender on the ingestion experience suggests that other constitutive factors of the eater may also influence responses to meals.

Ingestion of a meal induces conscious sensations depending of the characteristics of the meal and the predisposition of the eater. We hypothesized that the eating schedule plays a conditioning role, specifically, that an extemporaneous meal is less rewarding than when eaten at the habitual schedule. We conducted a randomized parallel trial in 10 women and 10 men comparing the responses to a consistent savoury lunch-type meal (stewed beans) eaten at the habitual afternoon schedule or at an unconventional time in the morning. Schedule and gender differences were analyzed by repeated measures analysis of covariance. In women, the sensory experience induced by the probe meal, particularly postprandial satisfaction, was weaker when eaten at an unconventional time for breakfast. Men were resilient to the schedule effect and experienced the same sensations regardless of the timing of ingestion; the effect of the eating schedule was significantly more pronounced in women for fullness (F(1,55) = 14.9; p < 0.001), digestive well-being (F(1,36.8) = 22.3; p < 0.001), mood (F(1,12.4) = 13.8; p < 0.001), and anxiety (F(1,11.9) = 10.9; p = 0.001). No differences in the physiological responses induced by the afternoon and morning meals were detected either in women or men. Our data indicate that women are more susceptible to changes in meal schedule than men.

Background. Meal ingestion induces a postprandial experience that involves homeostatic and hedonic sensations. Our aim was to determine the effect of aversive conditioning on the postprandial reward of a comfort meal. Methods: A sham-controlled, randomised, parallel, single-blind study was performed on 12 healthy women (6 per group). A comfort meal was tested before and after coupling the meal with an aversive sensation (conditioning intervention), induced by infusion of lipids via a thin naso-duodenal catheter; in the pre- and post-conditioning tests and in the control group, a sham infusion was performed. Participants were instructed that two recipes of a tasty humus would be tested; however, the same meal was administered with a colour additive in the conditioning and post-conditioning tests. Digestive well-being (primary outcome) was measured every 10 min before and 60 min after ingestion using graded scales. Results: In the aversive conditioning group, the comfort meal in the pre-conditioning test induced a pleasant postprandial experience, which was significantly lower in the post-conditioning test; the effect of aversive conditioning (change from pre- to post-conditioning) was significant as compared to sham conditioning in the control group, which showed no differences between study days. Conclusion: The hedonic postprandial response to a comfort meal in healthy women is impaired by aversive conditioning. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04938934.

Background: Aversive conditioning weakens the gratifying value of a comfort meal. The aim was to determine the effect of a cognitive intervention to reverse aversive conditioning and restore hedonic postprandial response. Methods: This was a randomized, sham-controlled, single-blind, parallel study that was conducted on 12 healthy women (n = 6 in each group). The reward value of a comfort meal was measured on different days: at initial exposure, after aversive conditioning (administration of the same meal with a masked fat overload on the previous day) and after a cognitive intervention (disclosing the aversive conditioning paradigm in the test group vs. no explanation in the control group). The primary outcome, digestive wellbeing, was determined using graded scales at regular intervals before and after ingestion. Results: At initial exposure, the comfort meal produced a rewarding experience that was impaired using aversive conditioning; upon re-exposure to the original meal, the cognitive intervention increased meal wanting and liking; improved digestive wellbeing and mood; tended to reduce postprandial satiety, bloating/fullness; and abolished discomfort/pain, thereby restoring the hedonic value of the comfort meal. By contrast, sham intervention had no effects, and the postprandial sensations remained like the responses to the offending meal. Conclusion: In this proof-of-concept study, we demonstrate that in healthy women, a mild, short-term acquired aversion to a comfort meal can be reversed using a cognitive intervention. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05897411.