Our previous research demonstrated high, sustained satiety effects of stabi
lized food foams re
lative to their non-aerated compositions. Here we test if the energy and macronutrients in a stabi
lized food foam are critica
l for its previous
ly demonstrated satiating effects. In a randomized, crossover design, 72 hea
lthy subjects consumed 400 mL of each of four foams, one per week over four weeks, 150 min after a standardized breakfast. Appetite ratings were co
llected for 180 min post-foam. The reference was a norma
l energy food foam (NEF1, 280 kJ/400 mL) simi
lar to that used in our previous research. This was compared to a very
low energy food foam (VLEF, 36 kJ/400 mL) and 2 a
lternative norma
l energy foams (NEF2 and NEF3) testing possib
le effects of compositiona
l differences other than energy (i.e. emu
lsifier and carbohydrate source). Appetite ratings were quantified as area under the curve (AUC) and time to return to base
line (TTRTB). Equiva
lence to NEF1 was predefined as the 90% confidence interva
l of between-treatment differences in AUC being within −5 to +5 mm/min.
All treatments similarly affected appetite ratings, with mean AUC for fullness ranging between 49.1 and 52.4 mm/min. VLEF met the statistical criterion for equivalence to NEF1 for all appetite AUC ratings, but NEF2 and NEF3 did not. For all foams the TTRTB for satiety and fullness were consistently between 150 and 180 min, though values were shortest for NEF2 and especially NEF3 foams for most appetite scales.
In conclusion, the high, sustained satiating effects of these food foams are independent of energy and macronutrient content at the volumes tested.