Elsevier

Physiology & Behavior

Volume 86, Issue 5, 15 December 2005, Pages 614-622
Physiology & Behavior

Resistance and susceptibility to weight gain: Individual variability in response to a high-fat diet

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2005.08.052Get rights and content

Abstract

An obesigenic environment is a potent force for promoting weight gain. However, not all people exposed to such an environment become obese; some remain lean. This means that some people are susceptible to weight gain (in a weight-promoting environment) and others are resistant. Identifying the characteristics of appetite control and food motivation in these two groups could throw light on the causes of weight gain and how this can be either treated or prevented. We have investigated the issue experimentally by identifying people who habitually consume a high-fat diet (greater than 43% fat energy). These individuals have been termed high-fat phenotypes. We have compared individuals, of the same age (mean = 37 years old) and gender (male), who have gained weight (BMI = 34) or who have remained lean (BMI = 22). The susceptible individuals are characterised by a cluster of characteristics including a weak satiety response to fatty meals, a maintained preference for high-fat over low-energy foods in the post-ingestive satiety period, a strong hedonic attraction to palatable foods and to eating, and high scores on the TFEQ factors of Disinhibition and Hunger. The analysis of large databases suggests that this profile of factors contributes to an average daily positive energy balance from food of approximately 0.5 MJ. This profile of characteristics helps to define the symptomatology of a thrifty phenotype.

Section snippets

Background

A large number of factors have been shown to be associated with high BMI or an increase in body weight. These include factors associated with food itself, for example, high-energy density, high-fat, portion size, sweet-fat combination, sugary drinks, etc., and features of the food environment, for example, eating in fast-food restaurants, food eaten outside the home, snacking and TV viewing, and others. The obesigenic environment is also characterised by abundant availability, easy

Risk factors for weight gain—via appetite

Most researchers do not have any trouble accepting the idea that the state of a person's metabolism constitutes a major risk for developing weight gain and becoming obese. However, as obesity develops, metabolic characteristics change so that the state of obesity itself is associated with a different metabolic profile to that accompanying the process of weight gain. This makes it important to do longitudinal studies (whilst weight is increasing) as well as cross-sectional studies (comparing

Components of susceptibility

The notion that some people are more susceptible to weight gain than others is a truism. The issue is how to characterise the features of susceptibility and then, to decide how these features can be used to deal with the epidemic of obesity. Susceptibility can be identified at various levels—genetic, physiologic and metabolic, behavioural and psychological. Identifying specific genes or allelic variations that are associated with obesity or body weight gain is already well advanced [3], [4]. A

Functional phenotype approach

There exist many mechanisms through which an individual could gain weight and become obese. As noted above, this diversity is reflected at the level of analysis of genetics, central and peripheral physiology, and the behavioural and psychological profile. It is also clear that a great number of environmental features can exploit intrinsic risk factors (see Table 1) to induce susceptibility. In recent years, dietary features, such as high-energy dense foods, high-fat, high-carbohydrate, high-GI,

Experimental approach

The functional phenotype approach, as applied here, is designed to limit the number of possible variables that could potentially influence susceptibility. Even restricting the study to individuals habitually consuming a particular diet, the situation remains complicated, but the dietary contribution to this complexity is largely eliminated. In a comparison of high- and low-fat phenotypes (individuals habitually consuming a 43% or greater fat diet, or 32% or less fat diet), there was a greater

Dual assessment: laboratory and natural environment

The methodology was based on two different procedures—termed probe days and free-living days. In the probe days, subjects were intensively investigated within the laboratory, during which time they received test meal challenges during full-day exposures to either high-fat or low-fat foods, completed profiles of ratings for hunger, fullness and other sensations, performed food preference and forced-choice food selection tests and made hedonic ratings of foods consumed. The food preference

Experimental outputs

The results of the investigation indicate that four or more characteristic features could account for an elevated energy intake in susceptible people. First, the probe day nutritional challenges indicated a specific post-ingestive response to high-fat, but not to low-fat, challenges in susceptible people. Although susceptible subjects had higher daily energy intakes than resistant for both high-fat and low-fat probe days (expected because of the greater body weight of susceptible subjects), the

Summary

Taken together the various measurable outputs from this experimental approach have identified clear differences between the susceptible and resistant subjects. These differences are apparent in both states and traits, and in the homeostatic and hedonic influence over eating. The state differences are interesting because they signify a weak post-ingestive satiety response that is specific to fat intake. The careful monitoring of peri-prandial sensations has indicated a suppression of hunger (an

Acknowledgements

The work described above was funded by the European Commission, Framework V, Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources Programme. Number: QLK1-CT-2000-00515.

References (49)

  • N.P. Hays et al.

    Eating behavior correlates of adult weight gain and obesity in healthy women aged 55–65 years

    Am J Clin Nutr

    (2002)
  • E. Ravussin et al.

    Metabolic predictors of weight gain

    Int J Obes

    (1999)
  • E. Ravussin et al.

    Energy homeostasis

  • G.S. Barsh et al.

    Genetics of body weight regulation

    Nature

    (2000)
  • A. Marti et al.

    Genes, lifestyles and obesity

    Int J Obes

    (2004)
  • I.S. Farooqui et al.

    Clinical spectrum of obesity and mutations in the melanocortin 4 receptor gene

    N Engl J Med

    (2003)
  • M.W. Schwartz et al.

    Central nervous system control of food intake

    Nature

    (2000)
  • J.C.G. Halford et al.

    The psychopharmacology of appetite: targets for potential anti-obesity agents

    Curr Med Chem-Cent Nerv Syst Agents

    (2003)
  • J.E. Blundell et al.

    Appetite control and palatability of food in humans: does the pleasure of eating lead to obesity

  • M.R. Lowe et al.

    Eating motives and the controversy over dieting: eating less than needed versus less than wanted

    Obes Res

    (2005)
  • H.-R. Berthoud

    Neural control of appetite: cross talk between homeostatic and non-homeostatic systems

    Appetite

    (2004)
  • A.J. Hill et al.

    Model system for investigating the actions of anorectic drugs: effect of d-fenfluramine on food intake, nutrient selection, food preferences, meal patterns, hunger and satiety in healthy human subjects

    Adv Biosci

    (1987)
  • A.J. Stunkard et al.

    The Three Factor Eating Questionnaire to measure dietary restraint, disinhibition, and hunger

    J Psychosom Res

    (1985)
  • J.V. Neel

    Diabetes mellitus: a thrifty genotype rendered detrimental by progress?

    Am J Hum Genet

    (1962)
  • Cited by (205)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text