A comparison of meal-related appetite, food reward and eating behaviour traits in people with and without spinal cord injury.

Persons with a spinal cord injury (SCI) are at a heightened risk of obesity. However, little is known about the effect of SCI on factors that influence energy intake. This study compared measures of food reward, eating behaviour traits, and appetite perceptions between adults with and without SCI. Twenty wheelchair dependent persons with chronic (>1 year) SCI (C1-T12) and twenty non-SCI individuals matched for BMI, age and sex participated. Following a familiarisation visit, participants consumed a breakfast meal, normalised for resting metabolic rate (RMR), and provided subjective appetite perceptions every 30 min for 4 h. Subsequently, energy intake was determined via an ad libitum lunch meal. Explicit liking, explicit wanting, implicit wanting and relative preference were assessed in a hungry and fed state via the Leeds Food Preference Questionnaire prior to and following the lunch meal. Eating behaviour traits were assessed via the Adult Eating Behaviour Questionnaire, Control of Eating Questionnaire, Reasons Individuals Stop Eating Questionnaire, and Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire Revised 18-item version. Sweet appeal bias was greater for explicit liking, explicit wanting, and relative preference in the group with SCI compared to the non-SCI group (p ≤ 0.024). The group with SCI also reported higher levels of cognitive restraint and satiety responsiveness (p ≤ 0.029). No group differences in postprandial appetite perceptions (p ≥ 0.690) or energy intake relative to RMR were seen (p = 0.358). However, the group with SCI demonstrated a trend toward a lower absolute energy intake (p = 0.063). In conclusion, food reward for sweet foods was greater in the group with SCI. Further, our findings suggest that acute appetite perceptions, including satiety profiles, are not different between persons with and without SCI.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)