The satiating efficiency of food has been increasingly quantified using the Satiety Quotient (SQ). The SQ integrates both the energy content of food ingested during a meal and the associated change in appetite sensations. This systematic review examines the available evidence regarding its methodological use and clinical utility. A literature search was conducted in six databases considering studies from 1900 to April 2020 that used SQ in adults, adolescents and children. All study designs were included. From the initial 495 references found, fifty-two were included. Of the studies included, thirty-three were acute studies (twenty-nine in adults and four in adolescents) and nineteen were longitudinal studies in adults. A high methodological heterogeneity in the application of the SQ was observed between studies. Five main utilisations of the SQ were identified: its association with (i) energy intake; (ii) anthropometric variables; (iii) energy expenditure/physical activity; (iv) sleep quality and quantity and (v) to classify individuals by their satiety responsiveness (i.e. low and high satiety phenotypes). Altogether, the studies suggest the SQ as an interesting clinical tool regarding the satiety responsiveness to a meal and its changes in responses to weight loss in adults. The SQ might be a reliable clinical indicator in adults when it comes to both obesity prevention and treatment. There is a need for more standardised use of the SQ in addition to further studies to investigate its validity in different contexts and populations, especially among children and adolescents.

Although there is a growing interest for the effects of intermittent fasting on energy balance, this study aimed to compare appetite, energy intake and food reward responses with an energy depletion induced either by 24-h food restriction or an equivalent deficit with exercise in healthy males. In all, twelve healthy lean males (21·5 (sd 0·5) years old; BMI: 22·5 (sd 1·7) kg/m2) participated in this study. Body composition, aerobic capacity, food preferences and energy intake were assessed. They randomly completed three conditions: (i) no depletion (CON); (ii) full 24-h energy restrictions (Def-EI); and (iii) exercise condition (Def-EX). Ad libitum energy intake and food reward were assessed at the end of each session. Appetite feelings were assessed regularly. Ad libitum energy intake was higher on Def-EI (7330 (sd 2975) kJ (1752 (sd 711) kcal) compared with that on CON (5301 (sd 1205) kJ (1267 (sd 288) kcal)) (P<0·05), with no difference between CON and Def-EX (6238 (sd 1741) kJ (1491 (sd 416) kcal) (P=0·38) and between Def-EX and Def-EI (P=0·22). There was no difference in the percent energy ingested from macronutrients. Hunger was lower on CON and Def-EX compared with Def-EI (P<0·001). Satiety was higher on CON and Def-EI compared with that on Def-EX (P<0·001). There was a significant interaction condition × time for food choice fat bias (P=0·04), showing a greater preference for high-fat v. low-fat food during Def-EI and Def-EX. Although 24-h fasting leads to increased energy intake at the following test meal (without total daily energy intake difference), increased hunger profile and decreased post-meal food choice fat bias, such nutritional responses are not observed after a similar deficit induced by exercise.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a non-restrictive satiating diet in men displaying various degrees of satiety efficiency. In all, sixty-nine obese men aged 41·5 (sd 5·7) years were randomly assigned to a control (10–15, 55–60 and 30 % energy as protein, carbohydrate and lipid, respectively; n 34) or satiating (20–25, 45–50 and 30–35 % energy as protein, carbohydrate and lipid, respectively; n 35) diet for 16 weeks, and were classified as having a low (LSP) or high (HSP) satiety phenotype. Both diets were consumed ad libitum. Changes in body weight, BMI, percent fat mass, waist circumference, satiety responsiveness and eating behaviour traits were assessed following the intervention. Dropout rates were higher in the control diet (44·1 %) compared with the satiating diet (8·6 %). Decreases in body weight, BMI and waist circumference were significant in both groups, yet HSP individuals lost more body weight than LSP individuals (P=0·048). Decreases in % fat mass were greater in the satiating diet (LSP: −2·1 (sd 2·1) %; P<0·01 and HSP: −3·0 (sd 2·5) %; P<0·001) compared with the control diet (LSP: −1·1 (sd 2·5) % and HSP: −1·3 (sd 2·6) %) (P=0·034). Satiety responsiveness was markedly improved in the satiating diet, whereas no significant changes were observed in the control group. Changes in dietary restraint (+3·3 (sd 2·9) to +7·2 (sd 5·5)), flexible control (+0·9 (sd 1·4) to +2·3 (sd 2·7)), rigid control (+2·2 (sd 1·5) to +2·5 (sd 2·8)), disinhibition (−2·8 (sd 3·7) to −3·2 (sd 2·6)) and susceptibility to hunger (−2·7 (sd 4·1) to −4·6 (sd 3·9)) were similar between the diets. Compared with the control diet, the satiating diet favoured adherence, decreased % fat mass and improved satiety responsiveness in both HSP and LSP individuals.