nutrients Article Meal Enjoyment and Tolerance in Women and Men Hugo Monrroy 1 , Teodora Pribic 1 , Carmen Galan 1 , Adoracion Nieto 1 , Nuria Amigo 2,3 , Anna Accarino 1 , Xavier Correig 2 and Fernando Azpiroz 1, * 1 Digestive System Research Unit, University Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (Ciberehd), Departament de Medicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain; hmonrroy@gmail.com (H.M.); teodora.pribic@gmail.com (T.P.); cgalanhidalgo@gmail.com (C.G.); anietoruiz7@gmail.com (A.N.); aaccarino@telefonica.net (A.A.) 2 Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Diabetes y Enfermedades Metabólicas (Ciberdem), Metabolomics Platform, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43002 Tarragona, Spain; namigo@biosferteslab.com (N.A.); xavier.correig@urv.cat (X.C.) 3 Biosfer Teslab S.L., 43201 Reus, Spain * Correspondence: azpiroz.fernando@gmail.com; Tel.: +34-93-274-62-22  Received: 19 November 2018; Accepted: 2 January 2019; Published: 8 January 2019  Abstract: 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. Keywords: meal ingestion; post-prandial sensations; hedonic response; homeostatic sensations; gender differences; metabolomic response 1. Introduction Ingestion of a meal induces a biological response primarily related to the digestive process. If something goes wrong, for instance the stomach does not relax properly to accommodate the meal, patients may experience symptoms such as epigastric discomfort, a very frequent and relevant clinical problem [1,2]. To investigate the potential mechanisms of meal-related symptoms, an armamentarium of techniques for the evaluation of gut function and perception was developed over the years [2]. Recently, this methodology—to measure gastric motor activity and sensitivity—has been applied for the evaluation of the normal response to meal ingestion, in part motivated by the growing interest in the processes of food production and consumption [3]. Under normal conditions, meal ingestion is associated with a pleasant sensory experience, involving sensations related to homeostasis, e.g., satiety, fullness, with a hedonic dimension [3–5]. Responses to a meal, including the sensory experience, involve a series of events taking place, not only before and during ingestion, but also after meal completion during the post-prandial period. Nutrients 2019, 11, 119; doi:10.3390/nu11010119 www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients Nutrients 2019, 11, 119 2 of 11 These responses depend on the characteristics of the meal [6,7] and the responsiveness of the eater. Recent studies have shown that the responsiveness of the eater may be influenced by a series of conditioning mechanisms, i.e., inducible factors. For instance, a meal pre-load reduced appetite and modified the response to a subsequent meal by increasing satiation/fullness, but reducing satisfaction [8]. Conversely, a cognitive/sensory intervention increased post-prandial satisfaction, with lower intensity of homeostatic sensations [9]. In this context, we hypothesized that the responses to a meal also depend on inherent characteristics of the eater, i.e., constitutive factors. The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to determine whether and to what extent gender, as a constitutive factor, determines the response to a probe meal. More specifically, the tolerance of the meal, the sensory experience during the process of ingestion, and the post-prandial response. For that purpose, the probe meal was individualized by stepwise administration up to the level of full satiation, as the upper limit of consumption. In this study the specific contribution of sex(biology) versus gender (roles) in response to meal ingestion was not investigated, and the term gender is used in a broad sense to encompass the differences between women and men. 2. Material and Methods 2.1. Participants Twenty healthy non-obese, non-dieting, and weight-stable subjects (10 women and 10 men), between 18 and 70 years of age, and without any history of gastrointestinal symptoms were recruited by public advertising to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria were chronic health conditions, use of medications (except occasional use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antihistamines), history of anosmia and ageusia, current dieting or any pattern of selective eating such as vegetarianism, alcohol abuse, and the use of recreational drugs; due to its potential conditioning effect, prior obesity was also one of the exclusion criteria. Absence of current digestive symptoms was verified using a standard abdominal symptom questionnaire (no symptom >2 on a 0–10 scale). Psychological and eating disorders were excluded using the following tests: Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD), Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ—emotional eating, external eating, restrained eating), and the Physical Anhedonia Scale (PAS). Candidates were asked whether they liked the test meals (see below), and those who did not were excluded. In order to reduce variations in gut function related to the menstrual cycle, women were studied during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle (days 5–15). The research was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The study’s protocol had been previously approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University Hospital Vall d’Hebron, and all participants gave written informed consent. 2.2. Experimental Design This study was a single-centre, parallel randomized study performed between September 2017 and January 2018. The study investigated the effect of gender on the responses to meal ingestion. The primary outcome was meal tolerance, measured as the amount of meal ingested up to the level of maximal satiation. The study’s protocol was registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03408977. All co-authors had access to study data, reviewed, and approved the final manuscript. 2.3. Randomization and Masking To prevent time bias, men and women were studied in random order determined by a computer-generated randomization list. Participants were blind to the specific aim and primary outcome of the study. Nutrients2019, Nutrients 2019,11, 11,119 119 33 of of 11 11 2.4. General Procedure 2.4. General Procedure Each participant was studied once. Participants were instructed to refrain from strenuous physical Each activity the was participant day studied prior toonce. the study, to refrain Participants werefrom smoking instructed on thefrom to refrain study day, to consume strenuous physical only a the activity standard breakfast day prior (tea or to the study, to coffee, regular refrain from or decaffeinated smoking on the studydepending on their day, to consume onlyhabits, with a standard semi-skimmed breakfast (tea or milk and coffee, biscuits; regular 181 Kcal, 5 g depending or decaffeinated lipids, 27 goncarbohydrate, their habits, 7with g protein) at homemilk semi-skimmed after overnight and biscuits;fasting, and5 to 181 Kcal, report27togthe g lipids, laboratory 7where carbohydrate, the probe g protein) at homemeal was after administered overnight fasting,4 and h after to breakfast. report Studies to the were where laboratory conducted on participants the probe sitting alone 4with meal was administered onebreakfast. h after investigator in a were Studies quiet, isolated room. conducted Participantssitting on participants werealone instructed to eat with one up to the in investigator level of maximal a quiet, isolated satiation (see Probe room. Participants meal). were Perception instructed to eatwas up tomeasured the level ofbefore, maximal during, satiationand (seeafter Probemeal meal).ingestion Perception(seewas Perception measured measurements). before, during, and Venous bloodingestion after meal samples(see were taken immediately Perception before,Venous measurements). and 30blood min after the Probe samples were meal immediately taken (Figure 1). before, and 30 min after the Probe meal (Figure 1). Figure1.1.Experimental Figure Experimentalprocedure. procedure.AAcomfort comfortmeal mealwas wasadministered administeredatataafixed fixedrate rate(150 (150Kcal/6 Kcal/6min) min) up upto tofull fullsatiation, satiation,while whilemeasuring measuringthe thesensory sensoryexpense expenseatatregular regularintervals. intervals. 2.5. 2.5.Probe ProbeMeal Meal In Inorder ordertoto elicit a positive elicit hedonic a positive response, hedonic an assorted response, and attractive an assorted comfort meal and attractive was meal comfort designedwas through a series of preliminary studies (Table 1). The probe meal was administered designed through a series of preliminary studies (Table 1). The probe meal was administered stepwise at a fixed rate: everyat6 amin stepwise an rate: fixed assorted meal every serving 6 min was presented an assorted on a tray. meal serving wasEach portionon presented consisted of fatty a tray. Each liver portion duck (Foie gras entero de pato mi-cuit, El Corte Inglés, Larrabezua, Spain; 10 g), toasts consisted of fatty liver duck (Foie gras entero de pato mi-cuit, El Corte Inglés, Larrabezua,Spain; 10 (Mini Tostas, Bimbo, Barcelona, g), toasts Spain;Bimbo, (Mini Tostas, 3 g), cheese (Queso Barcelona, emmental Spain; en lonchas, 3 g), cheese (QuesoElemmental Corte Inglés, Madrid,ElSpain; en lonchas, Corte 10 g), potato chips (Patatas fritas clásicas 100% aceite de oliva, LAY’S, Vitoria, Spain; Inglés, Madrid, Spain; 10 g), potato chips (Patatas fritas clásicas 100% aceite de oliva, LAY’S, 5 g), salted peanuts Vitoria, (Cacahuetes fritos peanuts Spain; 5 g), salted y salados, Borges, Reus, (Cacahuetes Spain; fritos 2 g) and y salados, soft Reus, Borges, drink Spain; (Coca-Cola clásica, 2 g) and Coca-Cola, soft drink (Coca- Madrid, Cola clásica, Coca-Cola, Madrid, Spain; 28 mL). At the end of each ingestion step, perceptionwas Spain; 28 mL). At the end of each ingestion step, perception was measured. Ingestion was continued measured.until maximal Ingestion wassatiation continued(score 5 on until a −5 to satiation maximal +5 score scale; (scoresee below). 5 on The+55eating a −5 to rate was score scale; see decided based on preliminary studies searching for a pleasant rate. below). The eating rate was decided based on preliminary studies searching for a pleasant rate. Table 1. Probe meal: content per serving *. Table 1. Probe meal: content per serving *. Total Total Total Total FAT FAT PROT CHO PROT CHO g g kcal kcal gg g g gg fatty liver duck + + 10 53.1 5.5 0.8 0.1 fatty liver duck 10 53.1 5.5 0.8 0.1 toast 3 12.2 0.1 0.4 2.3 toast cheese 10 3 12.2 34.7 0.1 2.7 0.4 2.6 2.3 0.0 potatocheese chips 5 10 34.7 25.6 2.7 1.6 2.6 0.3 0.0 2.5 peanutschips potato 2 5 12.8 25.6 1.1 1.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 2.5 colapeanuts drink 28 2 11.8 12.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.6 3.0 0.2 per serving 58 150.0 11.0 4.6 8.0 cola drink 28 11.8 0.0 0.0 3.0 + PROT: proteins, CHO: carbohydrates; Foie gras mi-cuit; * one serving (55 mL) administered every 6 min up to full satiation. per serving 58 150.0 11.0 4.6 8.0 PROT: proteins, CHO: carbohydrates; +Foie gras mi-cuit; * one serving (55 mL) administered every 6 min up toMeasurements 2.6. Perception full satiation. scales graded from −5 to +5 were used to measure: (a) meal wanting (negative/eager), Five 10 cmMeasurements 2.6. Perception (b) meal liking (very disagreeable/very agreeable), (c) hunger/satiety (extremely hungry/completely Five 10 cm scales graded from −5 to +5 were used to measure: (a) meal wanting (negative/eager), satiated), (d) digestive well-being (extremely unpleasant sensation/extremely pleasant sensation), (b) meal liking (very disagreeable/very agreeable), (c) hunger/satiety (extremely hungry/completely and (e) mood (negative/positive); two additional 10 cm scales graded from 0 (not at all) to 10 satiated), (d) digestive well-being (extremely unpleasant sensation/extremely pleasant sensation), Nutrients 2019, 11, 119 4 of 11 (very much) were used to measure: (f) abdominal bloating-fullness, and (g) discomfort-pain. Subjects received standard instructions on how to fill-out the scales [10]. The wanting scale was only scored at the presentation stage of each meal serving. The liking scale was only scored at the end of each ingestion step. The rest of the scales were scored: (a) at 5 min intervals 10 min before the meal, (b) at the end of each ingestion step, (c) at 5 min intervals during the first 20 min after ingestion, and (d) at 10 min intervals up to 60 min after finishing the probe meal (Figure 1). It has been previously shown that these scales detect consistent and reproducible differences in post-prandial sensations induced by various conditioning factors [3–9], and that perception measurements correlate with changes in circulating metabolites [10,11] and with some objective parameters of brain function measured by functional magnetic resonance [12]. 2.7. Analytical Procedures Once extracted, blood samples were immediately placed in ice. After completing the study, the samples were centrifuged for 15 min at 4 ◦ C and 1500 g to separate blood components. Using 1 mL pipettes, samples of plasma and serum were placed in Eppendorf tubes and stored at −40 ◦ C. Routine laboratory techniques were used to measure insulin levels (AU5800 spectrophotometry system, Beckman Coulter, Brea CA, USA). GLP-1 was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (GLP-1 Total ELISA Kit; Millipore, Billerica MA, USA). The metabolomic analysis was performed using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), as previously described [10,11]. In brief, the concentration of the three different classes of lipoproteins (VLDL, LDL, and HDL), and their composition (content of cholesterol, triglycerides and large, medium and small particles) were determined [13]. A target set of 14 low molecular weight metabolites (LMWMs) was identified and quantified in the 1D Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill spectra using Dolphin [14]. Each metabolite was identified by checking for all its resonances along the spectra, and then quantified using line–shape fitting methods on one of its signals [15]. Validation of metabolite identification was assisted by statistical total correlation spectroscopy (STOCSY) [16]. 2.8. Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was performed using the Stata Software for Windows, (StataCorp. 2017. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC) and MetaboAnalyst 4.0 [17]. Considering a 20% difference in meal tolerance (Kcal to maximal satiation) biologically relevant, a sample of 20 subjects (10 women and 10 men) was estimated necessary to discriminate between the two groups with a power of 80% and a significance level of 5%. In each group, mean and standard error (SE) of the measured variables were calculated. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to check the normality of data distribution. Parametric normally distributed data were compared by Student’s t-test for paired or unpaired data; otherwise, the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for paired data, and the Mann–Whitney U test was used for unpaired data. The association of parameters was analyzed using Pearson’s test. Temporal responses to meal ingestion were analyzed using one-way ANOVA for repeated measurements (10 min pre- and 60 min post-prandial period); when the ANOVA was significant, post-hoc comparisons between time-points were performed by applying the Sidak multiple comparison correction procedure. Comparisons between groups (men vs. women) were performed using repeated measures ANCOVA (dependent variable: post-prandial sensations scores; between and within subject’s factors: gender and time, respectively; covariate: pre-meal scores) [18]. Multivariate discriminant analysis of metabolomic data (standardized concentrations) was performed using an unsupervised classification by Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and supervised orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA). Differences were considered significant at a p value <0.05. Nutrients 2019, 11, 119 5 of 11 Nutrients 2019, 11, 119 5 of 11 3. Results 3. Results 3.1. Demographics 3.1. Demographics Participants were 22–37 years of age with 19.7–24.7 Kg/m2 body mass index range without differences between Participants women were 22–37and men. years of Body weight age with 19.7–24.7 ± 2 Kg2inbody was 61 Kg/m women and mass 75 ± range index 3 Kg inwithout men (p = 0.003). All differences participants between womenhadandnormal bowel men. Body habitswas weight and61scored ± 2 KgHospital in womenAnxiety and 75and ± 3Depression Kg in men scale (HAD), (p = 0.003). AllPhysical Anhedonia participants Scale had normal (PAS), bowel andand habits Dutch Eating scored Behavior Hospital Questionnaire Anxiety (DEBQ) and Depression scale within (HAD),the normal Physical range in all Anhedonia domains. Scale (PAS),All andparticipants Dutch Eatingcompleted Behaviorthe studies and (DEBQ) Questionnaire were included for within the analysis. normal range in all domains. All participants completed the studies and were included for analysis. Baseline Conditions 3.2. Baseline Conditions Before the Probe meal (baseline fasting period), subjects reported hunger and positive mood in both groups alike, without fullness/bloating or discomfort/pain discomfort/pain(Figure (Figure 2). 2). Baseline Baselinewell-being well-being scores scores were higher in women than men (p = 0.046). Figure 2. Effect of gender on meal-related sensations. Sensations were scored on 10 cm scales. Figure 2. Effect of gender on meal-related sensations. Sensations were scored on 10 cm scales. During During meal ingestion, well-being increased up to a peak and then progressively decreased until meal ingestion, well-being increased up to a peak and then progressively decreased until full full satiation. No statistical differences in post-prandial sensations between groups were detected by satiation. No statistical differences in post-prandial sensations between groups were detected by Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), but the post-prandial well-being measured as the area under the Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), but the post-prandial well-being measured as the area under the curve, was significantly larger in men (p = 0.047). Temporal responses to meal ingestion analyzed curve, was significantly larger in men (p = 0.047). Temporal responses to meal ingestion analyzed using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures; asterisks indicate significant using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures; asterisks indicate significant differences from pre-meal values by post-hoc comparisons (p < 0.05 applying the Sidak correction differences from pre-meal values by post-hoc comparisons (p < 0.05 applying the Sidak correction procedure for multiple comparisons). procedure for multiple comparisons). Nutrients 2019, 11, 119 6 of 11 3.3. Sensations during Meal Ingestion Nutrients 2019, 11, 119 6 of 11 At initial presentation, the meal was attractive with positive wanting scores, similar for both women and men (Figure 3). Wanting scores progressively declined down to negative values at the 3.3. lastSensations ingestionduring Mealwanting step, i.e., Ingestionscore at presentation of the serving that induced maximal satiation wasAt rated −3.8 initial ± 1.0 score inthe presentation, women and attractive meal was −4.1 ± 0.6 score in men; pwanting with positive ≤ 0.004 vs. first similar scores, step forfor both; bothp= 0.793 between groups). women and men (Figure 3). Wanting scores progressively declined down to negative values at the All participants last ingestion step, i.e.,liked the first wanting scoreplate of the meal. of at presentation Liking of the first the serving thatplate correlated induced maximalwith wanting satiation scores before eating it (R = 0.73; p < 0.001). Afterwards liking gradually declined down was rated −3.8 ± 1.0 score in women and −4.1 ± 0.6 score in men; p ≤ 0.004 vs. first step for both; to neutral by p the end between = 0.793 of the meal (p ≤ 0.100 vs. first step for both groups; p = 0.750 between groups; Figure 3). groups). Figure 3. Meal-wanting and liking during meal ingestion. Data correspond to: (A) the first meal Figure (B) serving, 3. Meal-wanting andinduced the serving that liking during meal maximal ingestion.and well-being, Data(C) correspond to:that the serving (A) induced the first full meal serving, (B) the serving satiation (last serving). that induced maximal well-being, and (C) the serving that induced full satiation (last serving). All participants liked the first plate of the meal. Liking of the first plate correlated with wanting scores During the ingestion before eating it (R = 0.73;period, p < 0.001).baseline Afterwardshunger declined liking gradually anddeclined the hunger/satiation down to neutral axis by progressively shifted towards maximal satiation by the end of the meal; the end of the meal (p ≤ 0.100 vs. first step for both groups; p = 0.750 between groups; Figure 3). the upper limit of the dose- response Duringtest, both in women the ingestion period,and menhunger baseline (Figuredeclined 2). The andamount of food toleratedaxis the hunger/satiation was significantly progressively smaller shifted in women towards than insatiation maximal men (945by ± 59 theKcal endvs. of 1575 ± 147 the the meal; Kcal, respectively; upper p < 0.001). limit of the No significant dose-response test, both in women and men (Figure 2). The amount of food tolerated was significantly smaller in womenor correlations were found between food tolerance and body mass index (BMI) (R = 0.21; p = 0.176) weight than in men(R =(945 0.41;±p 59= 0.079). During Kcal vs. 1575 meal ± 147ingestion the fullnessp sensation Kcal, respectively; < 0.001). No gradually increased, significant and by correlations the end of the meal, fullness scores were similar in women and men (Figure were found between food tolerance and body mass index (BMI) (R = 0.21; p = 0.176) or weight (R = 0.41; 2). Initially, p = 0.079). During mealmeal ingestion ingestion significantly the fullnessincreased sensation the sensation gradually of digestive increased, and bywell-being. the end of the The amount meal, of food fullness thatwere scores induced thein similar well-being women and peak mentended (Figureto be 2). lower in women than in men, but the difference Initially,did meal notingestion reach statistical significance significantly increased(345 ± 71 Kcal of the sensation vs.digestive 660 ± 129 Kcal, respectively; well-being. The amount p= of0.069); well-being food that inducedscores approached the well-being peak thetended top of to thebescales lowerininboth womengroups,thanregardless in men, but of the the difference differences in basal did scores not reach (Figure 2). statistical At the point significance (345 of ±maximal 71 Kcalwell-being, vs. 660 ± mood 129 Kcal,scores were also high, respectively; and an p = 0.069); increase was observed in men (p = 0.046 vs. pre-meal); at that point, men well-being scores approached the top of the scales in both groups, regardless of the differences in basal experienced more fullness than women scores (Figure 2). (p =At0.029) and satiation the point of maximal scores also tended well-being, mood toscores be higher were(palso= 0.123). high, After and anhaving increasereached was observed in men (p = 0.046 vs. pre-meal); at that point, men experienced more fullness than women2); the well-being peak, well-being decreased to a minimal level by the end of meal ingestion (Figure (pwell-being = 0.029) and scores werescores satiation belowalso pre-meal tendedlevelto beinhigher women (p and above = 0.123). in men, After andreached having the changes from basal the well-being levelswell-being peak, were significantly decreased different between to a minimal groups level by the(p =end0.025). of meal ingestion (Figure 2); well-being scores The wereamount of food that below pre-meal induced level in women the and well-being above in peak men,didandnotthecorrelate changeswithfromthe amount basal levelsofwere food inducing maximal significantly differentsatiation between(R = 0.22;(pp==0.025). groups 0.177); considering together the amount of food inducing maximal well-being The amount andthat of food thatinduced inducingthe maximal well-beingsatiation peak adidgoodnotdiscrimination correlate with between the amount women and of food by men was found (p = 0.002 by canonical lineal discriminant analysis; inducing maximal satiation (R = 0.22; p = 0.177); considering together the amount of food inducing Figure 4). maximal well-being and that inducing maximal satiation a good discrimination between women and by men was found (p = 0.002 by canonical lineal discriminant analysis; Figure 4). Nutrients 2019, 11, 119 7 of 11 Nutrients 2019, 11, 119 7 of 11 Figure 4. Relation between meal loads that induced maximal well-being and full satiation. Note discrimination between women and men. Figure 4. Relation between meal loads that induced maximal well-being and full satiation. Note discrimination All between participants women ingested at and leastmen. 750 Kcal (5 meal servings); at this common maximal level, satiation was higher in women than in men (3.6 ± 0.4 score vs. 1.2 ± 0.7 score, respectively; p = 0.014); All participants ingested at least 750 Kcal (5 meal servings); at this common maximal level, at this point, fullness tended to be higher in women (4.1 ± 0.7 score vs. 2.7 ± 0.9 score, respectively; satiation was higher in women than in men (3.6 ± 0.4 score vs. 1.2 ± 0.7 score, respectively; p = 0.014); p = 0.235), whereas well-being (1.3 ± 0.7 score vs. 2.1 ± 0.5 score, respectively; p = 0.344) and mood at this point, fullness tended to be higher in women (4.1 ± 0.7 score vs. 2.7 ± 0.9 score, respectively; (3.1 ± 0.5 score vs. 3.4 ± 0.3 score, respectively; p = 0.606) tended to be lower than in men, but the p = 0.235), whereas well-being (1.3 ± 0.7 score vs. 2.1 ± 0.5 score, respectively; p = 0.344) and mood differences were not statistically significant. (3.1 ± 0.5 score vs. 3.4 ± 0.3 score, respectively; p = 0.606) tended to be lower than in men, but the differences 3.4. were not statistically The Post-Prandial Experience significant. 3.4. The 3.4.1. Post-prandial Homeostatic Experience Sensations During the post-prandial period both women and men reported satiety and fullness 3.4.1. Homeostatic Sensations (main time-effect p < 0.001 for all; Figure 2). These sensations gradually decayed; however, post-hoc During the comparisons post-prandial showed periodremained that the scores both women and men reported significantly satiety higher than and fullness pre-meal (main time- scores through the effect 60 minp