Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:19:44.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Changes in implicit wanting and explicit liking and wanting for food after gastric bypass surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2018

T. Redpath
Affiliation:
Nutrition Innovation Centre for Food and Health (NICHE), Ulster University, Coleraine, BT52 1SA, Ireland.
R.K. Price
Affiliation:
Nutrition Innovation Centre for Food and Health (NICHE), Ulster University, Coleraine, BT52 1SA, Ireland.
G. Finlayson
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS2 9JT
A. Boyd
Affiliation:
Nutrition Innovation Centre for Food and Health (NICHE), Ulster University, Coleraine, BT52 1SA, Ireland.
F. Naseer
Affiliation:
Nutrition Innovation Centre for Food and Health (NICHE), Ulster University, Coleraine, BT52 1SA, Ireland.
D. Liddy
Affiliation:
Nutrition Innovation Centre for Food and Health (NICHE), Ulster University, Coleraine, BT52 1SA, Ireland.
C.W. Le Roux
Affiliation:
Diabetes Complications Research Centre, University College Dublin, Ireland.
M.B.E Livingstone
Affiliation:
Nutrition Innovation Centre for Food and Health (NICHE), Ulster University, Coleraine, BT52 1SA, Ireland.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Abstract
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2018 

Gastric bypass surgery (GB) is a safe, effective treatment for morbid obesity(Reference Colquitt and Pickett1). Aside from reduced energy consumption, patients report changes in food preferences and appetite that may contribute to weight loss post-surgery(Reference Mathes and Spector2, Reference Miras and Le Roux3). Food preferences can be separated into two constructs; ‘liking’ (pleasure) and ‘wanting’ (motivation/desire to eat)(Reference Berridge and Robinson4) which may be influenced by physiological and psychological changes post-surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate changes in food preferences (‘liking’ and ‘wanting’) in GB patients from pre- to post-surgery, compared to weight-stable controls.

Nineteen patients (45·2 ± 12·5 years, Body Mass Index (BMI): 45·3 ± 6·4 kg/m2) and sixteen time-matched controls (44·7 ± 15·6 years, BMI: 25 ± 4·4 kg/m2) completed the computer-based Leeds Food Preference Questionnaire, which assesses preferences for sweet/savoury foods and low-fat/high-fat foods(Reference Finlayson, King and Blundell5), at baseline (1-month pre-surgery) and 3-months post-surgery. Explicit liking and wanting (conscious hedonic feelings/desire to consume) were measured using Visual Analogue Scales, whilst implicit wanting (unconscious motivational expression) was measured using food selection and reaction times in a forced-choice task.

There were no significant differences in food preferences between patients and controls at baseline. BMI for controls remained stable (+0·1 ± 1·3 kg/m2, p = 0·73), whilst BMI in patients significantly decreased (−8·3 ± 2·7 kg/m2, p = <0·01). GB patients expressed a significant decrease in the explicit liking (F(1,33) = 10·42, p = 0·03), explicit wanting (F(1,33) = 5·76, p = 0·02) and implicit wanting (F(1,33) = 4·92, p = 0·03) for sweet foods after surgery. However, there were no significant changes in preferences for high-fat foods in patients from pre to post-surgery. There were no significant changes in preferences for controls for sweet or high-fat foods.

In conclusion, patients express a significant decrease in preferences for sweet foods post-surgery. As changes in implicit unconscious motivational expression of food preferences may be more predictive of actual food consumption(Reference Pool and Sennwald6) these findings highlight a possible mechanism responsible for the success of GB as an obesity treatment.

References

1.Colquitt, JL, Pickett, K et al. (2014) Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8, CD003641.Google Scholar
2.Mathes, CM & Spector, AC (2012) Physiol Behav 107, 476483.Google Scholar
3.Miras, AD & Le Roux, CW (2013) Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 10, 575584.Google Scholar
4.Berridge, KC & Robinson, TE (2003) Trends Neurosci 26, 507513.Google Scholar
5.Finlayson, G, King, N & Blundell, J (2008) Appetite 50, 120127.Google Scholar
6.Pool, E, Sennwald, V et al. (2016) Neurosci Biobehav Rev 63, 124142.Google Scholar