<table><tr><td>n=10 non-obese men,<br>Age=21±4 yr<br>BMI=24.2±2.3 kg/m²</td><td>- Moderate energy: 1776 kJ<br>Experiment 2: 2 liquid meal conditions (repeated twice)<br>- Low energy: 828 kJ<br>- High energy: 4188 kJ</td><td>calculated with (hunger, (100-fullness), satisfaction and PFC)/4.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>McNeil et al., 2017 <sup>(31)</sup><br>n = 18 (12 men, 6 women)<br>Age=23±4 yr<br>BMI=22.7±2.7 kg/m²</td><td>Randomized cross-over study<br><u>Protocol</u>: Individualized BF (ad libitum on preliminary session and standardized to quantities consumed on subsequent sessions), ad libitum lunch<br>3 conditions:<br>- Control (habitual bed- and wake-time)<br>- 50% sleep restriction with an usual bedtime and advanced wake-time<br>- 50% sleep restriction with a delayed bedtime and habitual wake-time</td><td>Before BF and 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180 min post-BF.</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>F</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub>, SQ<sub>PFC</sub> (mm/kcal) = [fasting rating - mean post-meal rating] /energy content of BF *100.</td><td><u>SQ and sleep quality and quantity</u>:<br>- No difference in SQ between sessions.<br>- No correlations between changes in sleep stage durations with mean SQ between sessions.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Polugrudov<br>et al., 2017<br>(20)</td><td>n=66<br><u>Social JetLag</u><br>(SJL) ≤1h: n=17<br>(3 men, 14 women),<br>Age=23.7±2.9 yr<br>BMI=21.2±2.5 kg/m²<br><u>SJL 1h to ≤2h:</u><br>n=28 (10 men, 18 women)<br>Age=22.8±3.2 yrs<br>BMI= 22.2±3.2 kg/m²<br><u>SJL>2h:</u> n=21 (6 men, 15 women)<br>Age= 23.2±4.1 yr<br>BMI= 23.4±4.6 kg/m²</td><td>Randomized Trial<br><u>Protocol:</u> Ad libitum BF<br>3 groups:<br>- SJL ≤1 h<br>- SJL 1h to ≤ 2 h<br>- SJL> 2 h</td><td>Before BF and<br>at 30, 60, 90,<br>and 120 min<br>after</td><td>SQH, SQF, SQS, SQPFC<br>(mm/kcal)= [fasting rating - mean post-meal rating]/EI at BF*100.</td><td><u>Other:</u><br>- Mean SQ (mean value of SQH, SQF, SQS, SQPFC) in SJL 1-2h and SJL >2h groups lower than SJL ≤ 1h group (p&lt;0.01).</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Polugrudov<br>et al., 2017<br>(20)</td><td>n=66<br>Social JetLag<br>(SJL) ≤1h: n=17<br>(3 men, 14 women),<br>Age=23.7±2.9 yr<br>BMI=21.2±2.5 kg/m²<br>SJL 1h to ≤2h:<br>n=28 (10 men, 18 women)<br>Age=22.8±3.2 yrs<br>BMI= 22.2±3.2 kg/m²<br>SJL>2h: n=21 (6 men, 15 women)<br>Age= 23.2±4.1 yr<br>BMI= 23.4±4.6 kg/m²</td><td>Randomized Trial<br>Protocol: Ad libitum BF<br>3 groups:<br>- SJL ≤1 h<br>- SJL 1h to ≤ 2 h<br>- SJL> 2 h</td><td>Before BF and<br>at 30, 60, 90,<br>and 120 min<br>after</td><td>SQH, SQF, SQS, SQPFC<br>(mm/kcal)= [fasting rating - mean post-meal rating]/EI at BF*100.</td><td>Other:<br>- Mean SQ (mean value of SQH, SQF, SQS, SQPFC) in SJL 1-2h and SJL >2h groups lower than SJL ≤ 1h group (p&lt;0.01).</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Au-Yeung et al., 2018 <sup>(30)</sup></td><td>n= 16 (4 men, 12 women)<br/>Age=26±19 yr (range 18–62),<br/>BMI=23.1 ±3.2 kg/m²</td><td>Randomized, single-blind, controlled, dose-response cross-over study<br/>Protocol: Standardized preload, ad libitum dessert<br/>3 preload conditions:<br/>- Control: all pasta with no Konjac Glucomannan (KGM)-gel (1849 kJ)<br/>- 50-KGM: half pasta and half KGM-gel (1084 kJ)<br/>- 100-KGM: no pasta and all KGM-gel (322 kJ)</td><td>Baseline (before preload), 15, 30, 45, 60, 75 and 90 min after the first bite of the preload.</td><td>SQH, SQDTE, SQPFC (mm/kJ)= (baseline rating - postprandial rating)/ energy content of preload<br/>SQF (mm/kJ)= (postprandial rating – baseline rating)/ energy content of preload<br/>Composite SQ calculated with (hunger, (100-fullness), DTE and PFC)/4.</td><td><strong>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</strong><br/>SQH, SQF, SQDTE, SQPFC and composite SQ were significantly increased in response to 100-KGM ingestion compared with 50-KGM and control with no difference between 50-KGM and control.</td></tr><tr><td>Hansen et al., 2018 <sup>(18)</sup></td><td>n=39 (11 men, 28 women)<br/>Age=26.3 ± 10.9 yr<br/>BMI= 24.4 ± 3.1 kg/m²</td><td>Double-blind randomized cross-over study<br/>Protocol: Standardized BF, ad libitum meal<br/>3 BF conditions (including 80 g cheese):<br/>- HP/LF: high-protein/low-fat hard cheese (1721 kJ)</td><td>Before and 15 min after the BF and at 30-min intervals after BF during 180 min and before and after ad libitum test</td><td>Composite SQ (mm/kJ) = (pre-meal rating–post-meal rating)×100/ EI of the food consumed<br/>Composite SQ calculated with (satiety</td><td><strong>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</strong><br/>- ↑ feeling of satiety from the HP/LF cheese tended to lower EI compared with the LP/HF cheese<br/>- HP cheese content ↑ satiety and ↓ EI when included as part of a diet.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Au-Yeung et al., 2018 <sup>(30)</sup></td><td>n= 16 (4 men, 12 women)<br/>Age=26±19 yr (range 18–62),<br/>BMI=23.1 ±3.2 kg/m²</td><td>Randomized, single-blind, controlled, dose-response cross-over study<br/>Protocol: Standardized preload, ad libitum dessert<br/>3 preload conditions:<br/>- Control: all pasta with no Konjac Glucomannan (KGM)-gel (1849 kJ)<br/>- 50-KGM: half pasta and half KGM-gel (1084 kJ)<br/>- 100-KGM: no pasta and all KGM-gel (322 kJ)</td><td>Baseline (before preload), 15, 30, 45, 60, 75 and 90 min after the first bite of the preload.</td><td>SQH, SQDTE, SQPFC (mm/kJ)= (baseline rating - postprandial rating)/ energy content of preload<br/>SQF (mm/kJ)= (postprandial rating – baseline rating)/ energy content of preload<br/>Composite SQ calculated with (hunger, (100-fullness), DTE and PFC)/4.</td><td><strong>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</strong><br/>SQH, SQF, SQDTE, SQPFC and composite SQ were significantly increased in response to 100-KGM ingestion compared with 50-KGM and control with no difference between 50-KGM and control.</td></tr><tr><td>Hansen et al., 2018 <sup>(18)</sup></td><td>n=39 (11 men, 28 women)<br/>Age=26.3 ± 10.9 yr<br/>BMI= 24.4 ± 3.1 kg/m²</td><td>Double-blind randomized cross-over study<br/>Protocol: Standardized BF, ad libitum meal<br/>3 BF conditions (including 80 g cheese):<br/>- HP/LF: high-protein/low-fat hard cheese (1721 kJ)</td><td>Before and 15 min after the BF and at 30-min intervals after BF during 180 min and before and after ad libitum test</td><td>Composite SQ (mm/kJ) = (pre-meal rating–post-meal rating)×100/ EI of the food consumed<br/>Composite SQ calculated with (satiety</td><td><strong>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</strong><br/>- ↑ feeling of satiety from the HP/LF cheese tended to lower EI compared with the LP/HF cheese<br/>- HP cheese content ↑ satiety and ↓ EI when included as part of a diet.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td>- HP/HF: high-protein/high-fat<br>hard cheese (2000 kJ)<br>- LP/HF: low-protein/high-fat<br>cream cheese (1796 kJ)</td><td>meal</td><td>+ fullness + (100-<br>hunger) + (100-DTE) +<br>(100-PFC)/5<br>SQ calculated at BF and<br>lunch<br>Note: The authors<br>define SQ as “Appetite<br>Quotient”</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hollingworth<br>et al., 2018<br>(15)</td><td>n= 42 females<br>Age=26.0 ±7.9<br>yr<br>BMI=22.0 ±2.0<br>kg/m²</td><td>Randomized cross-over study<br>Protocol: mid-morning snack, ad<br>libitum EI<br>3 snack conditions:<br>- Raw almonds<br>- Savory crackers<br>- Water</td><td>NR</td><td>SQ = NR</td><td><strong>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</strong><br>- Consumed energy, reported craving for<br>sweet foods: low SQ > high SQ<br>- Levels of hunger, desire to eat and<br>prospective consumption: low SQ > high<br>SQ<br>- Satiating efficiency in low SQ: almonds ><br>snack (crackers)<br>- Low SQ = behavioral and psychological<br>characteristics associated with risk for<br>overconsumption (but substitution of certain<br>snack foods may improve the satiety<br>responsiveness of these individuals)</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td>- HP/HF: high-protein/high-fat<br>hard cheese (2000 kJ)<br>- LP/HF: low-protein/high-fat<br>cream cheese (1796 kJ)</td><td>meal</td><td>+ fullness + (100-<br>hunger) + (100-DTE) +<br>(100-PFC)/5<br>SQ calculated at BF and<br>lunch<br>Note: The authors<br>define SQ as “Appetite<br>Quotient”</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hollingworth<br>et al., 2018<br>(15)</td><td>n= 42 females<br>Age=26.0 ±7.9<br>yr<br>BMI=22.0 ±2.0<br>kg/m²</td><td>Randomized cross-over study<br>Protocol: mid-morning snack, ad<br>libitum EI<br>3 snack conditions:<br>- Raw almonds<br>- Savory crackers<br>- Water</td><td>NR</td><td>SQ = NR</td><td><strong>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</strong><br>- Consumed energy, reported craving for<br>sweet foods: low SQ > high SQ<br>- Levels of hunger, desire to eat and<br>prospective consumption: low SQ > high<br>SQ<br>- Satiating efficiency in low SQ: almonds ><br>snack (crackers)<br>- Low SQ = behavioral and psychological<br>characteristics associated with risk for<br>overconsumption (but substitution of certain<br>snack foods may improve the satiety<br>responsiveness of these individuals)</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Martini et al., 2018 <sup>(27)</sup></td><td>n= 20 females<br>Age= NR<br>BMI= &lt;25 kg/m<sup>2</sup></td><td>Randomized cross-over study<br><u>Protocol</u>: Own low-fiber BF, standardized lunch, ad libitum snack<br>5 pasta lunch conditions:<br>- High fiber<br>- High fiber + high protein<br>- High protein (soy protein)<br>- High protein (egg white)<br>- Control (standard commercial pasta)</td><td>Before and after lunch, every 30 min for 2 h until snack, before and after snack</td><td>SQ<sub>F</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub>, SQ<sub>S</sub><br>SQ 1 (cm/kcal)=(rating before lunch-rating after lunch)/<br>Energy content of lunch*100<br>SQ 2 (cm/kcal)=(rating before lunch-rating before snack)/<br>Energy content of lunch*100<br>SQ 3 (cm/kcal)=(rating before lunch-rating after snack)/<br>(Energy content of lunch + snack)*100</td><td><b>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</b><br>- SQ<sub>F</sub> for all formulations &gt; SQ<sub>F</sub> control pasta immediately after lunch and over the subsequent 2 h.<br>- SQ<sub>DTE</sub> for High fiber + high protein pasta &lt; SQ<sub>DTE</sub> for control pasta after lunch and after snack consumption<br>- Only high fiber pasta showed a higher SQ<sub>S</sub> compared to control.</td></tr><tr><td>Thivel et al., 2019 <sup>(37)</sup></td><td>n=19 normal weight (10 men, 9 women)<br>Age= 21 ± 1 yr<br>BMI= 22.3±2.9 kg/m<sup>2</sup></td><td>Randomized controlled cross-over study<br><u>Protocol</u>: Standardized BF (500 kcal), exercise/control, standardized lunch (women: 750 kcal, men: 900 kcal) 3 conditions:</td><td>Before and after BF, before and after exercise/rest, before and after lunch, and 30 min and</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>F</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub>, SQ<sub>PFC</sub><br>(mm/kcal) = (pre meal rating – mean 60 min post-meal rating) / energy content of lunch*100.</td><td><b>SQ, physical activity and energy expenditure:</b><br>- No difference in SQ<sub>F</sub> across conditions.<br>- SQ<sub>H</sub> CON &gt; LIE and HIE (p≤0.05) (no difference between LIE and HIE)<br>- SQ<sub>DTE</sub> CON &gt; HIE (p≤0.01) (no difference between CON and LIE, and between LIE</td></tr></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>Martini et al., 2018 <sup>(27)</sup></td><td>n= 20 females<br>Age= NR<br>BMI= &lt;25 kg/m<sup>2</sup></td><td>Randomized cross-over study<br><u>Protocol</u>: Own low-fiber BF, standardized lunch, ad libitum snack<br>5 pasta lunch conditions:<br>- High fiber<br>- High fiber + high protein<br>- High protein (soy protein)<br>- High protein (egg white)<br>- Control (standard commercial pasta)</td><td>Before and after lunch, every 30 min for 2 h until snack, before and after snack</td><td>SQ<sub>F</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub>, SQ<sub>S</sub><br>SQ 1 (cm/kcal)=(rating before lunch-rating after lunch)/<br>Energy content of lunch*100<br>SQ 2 (cm/kcal)=(rating before lunch-rating before snack)/<br>Energy content of lunch*100<br>SQ 3 (cm/kcal)=(rating before lunch-rating after snack)/<br>(Energy content of lunch + snack)*100</td><td><strong><u>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</u></strong><br>- SQ<sub>F</sub> for all formulations &gt; SQ<sub>F</sub> control pasta immediately after lunch and over the subsequent 2 h.<br>- SQ<sub>DTE</sub> for High fiber + high protein pasta &lt; SQ<sub>DTE</sub> for control pasta after lunch and after snack consumption<br>- Only high fiber pasta showed a higher SQ<sub>S</sub> compared to control.</td></tr><tr><td>Thivel et al., 2019 <sup>(37)</sup></td><td>n=19 normal weight (10 men, 9 women)<br>Age= 21 ± 1 yr<br>BMI= 22.3±2.9 kg/m<sup>2</sup></td><td>Randomized controlled cross-over study<br><u>Protocol</u>: Standardized BF (500 kcal), exercise/control, standardized lunch (women: 750 kcal, men: 900 kcal) 3 conditions:</td><td>Before and after BF, before and after exercise/rest, before and after lunch, and 30 min and</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>F</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub>, SQ<sub>PFC</sub><br>(mm/kcal) = (pre meal rating - mean 60 min post-meal rating) / energy content of lunch*100.</td><td><strong><u>SQ, physical activity and energy expenditure:</u></strong><br>- No difference in SQ<sub>F</sub> across conditions.<br>- SQ<sub>H</sub> CON &gt; LIE and HIE (p≤0.05) (no difference between LIE and HIE)<br>- SQ<sub>DTE</sub> CON &gt; HIE (p≤0.01) (no difference between CON and LIE, and between LIE</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>- CON: rest during 45 min</td><td>60 min after the</td><td>and HIE)</td></tr><tr><td>- Low intensity exercise (LIE):</td><td>test meal</td><td>- SQ<sub>PFC</sub> HIE &lt; CON (p=0.02) (no difference</td></tr><tr><td>45 min cycling at 50%VO<sub>2max</sub></td><td></td><td>between CON and LIE, and LIE and HIE)</td></tr><tr><td>- High intensity exercise (HIE):</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>30 min cycling at 75%VO<sub>2max</sub></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

Protocol are detailed only the relevant of SQ; values are presented as means ± SD (standard deviation); AS: appetite sensation; EI: energy intake; BF: Breakfast; BW: Body Weight, NR: Not Reported.

DTE: Desire To Eat; F: Fullness; H: Hunger, PFC: Prospective Food Consumption; S: Satiety; SQ: Satiety Quotient.
<table><tr><td>- CON: rest during 45 min</td><td>60 min after the</td><td>and HIE)</td></tr><tr><td>- Low intensity exercise (LIE):</td><td>test meal</td><td>- SQ<sub>PFC</sub> HIE &lt; CON (p=0.02) (no difference</td></tr><tr><td>45 min cycling at 50%VO<sub>2max</sub></td><td></td><td>between CON and LIE, and LIE and HIE)</td></tr><tr><td>- High intensity exercise (HIE):</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>30 min cycling at 75%VO<sub>2max</sub></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

Protocol are detailed only the relevant of SQ; values are presented as means ± SD (standard deviation); AS: appetite sensation; EI: energy intake; BF: Breakfast; BW: Body Weight, NR: Not Reported.

DTE: Desire To Eat; F: Fullness; H: Hunger, PFC: Prospective Food Consumption; S: Satiety; SQ: Satiety Quotient.
<table><caption>Table 4: Data detailed for children and adolescents acute studies</caption><thead><tr><th>Study</th><th>Population characteristics</th><th>Design</th><th>VAS timing</th><th>SQ equation</th><th>Main results</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Albert et al., 2015 (38)</td><td>n = 12 boys<br>Age= 17±1,6<br>yr<br>BMI=<br>23.1±3.1 kg/m²</td><td>Randomized cross-over study<br>Protocol: Standardized BF, exercise (70%VO<sub>2max</sub>), ad libitum lunch (12:00 pm), ad libitum dinner (5:00am)<br>2 conditions:<br>-ExMeal: Exercise at 11:15am meal 12:00pm<br>-Ex<sub>delay</sub>Meal: Exercise 09:00am meal 12:00pm</td><td>Before and after lunch and dinner</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub> (mm/kJ) = (pre-lunch rating–post-lunch rating)<br>/EI at lunch*100</td><td><u>SQ, physical activity and energy expenditure:</u><br>- No difference SQ between conditions at lunch and dinner.</td></tr><tr><td>Fillon et al., 2020 (39)</td><td>n=15 (6 boys and 9 girls)<br>Age=13.1±1.4<br>yr<br>BMI=<br>34.7±6.0 kg/m²<br>(z-BMI<br>2.3±0.3)</td><td>Randomized controlled study<br>Protocol: Standardized BF, exercise/rest condition, ad libitum lunch (12:00), ad libitum dinner (18:00)<br>3 conditions:<br>- rest condition (CON)<br>- 30-min exercise (65%VO<sub>2max</sub>)<br>180 min before lunch (EX-180)<br>- 30-min exercise (65%VO<sub>2max</sub>)</td><td>Before meal, post-meal, 30 and 60 min after meal for ad libitum lunch and dinner</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>S</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub> and SQ<sub>PFC</sub> (mm/kcal) = (pre-lunch rating – mean post-lunch and 60 min post-lunch rating) / EI at lunch*100</td><td><u>SQ, physical activity and energy expenditure:</u><br>- SQ<sub>H</sub> CON &lt; SQ<sub>H</sub> EX180 and EX30<br>- SQ<sub>PFC</sub> CON &lt; SQ<sub>PFC</sub> EX180 and EX30<br>- SQ<sub>DTE</sub> CON &lt; SQ<sub>DTE</sub> EX180 and EX30</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 4: Data detailed for children and adolescents acute studies</caption><thead><tr><th>Study</th><th>Population characteristics</th><th>Design</th><th>VAS timing</th><th>SQ equation</th><th>Main results</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Albert et al., 2015 (38)</td><td>n = 12 boys<br>Age= 17±1,6<br>yr<br>BMI=<br>23.1±3.1 kg/m²</td><td>Randomized cross-over study<br><u>Protocol</u>: Standardized BF, exercise (70%VO<sub>2max</sub>), ad libitum lunch (12:00 pm), ad libitum dinner (5:00am)<br>2 conditions:<br>-ExMeal: Exercise at 11:15am meal 12:00pm<br>-Ex<sub>delay</sub>Meal: Exercise 09:00am meal 12:00pm</td><td>Before and after lunch and dinner</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub> (mm/kJ) = (pre-lunch rating–post-lunch rating)<br>/EI at lunch*100</td><td><u>SQ, physical activity and energy expenditure</u>:<br>- No difference SQ between conditions at lunch and dinner.</td></tr><tr><td>Fillon et al., 2020 (39)</td><td>n=15 (6 boys and 9 girls)<br>Age=13.1±1.4<br>yr<br>BMI=<br>34.7±6.0 kg/m²<br>(z-BMI<br>2.3±0.3)</td><td>Randomized controlled study<br><u>Protocol</u>: Standardized BF, exercise/rest condition, ad libitum lunch (12:00), ad libitum dinner (18:00)<br>3 conditions:<br>- rest condition (CON)<br>- 30-min exercise (65%VO<sub>2max</sub>)<br>180 min before lunch (EX-180)<br>- 30-min exercise (65%VO<sub>2max</sub>)</td><td>Before meal, post-meal, 30 and 60 min after meal for ad libitum lunch and dinner</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>S</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub> and SQ<sub>PFC</sub> (mm/kcal) = (pre-lunch rating – mean post-lunch and 60 min post-lunch rating) / EI at lunch*100</td><td><u>SQ, physical activity and energy expenditure</u>:<br>- SQ<sub>H</sub> CON &lt; SQ<sub>H</sub> EX180 and EX30<br>- SQ<sub>PFC</sub> CON &lt; SQ<sub>PFC</sub> EX180 and EX30<br>- SQ<sub>DTE</sub> CON &lt; SQ<sub>DTE</sub> EX180 and EX30</td></tr></tbody></table>
30 min before lunch (EX-30)

<table><tr><td><b>Kral et al., 2020 (41)</b></td><td>n=212<br><b>LR-NW:</b> n=60<br>(28 boys and 32 girls)<br>Age=8.3±0.7 yr<br>z-BMI= - 0.2±0.7)<br><b>HR-NW:</b> n=77<br>(29 boys and 48 girls)<br>Age=8.3±0.8 yr<br>z-BMI=0.2±0.6)<br><b>HR-OB:</b> n=75<br>(29 boys and 46 girls)</td><td>Randomized cross-over study<br><b>Protocol:</b> Standardized preload, ad libitum BF (9:00am), ad libitum lunch (12:00pm), ad libitum dinner (4:30pm), snack.<br>2 conditions:<br>-LED: Low Energy Density preload (100g, 100kcal)<br>-HED: High Energy Density preload (100g, 160kcal)<br>3 groups:<br><b>LR-NW:</b> Normal Weight children with Low Risk for obesity<br><b>HR-NW:</b> Normal Weight children with High Risk for obesity<br><b>HR-OB:</b> Overweight / Obese</td><td>Before and after preload and BF, 60, 120, 180 minutes after BF.</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>S</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub> and SQ<sub>PFC</sub> (mm/kcal) = (pre-preload rating – mean post-preload and 15 min post-preload rating) / EI at preload *100</td><td><b>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</b><br>LED SQ<sub>H</sub> and SQ<sub>PFC</sub> > HED SQ<sub>H</sub> and SQ<sub>PFC</sub><br>LED SQ<sub>F</sub> < HED SQ<sub>F</sub><br>SQ<sub>H</sub> (p=0.005), SQ<sub>DTE</sub> (p=0.01), SQ<sub>PFC</sub> (p=0.02) predict BF EI.<br>SQ<sub>DTE</sub> predict daily EI (p=0.001)<br><br><b>SQ and anthropometrics variables:</b><br>No ≠ between groups for all SQ (p>0.10)</td></tr></table>
30 min before lunch (EX-30)

<table><tr><td><b>Kral et al., 2020 (41)</b></td><td>n=212<br><b>LR-NW:</b> n=60<br>(28 boys and 32 girls)<br>Age=8.3±0.7 yr<br>z-BMI= - 0.2±0.7)<br><b>HR-NW:</b> n=77<br>(29 boys and 48 girls)<br>Age=8.3±0.8 yr<br>z-BMI=0.2±0.6)<br><b>HR-OB:</b> n=75<br>(29 boys and 46 girls)</td><td>Randomized cross-over study<br><b>Protocol:</b> Standardized preload, ad libitum BF (9:00am), ad libitum lunch (12:00pm), ad libitum dinner (4:30pm), snack.<br>2 conditions:<br>-LED: Low Energy Density preload (100g, 100kcal)<br>-HED: High Energy Density preload (100g, 160kcal)<br>3 groups:<br><b>LR-NW:</b> Normal Weight children with Low Risk for obesity<br><b>HR-NW:</b> Normal Weight children with High Risk for obesity<br><b>HR-OB:</b> Overweight / Obese</td><td>Before and after preload and BF, 60, 120, 180 minutes after BF.</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>S</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub> and SQ<sub>PFC</sub> (mm/kcal) = (pre-preload rating – mean post-preload and 15 min post-preload rating) / EI at preload *100</td><td><b>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</b><br>LED SQ<sub>H</sub> and SQ<sub>PFC</sub> > HED SQ<sub>H</sub> and SQ<sub>PFC</sub><br>LED SQ<sub>F</sub> < HED SQ<sub>F</sub><br>SQ<sub>H</sub> (p=0.005), SQ<sub>DTE</sub> (p=0.01), SQ<sub>PFC</sub> (p=0.02) predict BF EI.<br>SQ<sub>DTE</sub> predict daily EI (p=0.001)<br><br><b>SQ and anthropometrics variables:</b><br>No ≠ between groups for all SQ (p>0.10)</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Age=8.5±0.8<br>yr<br>z-<br>BMI=1.7±0.5)</td><td>children with High Risk for<br>obesity</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Thivel et<br>al., 2020<br>(42)</td><td>n= 14 (6 boys,<br>8 girls)<br>Age= 12.8±0.9<br>yr<br>BMI=34.8±5.7<br>kg/m² (z-BMI<br>2.3±0.4)</td><td>Randomized controlled study<br><u>Protocol</u>: Standardized BF,<br>exercise/rest condition, ad<br>libitum lunch (12:00), ad<br>libitum dinner (18:00)<br>3 conditions:<br>- rest condition (CON)<br>- 30-min exercise (65%VO<sub>2max</sub>;<br>EX)<br>- 30-min exercise (65%VO<sub>2max</sub>)<br>+ energy replacement (ER+R).</td><td>Before meal,<br>post-meal, 30 and<br>60 min after meal<br>for ad libitum<br>lunch and dinner</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>S</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub> and<br>SQ<sub>PFC</sub> (mm/kcal) =<br>(pre-lunch rating –<br>mean post-lunch and 60<br>min post-lunch rating) /<br>EI at lunch*100</td><td><strong>SQ, physical activity and energy<br>expenditure:</strong><br>- No difference between conditions for SQ<sub>H</sub>,<br>SQ<sub>S</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub> and SQ<sub>PFC</sub></td></tr></table>

Values are means ± SD; EI: energy intake; VAS: Visual Analogue Scale; DTE: Desire To Eat; F: Fullness; H: Hunger, PFC: Prospective Food Consumption; S: Satiety; BF: Breakfast. SQ: Satiety Quotient.
<table><tr><td></td><td>Age=8.5±0.8<br/>yr<br/>z-<br/>BMI=1.7±0.5)</td><td>children with High Risk for<br/>obesity</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Thivel et<br/>al., 2020<br/>(42)</td><td>n= 14 (6 boys,<br/>8 girls)<br/>Age= 12.8±0.9<br/>yr<br/>BMI=34.8±5.7<br/>kg/m² (z-BMI<br/>2.3±0.4)</td><td>Randomized controlled study<br/>Protocol: Standardized BF,<br/>exercise/rest condition, ad<br/>libitum lunch (12:00), ad<br/>libitum dinner (18:00)<br/>3 conditions:<br/>- rest condition (CON)<br/>- 30-min exercise (65%VO<sub>2max</sub>;<br/>EX)<br/>- 30-min exercise (65%VO<sub>2max</sub>)<br/>+ energy replacement (ER+R).</td><td>Before meal,<br/>post-meal, 30 and<br/>60 min after meal<br/>for ad libitum<br/>lunch and dinner</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>S</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub> and<br/>SQ<sub>PFC</sub> (mm/kcal) =<br/>(pre-lunch rating –<br/>mean post-lunch and 60<br/>min post-lunch rating) /<br/>EI at lunch*100</td><td><strong>SQ, physical activity and energy<br/>expenditure:</strong><br/>- No difference between conditions for SQ<sub>H</sub>,<br/>SQ<sub>S</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub> and SQ<sub>PFC</sub></td></tr></table>

Values are means ± SD; EI: energy intake; VAS: Visual Analogue Scale; DTE: Desire To Eat; F: Fullness; H: Hunger, PFC: Prospective Food Consumption; S: Satiety; BF: Breakfast. SQ: Satiety Quotient.
<table><caption>Table 5: Population, design, methods and main results of adult chronic studies</caption><thead><tr><th>Study</th><th>Population characteristics at baseline</th><th>Design</th><th>VAS Timing</th><th>SQ Equation</th><th>Main Results</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Chaput et al., 2007 <sup>(47)</sup></td><td>n= 11 men,<br>Age= 38±16.6 yr<br>BMI= 33.4±3 kg/m²</td><td>Interventional study<br><u>Duration</u>: after a 10±1 kg BW loss was achieved<br><u>Intervention</u>: Diet and exercise<br><u>Assessment frequency</u>: baseline, after 5±1 kg BW loss (Phase 1) and after 10±1 kg BW loss (Phase 2).<br><u>Assessments protocol</u>: Anthropometric measurements, standardized BF (kcal), ad libitum lunch</td><td>Before and after lunch</td><td>SQH, SQF, SQDTE and SQPFC = (rating pre-lunch - rating post-lunch)/EI at lunch</td><td><u>SQ and anthropometrics variables</u>:<br>- No difference in SQ between phases</td></tr><tr><td>Drapeau et al., 2007 <sup>(10)</sup></td><td>n=253<br><u>Men</u>: n= 142<br>Age= 42.7±7.15 yr<br>BMI= 32.5±3.6 kg/m²</td><td>Observational study<br>Subjects were selected from different weight loss studies (data pooled for analyses)<br><b>Study 1:</b> <u>Duration</u>: 1 year,</td><td>Before, immediately after, and every 10 min for 1-h after BF</td><td>SQH, SQF, SQDTE and SQPFC (mm/kcal) = (fasting rating - mean 60 min post-meal rating)/energy content</td><td><u>Baseline data:</u><br><b>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</b><br>- SQF was correlated with ad libitum EI (r= -0.14, p&lt;0.05) (just in women)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 5: Population, design, methods and main results of adult chronic studies</caption><thead><tr><th>Study</th><th>Population characteristics at baseline</th><th>Design</th><th>VAS Timing</th><th>SQ Equation</th><th>Main Results</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Chaput et al., 2007 <sup>(47)</sup></td><td>n= 11 men, Age= 38±16.6 yr BMI= 33.4±3 kg/m²</td><td>Interventional study <u>Duration</u>: after a 10±1 kg BW loss was achieved <u>Intervention</u>: Diet and exercise <u>Assessment frequency</u>: baseline, after 5±1 kg BW loss (Phase 1) and after 10±1 kg BW loss (Phase 2). <u>Assessments protocol</u>: Anthropometric measurements, standardized BF (kcal), ad libitum lunch</td><td>Before and after lunch</td><td>SQH, SQF, SQDTE and SQPFC = (rating pre-lunch - rating post-lunch)/EI at lunch</td><td><u>SQ and anthropometrics variables</u>: - No difference in SQ between phases</td></tr><tr><td>Drapeau et al., 2007 <sup>(10)</sup></td><td>n=253 <u>Men</u>: n= 142 Age= 42.7±7.15 yr BMI= 32.5±3.6 kg/m²</td><td>Observational study Subjects were selected from different weight loss studies (data pooled for analyses) <b>Study 1: Duration</b>: 1 year, <b>Study 2: Duration</b>: 1 year, <b>Study 3: Duration</b>: 1 year</td><td>Before, immediately after, and every 10 min for 1-h after BF</td><td>SQH, SQF, SQDTE and SQPFC (mm/kcal) = (fasting rating - mean 60 min post-meal rating)/energy content</td><td><u>Baseline data</u>: <b>SQ, energy intake and appetite control</b>: - SQF was correlated with ad libitum EI (r= -0.14, p&lt;0.05) (just in women)</td></tr></tbody></table>
Women: n = 111
Age= 41.3±7.4 yr
BMI= 33.7±3.2
kg/m²

**Intervention:** Topiramate
**Study 2:** Duration: 4 weeks,
**Intervention:** Rimonabant
**Study 3:** Duration: 15 weeks,
**Intervention:** Diet +
Fenfluramine/placebo
**Study 4:** Duration: 30 weeks,
**Intervention:** Diet + Physical
activity
**Study 5:** Duration: 15 weeks,
**Intervention:** Diet + calcium
and vit. D/placebo
**Study 6:** Duration: 15 weeks,
**Intervention:** Diet +
micronutrient
supplementation/placebo
**Assessment frequency:**
Baseline and post-
intervention
**Assessment protocol:**
Anthropometrics,
standardized BF (men 733
kcal, women 599 kcal), ad

of BF*100

(r= -0.22, p<0.01)).

**Other:**

- Men SQ was lower compared with
women (p<0.0001).

**Longitudinal data:**

**SQ and anthropometrics variables:**

- ↑ SQDTE (p<0.0001), SQH (p<0.001),
SQPFC (p<0.0001) in men after weight
loss, but not in women.

- Changes in SQDTE were related with
changes in BW (r= -0.14, p<0.01).
Women: n = 111
Age= 41.3±7.4 yr
BMI= 33.7±3.2
kg/m²

Intervention: Topiramate

Study 2: Duration: 4 weeks,

Intervention: Rimonabant

Study 3: Duration: 15 weeks,

Intervention: Diet +
Fenfluramine/placebo

Study 4: Duration: 30 weeks,

Intervention: Diet + Physical
activity

Study 5: Duration: 15 weeks,

Intervention: Diet + calcium
and vit. D/placebo

Study 6: Duration: 15 weeks,

Intervention: Diet +
micronutrient
supplementation/placebo

Assessment frequency:

Baseline and post-
intervention

Assessment protocol:

Anthropometrics,
standardized BF (men 733
kcal, women 599 kcal), ad

of BF*100

(r= -0.22, p<0.01)).

**Other:**

- Men SQ was lower compared with
women (p<0.0001).

**Longitudinal data:**

**SQ and anthropometrics variables:**

- ↑ SQDTE (p<0.0001), SQH (p<0.001),
SQPFC (p<0.0001) in men after weight
loss, but not in women.

- Changes in SQDTE were related with
changes in BW (r= -0.14, p<0.01).
<table><tr><td>Rodriguez-Rodriguez et al., 2008 (45)</td><td>n=57 women, Age=27.8±4.7 yr<br/>Diet V: n=28<br/>BMI=27.6±2.5<br/>kg/m²<br/>Diet C: n=29<br/>BMI=28.3±3.4<br/>kg/m²</td><td>libitum lunch, self-reported energy intake<br/>Randomized study Duration: 6 weeks Intervention: 2 hypoenergetic diet groups - Diet V: Consumption of vegetables increased - Diet C: Consumption of cereals (especially BF cereals) increased<br/>Assessment frequency: Baseline and post-intervention<br/>Assessment protocol: Anthropometrics, standardized BF, lunch, dinner, snack, self-reported of food intake</td><td>Before and after meals</td><td>SQH (cm/kcal) = (fasting rating post-meal rating)/energy consumed at a meal*100</td><td><b>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</b><br/>- At baseline, lunch SQ diet C < diet V, but not post-intervention because SQ diet C ↑. Post-intervention, SQ ↑ with lunch and dinner, as did the mean SQ (for all meals taken as a whole).<br/>- Post-intervention: mean SQ diet C > diet V</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Rodriguez-Rodriguez et al., 2008 (45)</td><td>n=57 women, Age=27.8±4.7 yr<br/>Diet V: n=28 BMI=27.6±2.5 kg/m²<br/>Diet C: n=29 BMI=28.3±3.4 kg/m²</td><td>libitum lunch, self-reported energy intake<br/>Randomized study Duration: 6 weeks Intervention: 2 hypoenergetic diet groups - Diet V: Consumption of vegetables increased - Diet C: Consumption of cereals (especially BF cereals) increased Assessment frequency: Baseline and post-intervention Assessment protocol: Anthropometrics, standardized BF, lunch, dinner, snack, self-reported of food intake</td><td>Before and after meals</td><td>SQH (cm/kcal) = (fasting rating post-meal rating)/energy consumed at a meal*100</td><td><strong>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</strong><br/>- At baseline, lunch SQ diet C < diet V, but not post-intervention because SQ diet C ↑. Post-intervention, SQ ↑ with lunch and dinner, as did the mean SQ (for all meals taken as a whole).<br/>- Post-intervention: mean SQ diet C > diet V</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td><b>Gilbert et al., 2009 <sup>(48)</sup></b><br/>n=54 women<br/>Age= 39.9±7.5 yr<br/>BMI= 32.9±3.5<br/>kg/m²</td><td>Interventional study<br/>Duration: 4 or 6 months<br/>Intervention: energy restriction program (2900 kJ/day)<br/>Assessment frequency: baseline and post-intervention<br/>Assessments protocol: Anthropometrics, standardized BF (2504 kJ)</td><td>Before and after<br/>BF, 1h after BF</td><td>SQH, SQF, SQDTE and SQPFC (mm/kJ) = (fasting rating -60 min post-meal rating)/energy content of BF*100</td><td><b>Other:</b><br/>- SQDTE (p=0,03) was the only significant change among the SQ and AUC values.</td></tr><tr><td><b>King et al., 2009 <sup>(50)</sup></b><br/>n= 58 (19 men, 39 women)<br/>Age=39.6±9.8 yr<br/>BMI= 31.8±4.5<br/>kg/m²</td><td>Interventional Study<br/>Duration: 12 weeks<br/>Intervention: Exercise program (500 kcal per session, 70% of individual's maximum heart rate 5 days/week)<br/>Assessment frequency: baseline and post-intervention<br/>Assessments protocol: Anthropometrics, individualized BF (ad libitum at baseline and quantities)</td><td>Immediately before, after, and periodically in between meals</td><td>SQH (mm/kcal) = (rating before the eating episode -rating after the eating episode)/energy content of BF *100</td><td><b>SQ, physical activity and energy expenditure:</b><br/>SQ of the standardized BF ↑ over the 12-week period of exercise. This effect was maintained for 4 h after the meal.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td><b>Gilbert et al., 2009 <sup>(48)</sup></b><br/>n=54 women<br/>Age= 39.9±7.5 yr<br/>BMI= 32.9±3.5<br/>kg/m²</td><td>Interventional study<br/>Duration: 4 or 6 months<br/>Intervention: energy restriction program (2900 kJ/day)<br/>Assessment frequency: baseline and post-intervention<br/>Assessments protocol: Anthropometrics, standardized BF (2504 kJ)</td><td>Before and after<br/>BF, 1h after BF</td><td>SQH, SQF, SQDTE and SQPFC (mm/kJ) = (fasting rating - 60 min post-meal rating)/energy content of BF*100</td><td><b>Other:</b><br/>- SQDTE (p=0,03) was the only significant change among the SQ and AUC values.</td></tr><tr><td><b>King et al., 2009 <sup>(50)</sup></b><br/>n= 58 (19 men, 39 women)<br/>Age=39.6±9.8 yr<br/>BMI= 31.8±4.5<br/>kg/m²</td><td>Interventional Study<br/>Duration: 12 weeks<br/>Intervention: Exercise program (500 kcal per session, 70% of individual's maximum heart rate 5 days/week)<br/>Assessment frequency: baseline and post-intervention<br/>Assessments protocol: Anthropometrics, individualized BF (ad libitum at baseline and quantities)</td><td>Immediately before, after, and periodically in between meals</td><td>SQH (mm/kcal) = (rating before the eating episode - rating after the eating episode)/energy content of BF *100</td><td><b>SQ, physical activity and energy expenditure:</b><br/>SQ of the standardized BF ↑ over the 12-week period of exercise. This effect was maintained for 4 h after the meal.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td>replicated post-intervention; 406±5 kcal), ad libitum lunch and dinner, evening snack box</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Halford et al., 2010 <sup>(56)</sup></td><td>n= 30 women<br>Age=46.0±12.9 yr<br>BMI= 34.6±3.3<br>kg/m²</td><td>Double blind, placebo controlled crossover study<br><u>Duration</u>: 7 days<br><u>Intervention</u>: 3 conditions:<br>- Sibutramine 10 mg a day<br>- Sibutramine 15 mg a day<br>- Placebo<br><u>Assessment frequency</u>: before and after drug administration (7 days)<br><u>Assessment protocol</u>: standardized BF (2173 kJ), ad libitum lunch</td><td>Before and after BF, 10:00, 11:00, 12:00, before and after lunch at 13:00, 15:00, 16:00, 17:00</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub> (mm/kJ) = (pre-lunch rating - post-lunch rating) /EI at lunch</td><td><u>Other:</u><br>- SQ in the 10 mg group > placebo (p=0.03).<br>- SQ in 15 mg = SQ to placebo (smaller change in hunger rating pre- to post-test meal because of a proportionally greater reduction in food intake in this condition).</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td>replicated post-intervention; 406±5 kcal), ad libitum lunch and dinner, evening snack box</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Halford et al., 2010 <sup>(56)</sup></td><td>n= 30 women<br>Age=46.0±12.9 yr<br>BMI= 34.6±3.3<br>kg/m²</td><td>Double blind, placebo controlled crossover study<br><u>Duration</u>: 7 days<br><u>Intervention</u>: 3 conditions:<br>- Sibutramine 10 mg a day<br>- Sibutramine 15 mg a day<br>- Placebo<br><u>Assessment frequency</u>: before and after drug administration (7 days)<br><u>Assessment protocol</u>: standardized BF (2173 kJ), ad libitum lunch</td><td>Before and after BF, 10:00, 11:00, 12:00, before and after lunch at 13:00, 15:00, 16:00, 17:00</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub> (mm/kJ) = (pre-lunch rating - post-lunch rating) /EI at lunch</td><td><u>Other:</u><br>- SQ in the 10 mg group > placebo (p=0.03).<br>- SQ in 15 mg = SQ to placebo (smaller change in hunger rating pre- to post-test meal because of a proportionally greater reduction in food intake in this condition).</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Jönsson et al., 2010 <sup>(44)</sup></td><td>n=29 men<br>ischemic heart<br>disease patients<br>with impaired<br>glucose tolerance<br>or T2D, and waist<br>circumference >94<br>cm<br>Age= NR<br>BMI= NR</td><td>Interventional randomized<br>study<br><u>Duration</u>: 12 weeks<br><u>Intervention</u>: 2 diet groups<br>- Paleolithic diet (n=14):<br>based on lean meat, fish,<br>fruit, vegetables, root<br>vegetables, eggs, and nuts<br>- Mediterranean diet (n=15):<br>whole-grain cereals, low-fat<br>dairy products, potatoes,<br>legumes, vegetables, fruit,<br>fatty fish, refined fats rich in<br>monounsaturated fatty acids<br>and alpha-linolenic acid.<br><u>Assessment frequency</u>:<br>measured once at 15 ± 5 days<br><u>Assessment protocol</u>: 4-day<br>food record, appetite<br>sensation, anthropometrics,<br>BW</td><td>At meal initiation<br>and 30 min after<br>meal initiation<br>(free-living<br>measurements)</td><td>SQs for energy<br>(rating/MJ) and<br>weight (rating/kg) =<br>(rating pre-eating<br>episode - rating post-<br>eating episode)/food<br>intake of eating<br>episode<br>Satiety measured with<br>7-point scale anchored<br>at -3 (very hungry) to<br>+3 (very full)</td><td><u>SQ, energy intake and appetite<br>control</u>:<br>- SQ for energy Paleolithic group ><br>Mediterranean group (p=0.057) and<br>without the outlier becomes significant<br>(p=0.02).<br>- Correlation between SQ for energy<br>and EI (r= 0.54, p=0.004), absolute<br>intake of CHO (r=0.50, p=0.007),<br>glycemic load (r=0.50, p=0.007),<br>saturated fatty acids (r=0.41, p =0.03)<br>and sodium (r=0.51, p =0.007).</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Jönsson et al., 2010 <sup>(44)</sup></td><td>n=29 men<br>ischemic heart<br>disease patients<br>with impaired<br>glucose tolerance<br>or T2D, and waist<br>circumference >94<br>cm<br>Age= NR<br>BMI= NR</td><td>Interventional randomized<br>study<br><u>Duration</u>: 12 weeks<br><u>Intervention</u>: 2 diet groups<br>- Paleolithic diet (n=14):<br>based on lean meat, fish,<br>fruit, vegetables, root<br>vegetables, eggs, and nuts<br>- Mediterranean diet (n=15):<br>whole-grain cereals, low-fat<br>dairy products, potatoes,<br>legumes, vegetables, fruit,<br>fatty fish, refined fats rich in<br>monounsaturated fatty acids<br>and alpha-linolenic acid.<br><u>Assessment frequency</u>:<br>measured once at 15 ± 5 days<br><u>Assessment protocol</u>: 4-day<br>food record, appetite<br>sensation, anthropometrics,<br>BW</td><td>At meal initiation<br>and 30 min after<br>meal initiation<br>(free-living<br>measurements)</td><td>SQs for energy<br>(rating/MJ) and<br>weight (rating/kg) =<br>(rating pre-eating<br>episode - rating post-<br>eating episode)/food<br>intake of eating<br>episode<br>Satiety measured with<br>7-point scale anchored<br>at -3 (very hungry) to<br>+3 (very full)</td><td><u>SQ, energy intake and appetite<br>control</u>:<br>- SQ for energy Paleolithic group ><br>Mediterranean group (p=0.057) and<br>without the outlier becomes significant<br>(p=0.02).<br>- Correlation between SQ for energy<br>and EI (r= 0.54, p=0.004), absolute<br>intake of CHO (r=0.50, p=0.007),<br>glycemic load (r=0.50, p=0.007),<br>saturated fatty acids (r=0.41, p =0.03)<br>and sodium (r=0.51, p =0.007).</td></tr></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td><b>Caudwell et al., 2013<sup>(57)</sup></b></td><td>n=107 adults with overweight/obesity<br/>Men: n=35<br/>Age=41.3±8.6 yr<br/>BMI= 30.5±8.6 kg/m²<br/>Premenopausal women: n=72<br/>Age= 40.6±9.5 yr<br/>BMI= 31.8±4.3 kg/m²</td><td>Interventional study<br/>Duration: 12 weeks<br/>Intervention: Aerobic exercise (500 kcal per session, 70% of individual's maximum heart rate 5 days/week)<br/>Assessment frequency:<br/>Baseline and post-intervention<br/>Assessment protocol:<br/>Anthropometric measurements, individualized standardized-energy BF, standardized lunch and ad libitum dinner, evening snack box</td><td>Immediately before and after each meal, and at hourly intervals between</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub> (mm/kcal) = (rating before BF-rating after BF)/EI of the BF *100</td><td><b>SQ, physical activity and energy expenditure:</b><br/>- Exercise program ↑ SQ in males and females (p&lt;0.0001).<br/>- There was a difference in sex (p=0.014); SQ females &gt; SQ males at baseline and post-intervention.</td></tr><tr><td><b>Jönsson et al., 2013<sup>(55)</sup></b></td><td>n= 13 (10 men, 3 women) T2D<br/>Age= NR<br/>BMI= NR</td><td>Randomized cross-over study<br/>Duration: 3 months<br/>Intervention: 2 conditions:<br/>- Diabetes diet (current guidelines)<br/>- Paleolithic diet</td><td>At meal initiation and 30 min after meal initiation (free-living measurements)</td><td>SQ<sub>S</sub> for energy (rating/MJ), weight (rating/kg), energy density (rating*g/kJ), glycemic load (rating/kg) and</td><td><b>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</b><br/>- SQ for energy Paleolithic diet &gt; diabetes diet (p=0.004).<br/>- No differences between the diets in SQ for weight per meal and GI per</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td><b>Caudwell et al., 2013<sup>(57)</sup></b><br/>n=107 adults with overweight/obesity<br/>Men: n=35<br/>Age=41.3±8.6 yr<br/>BMI= 30.5±8.6 kg/m²<br/>Premenopausal women: n=72<br/>Age= 40.6±9.5 yr<br/>BMI= 31.8±4.3 kg/m²</td><td>Interventional study<br/>Duration: 12 weeks<br/>Intervention: Aerobic exercise (500 kcal per session, 70% of individual's maximum heart rate 5 days/week)<br/>Assessment frequency:<br/>Baseline and post-intervention<br/>Assessment protocol:<br/>Anthropometric measurements, individualized standardized-energy BF, standardized lunch and ad libitum dinner, evening snack box</td><td>Immediately before and after each meal, and at hourly intervals between</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub> (mm/kcal) = (rating before BF-rating after BF)/EI of the BF *100</td><td><b>SQ, physical activity and energy expenditure:</b><br/>- Exercise program ↑ SQ in males and females (p&lt;0.0001).<br/>- There was a difference in sex (p=0.014); SQ females &gt; SQ males at baseline and post-intervention.</td></tr><tr><td><b>Jönsson et al., 2013<sup>(55)</sup></b><br/>n= 13 (10 men, 3 women) T2D<br/>Age= NR<br/>BMI= NR</td><td>Randomized cross-over study<br/>Duration: 3 months<br/>Intervention: 2 conditions:<br/>- Diabetes diet (current guidelines)<br/>- Paleolithic diet</td><td>At meal initiation and 30 min after meal initiation (free-living measurements)</td><td>SQ<sub>S</sub> for energy (rating/MJ), weight (rating/kg), energy density (rating*g/kJ), glycemic load (rating/kg) and</td><td><b>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</b><br/>- SQ for energy Paleolithic diet &gt; diabetes diet (p=0.004).<br/>- No differences between the diets in SQ for weight per meal and GI per</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td><strong>Assessment frequency:</strong><br>baseline and after 3 (in-between crossover) and 6 months<br><br><strong>Assessments protocol:</strong> 4-day weighed food record at 6 weeks</td><td>glycemic index (RS) =<br>(rating pre-eating episode - rating post-eating episode)/food intake of eating episode<br><br>Satiety measured with 7-point scale anchored at -3 (very hungry) to +3 (very full)</td><td>meal.<br>- SQ for energy per meal correlated with triglyceride levels and vitamin B6 intake (r=0.60 and 0.64, p=0.03 and 0.02, respectively).<br>- SQ for energy density correlated with water from food (r=0.71, p=0.01), and SQ for glycemic load correlated with BMI and spirits (r=-0.84 and 0.59, p=0.0003 and 0.03, respectively).</td></tr><tr><td><strong>McNeil et al., 2014 <sup>(9)</sup></strong><br>n=102 premenopausal women,<br>Age= 49.9±1.9 yr<br>BMI= 23.3±2.2 kg/m²</td><td>Observational study<br><strong>Duration:</strong> 5 years<br><strong>Assessment frequency:</strong><br>baseline and every 1 year<br><strong>Assessment protocol:</strong><br>Anthropometric measurements, standardized BF (575 kcal), ad libitum lunch, 7-day food diary</td><td>VAS: Before, immediately after and every 30 min for 3h post-BF consumption.<br>SQ: 60 and 180 min post-BF consumption.</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>F</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub> and SQ<sub>PFC</sub> (mm/kcal) = [fasting rating - mean post-meal rating]/energy content of the test meal *100<br><br><strong>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</strong><br>SQ<sub>F</sub>, SQ<sub>PFC</sub>, mean SQ explained 5 to 14% of the variance in ad libitum energy and macronutrient intake at lunch at 1, 3-5 years.<br>- SQ<sub>F</sub>, SQ<sub>PFC</sub> explained 8 and 14% of the variance in daily (7-day food diary) energy and carbohydrate intakes at year 4.<br><br><strong>SQ and anthropometrics variables:</strong></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td><strong>Assessment frequency:</strong><br>baseline and after 3 (in-between crossover) and 6 months<br><br><strong>Assessments protocol:</strong> 4-day weighed food record at 6 weeks</td><td>glycemic index (RS) =<br>(rating pre-eating episode - rating post-eating episode)/food intake of eating episode<br><br>Satiety measured with 7-point scale anchored at -3 (very hungry) to +3 (very full)</td><td>meal.<br>- SQ for energy per meal correlated with triglyceride levels and vitamin B6 intake (r=0.60 and 0.64, p=0.03 and 0.02, respectively).<br>- SQ for energy density correlated with water from food (r=0.71, p =0.01), and SQ for glycemic load correlated with BMI and spirits (r= -0.84 and 0.59, p=0.0003 and 0.03, respectively).</td></tr><tr><td><strong>McNeil et al., 2014 <sup>(9)</sup></strong><br>n=102 premenopausal women,<br>Age= 49.9±1.9 yr<br>BMI= 23.3±2.2 kg/m²</td><td>Observational study<br><strong>Duration:</strong> 5 years<br><strong>Assessment frequency:</strong><br>baseline and every 1 year<br><strong>Assessment protocol:</strong><br>Anthropometric measurements, standardized BF (575 kcal), ad libitum lunch, 7-day food diary</td><td>VAS: Before, immediately after and every 30 min for 3h post-BF consumption.<br>SQ: 60 and 180 min post-BF consumption.</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>F</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub> and SQ<sub>PFC</sub> (mm/kcal) = [fasting rating - mean post-meal rating]/energy content of the test meal *100<br><br><strong>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</strong><br>SQ<sub>F</sub>, SQ<sub>PFC</sub>, mean SQ explained 5 to 14% of the variance in ad libitum energy and macronutrient intake at lunch at 1, 3-5 years.<br>- SQ<sub>F</sub>, SQ<sub>PFC</sub> explained 8 and 14% of the variance in daily (7-day food diary) energy and carbohydrate intakes at year 4.<br><br><strong>SQ and anthropometrics variables:</strong></td></tr></table>
- year 1: BW women with a lower mean SQ < higher mean SQ (p=0.02).

- Changes in BW correlated with delta SQ<sub>F</sub> at 60(r=0.34; p=0.004) and 180 (r=0.30; p=0.01) min between years 1 and 5.

- Changes in FM correlated with delta SQ<sub>F</sub> at 60 min between years 1 and 5 (r=0.24; p=0.04).

- Delta FM correlated with i) delta SQ<sub>H</sub> at 60 (r= -0.34; p=0.02) and 180 min (r= -0.34; p=0.02), ii) delta SQ<sub>PFC</sub> at 60 (r= -0.33; p=0.02) and 180 (r= -0.32; p=0.02) min, between years 4 and 5.

- Changes in waist circumference associated with delta SQ<sub>DTE</sub> at 60 min (r= -0.31; p=0.02), delta SQ<sub>H</sub> at 60 min (r= -0.32; p=0.02), delta SQ<sub>F</sub> at 60 (r= -0.31; p=0.02) and 180 min (r= -0.29; p=0.03), and delta mean SQ at 60 min (r= -0.32; p=0.02) between years 3 and 4.

**Other:**
- year 1: BW women with a lower mean SQ < higher mean SQ (p=0.02).

- Changes in BW correlated with delta SQ<sub>F</sub> at 60(r=0.34; p=0.004) and 180 (r=0.30; p=0.01) min between years 1 and 5.

- Changes in FM correlated with delta SQ<sub>F</sub> at 60 min between years 1 and 5 (r=0.24; p=0.04).

- Delta FM correlated with i) delta SQ<sub>H</sub> at 60 (r= -0.34; p=0.02) and 180 min (r= -0.34; p=0.02), ii) delta SQ<sub>PFC</sub> at 60 (r= -0.33; p=0.02) and 180 (r= -0.32; p=0.02) min, between years 4 and 5.

- Changes in waist circumference associated with delta SQ<sub>DTE</sub> at 60 min (r= -0.31; p=0.02), delta SQ<sub>H</sub> at 60 min (r= -0.32; p=0.02), delta SQ<sub>F</sub> at 60 (r= -0.31; p=0.02) and 180 min (r= -0.29; p=0.03), and delta mean SQ at 60 min (r= -0.32; p=0.02) between years 3 and 4.

**Other:**
<table><tr><td><b>Bédard et al., 2015 <sup>(49)</sup></b></td><td>n=70<br><u>Men</u>: n=38<br>Age=42.6±7.4 yr<br>BMI= 29.0±3.1<br>kg/m²<br><u>Premenopausal women</u>: n=32<br>Age=41.2±7.4 yr<br>BMI= 29.6±5.6<br>kg/m²</td><td>Interventional study<br><u>Duration</u>: 16 weeks<br><u>Intervention</u>: isoenergetic<br>MedDiet standardized and<br>personalized menu<br><u>(Assessment frequency)</u>:<br>Every wednesday from week<br>1 to 4.<br><u>Assessments protocol</u>:<br>Individualized BF, lunch and<br>dinner (2500 kcal/d)</td><td>Before and<br>immediately after<br>each meal</td><td>SQ<sub>F</sub> (mm/kcal) =<br>(post-meal rating –<br>pre-meal<br>rating)/energy content<br>of the test meal*100</td><td><b>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</b><br>Mean SQ<sub>F</sub> (BF, lunch and dinner)<br>correlated with EI in men (r= -0.48,<br>p=0.003)<br><br><b>Other:</b><br>- No change in SQ from first to fourth<br>week for both men and women.</td></tr></table>

- No difference in SQ between menopausal status groups (premenopausal, menopausal transition and postmenopausal) at years 2 – 5.
<table><tr><td><b>Bédard et al., 2015 <sup>(49)</sup></b></td><td>n=70<br><u>Men</u>: n=38<br>Age=42.6±7.4 yr<br>BMI= 29.0±3.1<br>kg/m²<br><u>Premenopausal women</u>: n=32<br>Age=41.2±7.4 yr<br>BMI= 29.6±5.6<br>kg/m²</td><td>Interventional study<br><u>Duration</u>: 16 weeks<br><u>Intervention</u>: isoenergetic<br>MedDiet standardized and<br>personalized menu<br><u>(Assessment frequency)</u>:<br>Every wednesday from week<br>1 to 4.<br><u>Assessments protocol</u>:<br>Individualized BF, lunch and<br>dinner (2500 kcal/d)</td><td>Before and<br>immediately after<br>each meal</td><td>SQ<sub>F</sub> (mm/kcal) =<br>(post-meal rating –<br>pre-meal<br>rating)/energy content<br>of the test meal*100</td><td><b>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</b><br>Mean SQ<sub>F</sub> (BF, lunch and dinner)<br>correlated with EI in men (r= -0.48,<br>p=0.003)<br><br><b>Other:</b><br>- No change in SQ from first to fourth<br>week for both men and women.</td></tr></table>

- No difference in SQ between menopausal status groups (premenopausal, menopausal transition and postmenopausal) at years 2 – 5.
<table><tr><td>Carbonneau<br>et al., 2015<br>(52)</td><td>n=141<br>Low-fat label<br>normal weight:<br>n=23<br>Age=43.5±10.8 yr<br>BMI=22.4±1.6<br>kg/m²<br>Low-fat label<br>obese:<br>n=23<br>Age=52.3±11.5<br>yrs<br>BMI= 34.7±3.9<br>kg/m²<br>Energy label<br>normal weight:<br>n=25<br>Age= 37.7±12.6 yr<br>BMI= 21.8±1.9<br>kg/m²<br>Energy label<br>obese: n=23<br>Age= 46.0±14.3 yr</td><td>Randomized, controlled trial<br>Duration: 10 days<br>Intervention: 3 meals per day<br>under ad libitum conditions<br>3 groups:<br>- Low-fat label posted on<br>lunch meal main course<br>- Energy label (energy<br>content of main course and<br>average daily needs)<br>- No label (control)<br>Assessment frequency: Daily<br>Assessments protocol: BF,<br>lunch and dinner ad libitum</td><td>Before and<br>immediately after<br>meal</td><td>SQH and SQF<br>(mm/kcal) =<br>(fasting rating - post-<br>meal rating)/energy<br>content of the<br>meal*100</td><td><strong>Other:</strong><br>- No difference between groups on 10-d<br>mean for SQH and SQF.<br>- Significant labelling group by time<br>interaction was observed for the 3-d<br>mean SQH (p= 0.046). SQH in the<br>energy label group at days 8 – 10 <br>days 1 – 3 (no difference between low-<br>fat and no-label groups).</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td><strong>Carbonneau</strong><br><strong>et al., 2015</strong><br><strong>(52)</strong></td><td>n=141</td><td>Randomized, controlled trial</td><td>Before and immediately after meal</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub> and SQ<sub>F</sub></td><td><strong>Other:</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>Low-fat label</u></td><td><u>Duration:</u> 10 days</td><td></td><td>(mm/kcal) =</td><td>- No difference between groups on 10-d mean for SQ<sub>H</sub> and SQ<sub>F</sub>.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>normal weight:</u></td><td><u>Intervention:</u> 3 meals per day</td><td></td><td>(fasting rating - post-meal rating)/energy content of the meal*100</td><td>- Significant labelling group by time interaction was observed for the 3-d mean SQ<sub>H</sub> (p= 0.046). SQ<sub>H</sub> in the energy label group at days 8 – 10 &lt; days 1 – 3 (no difference between low-fat and no-label groups).</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>n=23</td><td>under ad libitum conditions</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Age=43.5±10.8 yr</td><td>3 groups:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>BMI=22.4±1.6</td><td>- Low-fat label posted on lunch meal main course</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>kg/m<sup>2</sup></td><td>- Energy label (energy content of main course and average daily needs)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>Low-fat label</u></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>obese:</u></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>n=23</td><td>Age=52.3±11.5 yrs</td><td>- No label (control)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>BMI= 34.7±3.9</td><td><u>Assessment frequency:</u> Daily</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>kg/m<sup>2</sup></td><td><u>Assessments protocol:</u> BF, lunch and dinner ad libitum</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>Energy label</u></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>normal weight:</u></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>n=25</td><td>Age= 37.7±12.6 yr</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>BMI= 21.8±1.9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>kg/m<sup>2</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>Energy label</u></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>obese:</u> n=23</td><td>Age= 46.0±14.3 yr</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>
BMI= 34.5±4.9

kg/m²

No label normal

weight: n=22

Age= 42.6±12.4 yr

BMI= 22.8±1.5

kg/m²

No label obese:

n=25 Age=

53.0±11.0 yr

BMI= 32.6±2.3

kg/m²

<table><tr><td>Goloso-Gubat et al., 2016 <sup>(46)</sup></td><td>n=34 healthy male adults<br>Age=27.7±6.2 yr<br>BMI= 22.1±1.9<br>kg/m²</td><td>Randomized crossover study<br>Duration: 6 weeks<br>Intervention: 3 conditions:<br>- BF with brown rice<br>- BF with white rice<br>- Control<br>Assessment frequency:<br>Before and after each condition<br>Assessment protocol:<br>Standardized BF (500 Kcal)</td><td>Before, and 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 240 min after meals</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub> (mm/kcal) = (mean fasting ratings - mean 240 min postprandial ratings)/energy content of BF*100.</td><td>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:<br>- Mean SQ of brown rice > white rice (p=0.045).</td></tr></table>
BMI= 34.5±4.9

kg/m²

No label normal

weight: n=22

Age= 42.6±12.4 yr

BMI= 22.8±1.5

kg/m²

No label obese:

n=25 Age=

53.0±11.0 yr

BMI= 32.6±2.3

kg/m²

<table><tr><td rowspan="2"><b>Goloso-<br>Gubat et al.,<br>2016<sup>(46)</sup></b></td><td>n=34 healthy male</td><td>Randomized crossover study</td><td>Before, and 15,<br>30, 45, 60, 90,<br>120, 150, 180, 240</td><td rowspan="2">SQ<sub>H</sub> (mm/kcal) =<br>(mean fasting ratings -<br>mean 240 min post-<br>prandial<br>ratings)/energy<br>content of BF*100.</td><td rowspan="2"><b>SQ, energy intake and appetite<br>control:</b><br>- Mean SQ of brown rice > white rice<br>(p=0.045).</td></tr><tr><td>adults<br>Age=27.7±6.2 yr<br>BMI= 22.1±1.9<br>kg/m²</td><td><u>Duration</u>: 6 weeks<br><u>Intervention</u>: 3 conditions:<br>- BF with brown rice<br>- BF with white rice<br>- Control<br><u>Assessment frequency</u>:<br>Before and after each<br>condition<br><u>Assessment protocol</u>:<br>Standardized BF (500 Kcal</td><td>min after meals</td></tr></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>kcal; including 160 g cooked rice)</th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Arguin et al., 2017 <sup>(12)</sup></td><td>n=69 men<br>Control Diet Low<br>Satiety Phenotype<br>(LSP): n=15<br>Age= 41.0±6.3 yr<br>BMI= 34.1±3.5<br>kg/m²<br>Control Diet High<br>Satiety Phenotype<br>(HSP): n=19<br>Age= 41.9±5.5 yr<br>BMI= 33.9±2.8<br>kg/m²<br>Satiating Diet<br>LSP: n=17<br>Age= 40.4±6.2 yr<br>BMI= 33.6±3.0<br>kg/m²</td><td>Randomized controlled trial<br>Duration: 16 weeks<br>Intervention: Diet<br>intervention<br>2 groups:<br>- Control: 10–15% protein,<br>55–60% carbohydrate and<br>30% fat<br>- Satiating: 20–25% protein,<br>45–50% carbohydrate and<br>30–35% fat<br>Assessment frequency:<br>Baseline and post-<br>intervention<br>Assessments protocol:<br>Anthropometrics,<br>standardized BF (733 kcal),<br>TFEQ</td><td>Before,<br>immediately after<br>and at 10 min<br>intervals until 1h<br>then 90 and 120<br>min after BF.</td><td>SQH, SQF, SQDTE and<br>SQPFC (mm/kcal) =<br>(fasting rating - mean<br>of the 60-min post-<br>meal rating/<br>energy content of BF)<br>*100<br><br>Low satiety<br>phenotype: mean<br>SQ&lt;8mm/100 kcal<br><br>High satiety<br>phenotype: mean<br>SQ≥8mm/100 kcal</td><td><strong>SQ and satiety phenotype:</strong><br>- ↑ all SQ for LSP in the satiating diet<br>(all p&lt;0.01).<br>- SQH ↑ for HSP in the satiating diet<br>(p&lt;0.05).<br>- SQPFC tended to ↓ in the HSP-control<br>subgroup (p=0.05).<br>- After adjustment for baseline<br>variables: significant effect of diet for<br>the changes in SQH, SQF, SQPFC and<br>mean SQ (all p&lt;0.05), with greater<br>increases in SQ for the satiating diet.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>kcal; including 160 g cooked rice)</th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Arguin et al., 2017 <sup>(12)</sup></td><td>n=69 men<br>Control Diet Low<br>Satiety Phenotype<br>(LSP): n=15<br>Age= 41.0±6.3 yr<br>BMI= 34.1±3.5<br>kg/m²<br>Control Diet High<br>Satiety Phenotype<br>(HSP): n=19<br>Age= 41.9±5.5 yr<br>BMI= 33.9±2.8<br>kg/m²<br>Satiating Diet<br>LSP: n=17<br>Age= 40.4±6.2 yr<br>BMI= 33.6±3.0<br>kg/m²</td><td>Randomized controlled trial<br>Duration: 16 weeks<br>Intervention: Diet<br>intervention<br>2 groups:<br>- Control: 10–15% protein,<br>55–60% carbohydrate and<br>30% fat<br>- Satiating: 20–25% protein,<br>45–50% carbohydrate and<br>30–35% fat<br>Assessment frequency:<br>Baseline and post-<br>intervention<br>Assessments protocol:<br>Anthropometrics,<br>standardized BF (733 kcal),<br>TFEQ</td><td>Before,<br>immediately after<br>and at 10 min<br>intervals until 1h<br>then 90 and 120<br>min after BF.</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>F</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub> and<br>SQ<sub>PFC</sub> (mm/kcal) =<br>(fasting rating - mean<br>of the 60-min post-<br>meal rating/<br>energy content of BF)<br>*100<br><br>Low satiety<br>phenotype: mean<br>SQ&lt;8mm/100 kcal<br><br>High satiety<br>phenotype: mean<br>SQ≥8mm/100 kcal</td><td><strong>SQ and satiety phenotype:</strong><br>- ↑ all SQ for LSP in the satiating diet<br>(all p&lt;0.01).<br>- SQ<sub>H</sub> ↑ for HSP in the satiating diet<br>(p&lt;0.05).<br>- SQ<sub>PFC</sub> tended to ↓ in the HSP-control<br>subgroup (p=0.05).<br>- After adjustment for baseline<br>variables: significant effect of diet for<br>the changes in SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>F</sub>, SQ<sub>PFC</sub> and<br>mean SQ (all p&lt;0.05), with greater<br>increases in SQ for the satiating diet.</td></tr></tbody></table>
## Satiating Diet

HSP: n=18

Age= 42.55±5.0 yr

BMI= 32.9±2.9

kg/m²

<table><tr><td>Sanchez et al., 2017 <sup>(51)</sup></td><td>n=125<br/>Probiotic group:<br/>n=62<br/>Age=35.0±10.0 yr<br/>BMI= 33.8±3.3<br/>kg/m²<br/>Placebo: n=63<br/>Age= 37.0±10.0 yr<br/>BMI= 33.3±3.2<br/>kg/m²</td><td>Double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study<br/>Duration: 24 weeks<br/>Intervention: 12-week moderate energy restriction including 2 daily capsules of probiotic/placebo (Phase 1), followed by 12 weeks of weight maintenance (Phase 2)<br/>Assessment frequency: baseline, week 12, week 24<br/>Assessments protocol: Anthropometrics, standardized BF (men 733 kcal, women 599 kcal), ad libitum lunch, TFEQ</td><td>Before, immediately after, and every 10 min for 1 h after the standardized BF</td><td>SQH, SQF, SQDTE and SQPFC (mm/kcal) = (fasting rating - mean of the 60-min post-meal ratings) /energy content of test meal) *100</td><td><strong>Other:</strong><br/>- Final sample: n=93, Probiotic: n=45, Placebo: n=48<br/>- For women and men, the SQDTE probiotic group at lunch > placebo group after Phase 1 (men p = 0.03; women p = 0.02). The same trend was observed for the changes in SQDTE at BF but not significantly.</td></tr></table>
Satiating Diet

HSP: n=18

Age= 42.55±5.0 yr

BMI= 32.9±2.9

kg/m²

<table><thead><tr><th>Sanchez et al., 2017 <sup>(51)</sup></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>n=125</td><td>Double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study</td><td>Before, immediately after, and every 10 min for 1 h after the standardized BF</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>F</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub> and SQ<sub>PFC</sub> (mm/kcal) = (fasting rating - mean of the 60-min post-meal ratings) /energy content of test meal) *100</td><td><strong>Other:</strong> - Final sample: n=93, Probiotic: n=45, Placebo: n=48<br/>- For women and men, the SQ<sub>DTE</sub> probiotic group at lunch > placebo group after Phase 1 (men p = 0.03; women p = 0.02). The same trend was observed for the changes in SQ<sub>DTE</sub> at BF but not significantly.</td></tr><tr><td><u>Probiotic group:</u><br/>n=62</td><td><u>Duration:</u> 24 weeks</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Age=35.0±10.0 yr</td><td><u>Intervention:</u> 12-week moderate energy restriction</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BMI= 33.8±3.3</td><td>including 2 daily capsules of probiotic/placebo (Phase 1),</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>kg/m²</td><td>followed by 12 weeks of weight maintenance (Phase 2)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><u>Placebo:</u> n=63</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Age= 37.0±10.0 yr</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BMI= 33.3±3.2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>kg/m²</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>Assessment frequency:</u><br/>baseline, week 12, week 24</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>Assessments protocol:</u><br/>Anthropometrics, standardized BF (men 733 kcal, women 599 kcal), ad libitum lunch, TFEQ</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
Buckland et
al., 2019 (58)

n=52 women
Age= 41.2±12.5 yr
BMI= 34.0±3.6
kg/m²

Randomized controlled trial
**Duration:** 14 weeks
**Intervention:** Weight loss program with low energy density meal and high energy density meal at week 3 and 12.

**Assessment frequency:** week 3 and 12.

**Assessments protocol:**
Anthropometric measurements, TFEQ, craving control, food reward, low energy density (LED) and high energy density (HED) test days:
individualized BF and lunch, ad libitum dinner and evening snack box

Before and after
each meal and at
hourly intervals

SQ<sub>F</sub> (mm/kcal) =
(mean of the
180-min post-meal
rating - fasting
rating/energy content
of BF)*100

**Low satiety**
**phenotype:**
SQ<4.5mm/100 kcal

**High satiety**
**phenotype:**
SQ≥8.5mm/100 kcal

**SQ, energy intake and appetite control:**

- Preference (explicit liking and implicit wanting) for and consumption of HED food: LSP > HSP

**SQ and anthropometrics variables:**

- ↓ BW and ↓ waist circumference:
LSP < HSP

**Other:**

- Control over eating and weight loss program adherence: LSP < HSP
Buckland et
al., 2019 (58)

n=52 women
Age= 41.2±12.5 yr
BMI= 34.0±3.6
kg/m²

Randomized controlled trial
**Duration:** 14 weeks
**Intervention:** Weight loss program with low energy density meal and high energy density meal at week 3 and 12.

**Assessment frequency:** week 3 and 12.

**Assessments protocol:**
Anthropometric measurements, TFEQ, craving control, food reward, low energy density (LED) and high energy density (HED) test days:
individualized BF and lunch, ad libitum dinner and evening snack box

Before and after
each meal and at
hourly intervals

SQ<sub>F</sub> (mm/kcal) =
(mean of the
180-min post-meal
rating - fasting
rating/energy content
of BF)*100

**Low satiety**
**phenotype:**
SQ<4.5mm/100 kcal

**High satiety**
**phenotype:**
SQ≥8.5mm/100 kcal

**SQ, energy intake and appetite control:**

- Preference (explicit liking and implicit wanting) for and consumption of HED food: LSP > HSP

**SQ and anthropometrics variables:**

- ↓ BW and ↓ waist circumference:
LSP < HSP

**Other:**

- Control over eating and weight loss program adherence: LSP < HSP
<table><tr><td><b>Drapeau et al., 2019 <sup>(53)</sup></b></td><td>n=100<br><u>Low Satiety</u><br><u>Responsiveness</u><br>(LSR): n=50 (23 men, 27 women)<br>Age=37.8±9.5 yr<br>BMI= 33.7±3.9 kg/m²<br><u>High Satiety</u><br><u>Responsiveness</u><br>(HSR): n=50 (6 men, 44 women)<br>Age= 39.6±7.8 yr<br>BMI= 32.6±3.3 kg/m²</td><td>Observational study<br>Subjects were selected from different weight loss studies<br>Study 1 & 2: <u>Duration</u>: 15 weeks, <u>Intervention</u>: caloric restriction (-700 kcal/day)<br>Study 3: <u>Duration</u>: 12 weeks, <u>Intervention</u>: caloric restriction (-500 kcal/day)<br><u>Assessment frequency</u>:<br>Baseline and post-intervention<br><u>Assessment protocol</u>:<br>Anthropometrics, standardized BF (men 733 kcal, women 599 kcal), ad libitum lunch, TFEQ, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory</td><td>Before, immediately after, and 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 min after BF</td><td>SQH, SQF, SQDTE and SQPFC (mm/kcal)= (fasting rating - mean of the 60-min post-meal rating) /energy content of BF*100<br><u>Low satiety</u><br><u>phenotype</u>: mean SQ&lt;8mm/100 kcal<br><u>High satiety</u><br><u>phenotype</u>: mean SQ≥8mm/100 kcal</td><td><u>Baseline</u>:<br><b>SQ, energy intake and appetite control</b>:<br>- Level of external locus for hunger: LSP &gt; HSP<br><b>SQ and satiety phenotype</b>:<br>- Mean SQ and for each rating: LSP &lt; HSP.<br><b>SQ and sleep quality and quantity</b>:<br>- Level of PSQI total score: LSP &gt; HSP(indicating lower sleep quality compared to the HSP group)<br><b>Other</b>:<br>- Present-state anxiety associated with SQ (r = -0.38, p = 0.008).<br>- Present-state anxiety score: LSP &gt; HSP<br><u>After weight-loss program</u>:<br><b>SQ and anthropometrics variables</b>:<br>- BW loss: LSP = HSP (-3.5 ± 3.2 vs. -3.8 ± 2.8 kg)<br><b>SQ and satiety phenotype</b>:<br>Changes in satiety efficiency: LSP =</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td><b>Drapeau et al., 2019 <sup>(53)</sup></b></td><td>n=100<br><u>Low Satiety</u><br><u>Responsiveness</u><br>(LSR): n=50 (23 men, 27 women)<br>Age=37.8±9.5 yr<br>BMI= 33.7±3.9 kg/m²<br><u>High Satiety</u><br><u>Responsiveness</u><br>(HSR): n=50 (6 men, 44 women)<br>Age= 39.6±7.8 yr<br>BMI= 32.6±3.3 kg/m²</td><td>Observational study<br>Subjects were selected from different weight loss studies<br>Study 1 & 2: <u>Duration</u>: 15 weeks, <u>Intervention</u>: caloric restriction (-700 kcal/day)<br>Study 3: <u>Duration</u>: 12 weeks, <u>Intervention</u>: caloric restriction (-500 kcal/day)<br><u>Assessment frequency</u>:<br>Baseline and post-intervention<br><u>Assessment protocol</u>:<br>Anthropometrics, standardized BF (men 733 kcal, women 599 kcal), ad libitum lunch, TFEQ, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory</td><td>Before, immediately after, and 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 min after BF</td><td>SQH, SQF, SQDTE and SQPFC (mm/kcal)= (fasting rating - mean of the 60-min post-meal rating) /energy content of BF*100<br><u>Low satiety</u><br><u>phenotype</u>: mean SQ&lt;8mm/100 kcal<br><u>High satiety</u><br><u>phenotype</u>: mean SQ≥8mm/100 kcal</td><td><u>Baseline</u>:<br><b>SQ, energy intake and appetite control</b>:<br>- Level of external locus for hunger: LSP &gt; HSP<br><b>SQ and satiety phenotype</b>:<br>- Mean SQ and for each rating: LSP &lt; HSP.<br><b>SQ and sleep quality and quantity</b>:<br>- Level of PSQI total score: LSP &gt; HSP(indicating lower sleep quality compared to the HSP group)<br><b>Other</b>:<br>- Present-state anxiety associated with SQ (r = -0.38, p = 0.008).<br>- Present-state anxiety score: LSP &gt; HSP<br><u>After weight-loss program</u>:<br><b>SQ and anthropometrics variables</b>:<br>- BW loss: LSP = HSP (-3.5 ± 3.2 vs. -3.8 ± 2.8 kg)<br><b>SQ and satiety phenotype</b>:<br>Changes in satiety efficiency: LSP =</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Hintze et al., 2019 <sup>(54)</sup></td><td>n=36<br/>Slow weight loss:<br/>n=17<br/>Age=30.2±9.3 yr<br/>BMI= 32.1±3.1<br/>kg/m²<br/>Fast weight loss:<br/>n=19<br/>Age= 33.1±9.3 yr<br/>BMI= 34.0±4.4<br/>kg/m²</td><td>Randomized trial<br/>Intervention and duration:<br/>2 groups:<br/>- Slow weight loss (-500 kcal/day) during 20 weeks<br/>- Rapid weight loss (-1000 kcal/day) during 10 weeks<br/>Assessment frequency:<br/>baseline, 5-7 days after<br/>starting and post-intervention.<br/>Assessments protocol:<br/>standardized and personalized<br/>BF (ad libitum in preliminary<br/>session and replicated on<br/>subsequent sessions), ad</td><td>Fasting, at 0,<br/>30,60,90,120,180<br/>after standardized<br/>BF</td><td>HSP (LSP pre 6.0 ± 2.6 vs. post 8.0 ± 5.4; HSP group pre 14.8 ± 3.5 vs. post 15.2 ± 4.4)<br/>SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub> and<br/>SQ<sub>PFC</sub> (mm/kcal)=<br/>(fasting rating - mean<br/>60-min post-meal<br/>rating) /energy content<br/>of BF*100<br/>SQ<sub>F</sub> (mm/kcal)=<br/>(mean of the 60-min<br/>post-meal rating –<br/>fasting rating) /energy<br/>content of BF*100</td><td>Final sample: n=30, Slow weight loss:<br/>n=14, Fast weight loss: n=16<br/>Other:<br/>- SQ<sub>DTE</sub>, SQ<sub>H</sub> and SQ<sub>PFC</sub> at 60 and 180<br/>min ↑ after the intervention.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Hintze et al.,<br>2019 <sup>(54)</sup></td><td>n=36<br><u>Slow weight loss:</u><br>n=17<br>Age=30.2±9.3 yr<br>BMI= 32.1±3.1<br>kg/m²<br><u>Fast weight loss:</u><br>n=19<br>Age= 33.1±9.3 yr<br>BMI= 34.0±4.4<br>kg/m²</td><td>Randomized trial<br><u>Intervention and duration:</u><br>2 groups:<br>- Slow weight loss (-500 kcal/day) during 20 weeks<br>- Rapid weight loss (-1000 kcal/day) during 10 weeks<br><u>Assessment frequency:</u><br>baseline, 5-7 days after<br>starting and post-intervention.<br><u>Assessments protocol:</u><br>standardized and personalized<br>BF (ad libitum in preliminary<br>session and replicated on<br>subsequent sessions), ad</td><td>Fasting, at 0,<br>30,60,90,120,180<br>after standardized<br>BF</td><td>HSP (LSP pre 6.0 ± 2.6 vs. post 8.0 ±<br>5.4; HSP group pre 14.8 ± 3.5 vs. post<br>15.2 ± 4.4)<br><br>SQ<sub>H</sub>, SQ<sub>DTE</sub> and<br>SQ<sub>PFC</sub> (mm/kcal)=<br>(fasting rating - mean<br>60-min post-meal<br>rating) /energy content<br>of BF*100<br><br>SQ<sub>F</sub> (mm/kcal)=<br>(mean of the 60-min<br>post-meal rating –<br>fasting rating) /energy<br>content of BF*100</td><td>Final sample: n=30, Slow weight loss:<br>n=14, Fast weight loss: n=16<br><br><u>Other:</u><br>- SQ<sub>DTE</sub>, SQ<sub>H</sub> and SQ<sub>PFC</sub> at 60 and 180<br>min ↑ after the intervention.</td></tr></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Beaulieu et al., 2020 <sup>(59)</sup></td><td>n=46</td><td>Randomized Control Trial</td><td>Before and after</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub>(mm/kcal)=</td><td>Final sample per protocol (weight loss ≥5%): n=30</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>CER: n=22</td><td>Intervention and duration:</td><td>BF, BF+30, +60, +90, +120, +150</td><td>(fasting rating - mean 180-min post-BF rating) /energy content of BF*100</td><td>Baseline:</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Age= 34.9±9 yr</td><td>2 groups:</td><td></td><td></td><td>- CER: n=18, Age= 35±9 yr</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>BMI= 28.9±2.3</td><td>- CER: Continuous Energy</td><td></td><td></td><td>BMI= 29.1±2.4 kg/m<sup>2</sup></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>kg/m<sup>2</sup></td><td>Restriction: 25% daily energy restriction during 12 weeks</td><td>minutes, before and after lunch</td><td></td><td>- IER: n=12, Age= 34±10 yr</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>IER: n=24</td><td>-IER: Intermittent Energy</td><td></td><td></td><td>BMI= 29.1±2.5 kg/m<sup>2</sup></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Age= 35±11 yr</td><td>Restriction: alternating ad libitum meals and 75% energy restriction day during 12 weeks</td><td></td><td></td><td>After weight loss ≥5%:</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>BMI= 29.4±2.5</td><td>Assessment frequency:</td><td></td><td></td><td>- CER: BMI= 27.3±2.3 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (≠ baseline p&lt;0.001)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>kg/m<sup>2</sup></td><td>Assessments protocol: Body composition, individualized BF, ad libitum lunch, appetite sensation, eating behavior traits.</td><td></td><td></td><td>- IER: BMI= 27.2±2.4 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (≠ baseline p&lt;0.001)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>SQ and anthropometrics variables:</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No SQ ≠ between before and after weight-loss.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No SQ ≠ between groups.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Protocol are detailed only the relevant of SQ; values are presented as means ± SD (standard deviation); AS: appetite sensation; EI: energy intake; BF: Breakfast; BW: Body Weight, NR: Not Reported.

DTE: Desire To Eat; F: Fullness; H: Hunger, PFC: Prospective Food Consumption; S: Satiety; SQ: Satiety Quotient; LSP: Low Satiety Phenotype; HSP: High Satiety Phenotype.
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Beaulieu et al., 2020 <sup>(59)</sup></td><td>n=46</td><td>Randomized Control Trial</td><td>Before and after</td><td>SQ<sub>H</sub>(mm/kcal)=</td><td>Final sample per protocol (weight loss ≥5%): n=30</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>CER: n=22</td><td>Intervention and duration:</td><td>BF, BF+30, +60, +90, +120, +150</td><td>(fasting rating - mean 180-min post-BF rating) /energy content of BF*100</td><td>Baseline:</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Age= 34.9±9 yr</td><td>2 groups:</td><td></td><td></td><td>- CER: n=18, Age= 35±9 yr</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>BMI= 28.9±2.3</td><td>- CER: Continuous Energy</td><td></td><td></td><td>BMI= 29.1±2.4 kg/m²</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>kg/m²</td><td>Restriction: 25% daily energy restriction during 12 weeks</td><td>minutes, before and after lunch</td><td></td><td>- IER: n=12, Age= 34±10 yr</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>IER: n=24</td><td>-IER: Intermittent Energy</td><td></td><td></td><td>BMI= 29.1±2.5 kg/m²</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Age= 35±11 yr</td><td>Restriction: alternating ad libitum meals and 75% energy restriction day during 12 weeks</td><td></td><td></td><td>After weight loss ≥5%:</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>BMI= 29.4±2.5</td><td>Assessment frequency:</td><td></td><td></td><td>- CER: BMI= 27.3±2.3 kg/m² (≠ baseline p&lt;0.001)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>kg/m²</td><td>Assessments protocol: Body composition, individualized BF, ad libitum lunch, appetite sensation, eating behavior traits.</td><td></td><td></td><td>- IER: BMI= 27.2±2.4 kg/m² (≠ baseline p&lt;0.001)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>SQ and anthropometrics variables:</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No SQ ≠ between before and after weight-loss.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>SQ, energy intake and appetite control:</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No SQ ≠ between groups.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Protocol are detailed only the relevant of SQ; values are presented as means ± SD (standard deviation); AS: appetite sensation; EI: energy intake; BF: Breakfast; BW: Body Weight, NR: Not Reported.

DTE: Desire To Eat; F: Fullness; H: Hunger, PFC: Prospective Food Consumption; S: Satiety; SQ: Satiety Quotient; LSP: Low Satiety Phenotype; HSP: High Satiety Phenotype.