CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Regulation of Appetite and ObesityNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques

Enhanced preference for a protein-containing diet in response to dietary protein restriction

DIBATTISTA, DAVID, HOLDER, MARK D.·1998·Appetite
DOI 10.1006/appe.1997.0135
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Rats were maintained for 10 days on either a protein-free or a nutritionally complete maintenance diet, and they were also given access to protein-rich and carbohydrate-rich test diets during separate daily 2-h test sessions. In Experiment 1, rats maintained on the protein-free diet gradually and selectively increased their intake of the protein test diet, and eventually derived 16% of their daily energy intake from the protein test diet. Rats maintained on a nutritionally complete diet ate similar amounts of the two test diets even when their total caloric intake was matched to that of rats maintained on the protein-free diet. In Experiment 2, rats that developed a preference for the protein test diet while maintained on a protein-free diet were given Purina Chow for 25 days to allow them to recover from their protein deficiency. When these rats were later returned to the protein-free diet for 10 days, their preference for the protein test diet was immediate and sustained. However, if they were maintained on the nutritionally complete diet after the 25-day recovery period, they initially preferred the protein test diet, but this preference diminished over days. Results of these studies are consistent with other findings showing that rats can learn to compensate for macronutrient deficiencies by using oral-sensory cues. In particular, the rats' diet selection was consistent with their having learned a preference for the cues paired with dietary protein.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/appe.1997.0135

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Protein restriction induces a specific selection for protein, marked by protein-specific increases in preference and motivation.

    “Protein restriction also induces a specific selection for protein, marked by protein-specific increases in preference and motivation”

    From FGF21 and the physiological regulation of macronutrient preference (2020) · cites this paper as [95]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
DIBATTISTA, D., & HOLDER, M. D.
Affiliations
  • Brock University (CA)
  • Okanagan College (CA)
ORCID
HOLDER, MARK D.
Venue
Appetite
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998-06
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
237-254
ISSN
0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1006/appe.1997.0135
OpenAlex
W2085439626
Cited by
22
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Appetite (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Regulation of Appetite and Obesity
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Biochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Keywords
protein restriction, protein deficiency, food preferences, high-protein diet, high-carbohydrate diet, food choice, rats
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena, Energy Intake, Dietary Carbohydrates, Dietary Proteins, Food Preferences, Male, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Diet, Protein-Restricted, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review