Our previous research demonstrated high, sustained satiety effects of stabilized food foams relative to their non-aerated compositions. Here we test if the energy and macronutrients in a stabilized food foam are critical for its previously demonstrated satiating effects. In a randomized, crossover design, 72 healthy subjects consumed 400 mL of each of four foams, one per week over four weeks, 150 min after a standardized breakfast. Appetite ratings were collected for 180 min post-foam. The reference was a normal energy food foam (NEF1, 280 kJ/400 mL) similar to that used in our previous research. This was compared to a very low energy food foam (VLEF, 36 kJ/400 mL) and 2 alternative normal energy foams (NEF2 and NEF3) testing possible effects of compositional differences other than energy (i.e. emulsifier and carbohydrate source). Appetite ratings were quantified as area under the curve (AUC) and time to return to baseline (TTRTB). Equivalence to NEF1 was predefined as the 90% confidence interval of between-treatment differences in AUC being within −5 to +5 mm/min.
All treatments similarly affected appetite ratings, with mean AUC for fullness ranging between 49.1 and 52.4 mm/min. VLEF met the statistical criterion for equivalence to NEF1 for all appetite AUC ratings, but NEF2 and NEF3 did not. For all foams the TTRTB for satiety and fullness were consistently between 150 and 180 min, though values were shortest for NEF2 and especially NEF3 foams for most appetite scales.
In conclusion, the high, sustained satiating effects of these food foams are independent of energy and macronutrient content at the volumes tested.