Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 59, No.

3,579-583, 1996
Copyright 1996 Elsevier Science Inc.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
0031-9384/96 $15.00 + .00

ELSEVIER

0031-9384(95)02113-A

Higher-Protein Foods Produce Greater

Sensory-Specific Satiety
KRISTIN V A N D E W A T E R AND Z A T A VICKERS I

Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, 1334 Eckles Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108 USA
Received 12 July 1994
VANDEWA'IZiR, K. AND Z. VICKERS. Higher-proteinfoods produce greater sensory-specific satiety. PHYSIOL
BEHAV 59(3) 579-583, 1996.--The objectives of this study were to determine if high-protein versions of the same
food systems show more sensory-specific satiety than lower-protein versions, and to determine the effect of these
protein differertces on hunger levels following a meal. Subjects ate a high-protein and a low-protein version of a food
system (either strawberry yogurt or a sandwich) as test meals. The high-protein strawberry yogurt test meal consisted
of a serving of strawberry yogurt that contained whey protein isolate; the low-protein yogurt test meal consisted of a
close-to-commercial strawberry yogurt. The high-protein sandwich meal consisted of a ham sandwich; the low-protein
sandwich meal consisted of a bacon sandwich. Subjects tasted small portions of a set of foods (which included a
sample of the test meal), and rated their liking of these foods before and after eating a test meal. Sensory-specific
satiety occurred for all test meals. The decreases in liking when the high-protein versions of the test meals were eaten
were significantly greater than the decreases in liking for the paired low-protein test meals. Higher-protein versions of
the test meals also decreased hunger more than the lower-protein versions.
Sensory-specific satiety

Protein

Hunger

SENSORY-SPECIFIC satiety occurs when foods that have been

eaten decrease more in itiking than foods that have not been eaten
(9-11). Rolls (12) and Johnson and Vickers (6) suggested that
foods may differ in the amount of sensory-specific satiety they
produce. Higher-calorie preloads produced more sensory-specific
satiety than lower-calorie preloads (7,14). Other attempts to
identify specific attribmes of foods that might influence sensoryspecific satiety have been unsuccessful (6).
The two foods in ~LheJohnson and Vickers (6) study that
produced the greatest sensory-specific satiety were cheddar cheese
and turkey, both high-protein foods. However, no published
research on sensory-specific satiety has been designed to specifically test the effects of protein content. Many studies have been
conducted to investigate the influence of different macronutrients
on the development of ,;atiety. The results of these studies are not
consistent. Several indicate that protein is the most satiating of
the three macronutrients (2,3,5). Rolls and her colleagues (14)
found that foods high in either protein or starch decreased hunger
significantly more than foods high in either fat, sucrose, or a
mixed macronutrient cc,mposition. Johnson and Vickers (7) found
that high-protein and high-carbohydrate preloads were more sati-

ating than high-fat preloads. Other studies (4) have shown no

differences among the satiating effects of fat, carbohydrate, and
protein.
Because the effect of protein content on sensory-specific
satiety and on overall satiety is unclear, our objectives were 1) to
determine if the protein content of a food system may be a factor
in producing greater amounts of sensory-specific satiety, and 2)
to determine the effect of protein content on hunger levels
following a meal.
METHOD

Subjects
Forty subjects (27 females, 13 males) participated in the
sandwich study and 40 subjects (29 females, 11 males) participated in the yogurt study; 11 subjects participated in both. All
subjects were students and staff at the University of Minnesota
who liked both versions of the test meal and the foods used in the
rating set (had tasted and rated them at the midpoint or above on
a 100-mm hedonic line scale). The subjects had viewed models

Published as paper No: 21122 of the contributionseries of the MinnesotaAgriculturalExperimentStation based on research conductedunder Project
18-52.
i To whom requests for reprints should be addressed.

579

580

VANDEWATER

AND VICKERS

TABLE 1
COMPOSITION OF TEST MEALS
Ingredients

Weight
(g)

Calories
(kcal)

Protein
(g/

Fat
(g)

Carbohydrate
Ig)

16
-18.0
--.
34
20%

4.5
----.
4.5
6%

70
40
--

16
57.0
--.
73
43%

4.5
---.
4.5
6%

70
--

2
9

25
--

Yogurts:
Low-protein yogurt
Yogurt
Polycose
W.P.I.
Strawberries
ThickenUp
Strawberry flavor
Total
% of Calories
High-protein yogurt
Yogurt
W.P.I.
Strawberries
ThickenUp
Strawberry flavor
Total
% of Calories

360.0
40.0
18.0
40.0
4.5
0.15
462.65

384
160
72.0
44
18.0
.
678

360.0
57.0
40.0
4.5
0.45
462.95

384
228.0
44
18.0
.
674

11

4.5
125.5
74%

11

4.5
85.5
51%

Sandwiches
BLT
Bread
Bacon
Mayonnaise
Polycose
Lettuce
Tomato
Total
% of Calories
Ham
Bread
Ham
Mayonnaise
Lettuce
Tomato
Total
% of Calories

56.8
18
20
12.0
25.0
50.0
181.8

14.0
110.0
160
48
4
11
473

6.0
6.0
----12.0
11%

42.6
200.0
5.0
13.0
14.0
264.6

100.0
330
40
.
4
474

4.0
35.0
-.
-39.0
33%

16

--

---27
54%

12
1
2.5
40.5
36%

2
21
4

17
---

.
-27
52%

I
18
15%

w . P . l . = whey protein isolate.

sandwich or a serving of strawberry yogurt that contained whey

protein isolate. The high-protein meals were set at 15% by weight
protein and the low-protein meals were set at 7% by weight
p r o t e i n . T h e c o m p o s i t i o n s o f t h e f o u r t e s t m e a l s a r e l i s t e d in
T a b l e 1.
Polycose (a glucose polymer manufactured by Ross Laborat o r i e s , C o l u m b u s , O H ) w a s a d d e d to t h e m a y o n n a i s e f o r t h e B L T
s a n d w i c h a n d t o t h e l o w - p r o t e i n y o g u r t to i n c r e a s e t h e c a l o r i c
content. Whey protein isolate (BiPRO, manufactured by Le
S u e u r I s o l a t e s , L e S u e u r , M N ) w a s a d d e d to the h i g h - p r o t e i n
y o g u r t to i n c r e a s e t h e p r o t e i n c o n t e n t t o 1 5 % . W h e y p r o t e i n
i s o l a t e w a s a l s o a d d e d to t h e l o w - p r o t e i n y o g u r t to m a t c h t h e

o f t h e t e s t m e a l s a n d i n d i c a t e d t h e y w e r e w i l l i n g to e a t t h a t
a m o u n t o f f o o d f o r l u n c h . E a c h s u b j e c t p a r t i c i p a t e d in t w o t e s t i n g
sessions for a food system and thus ate both a high-protein and a
low-protein version of the test meal. The subjects were paid for
participating.

Foods
We prepared high- and low-protein versions of two food
systems for the test meals. A bacon, lettuce, and tomato (BLT)
sandwich or a serving of strawberry yogurt served as low-protein
meals. The matched high-protein meals consisted of a ham

TABLE 2
MEAN CHANGES IN LIKING (mm ON A 100-ram LINE SCALE) DURING A TEST MEAL FOR THE RATING SET FOODS
Uneaten Foods
Test Meal
(Eaten Food)
BLT
Ham
Low-protein yogurt
High-protein yogurt

Eaten Foods

M&M

Chip

Cheese

Juice

4.4
(2.4)
2.7
(1.6)
- 1.3
(2.7)
- 4.4
(1.5)

-1.2
(1.6)
-3.1
(2.2)
0.38
(2.3)
1.2
(2.3)

1.2
(2.5)
- 15.7
(3.3)
- 3.9
(1.9)
- 6.2
(2.1)

2.9
(2.1)
1.6
(2.5)
- 9.2
(3.2)
- 7.1
(2.0)

Numbers in parentheses are SEMs.

Mini
BLT

Mini
Ham

-27.2
(2.4)
--

-44.4
(3.9)
--

-.

Sandwich Components

Lo-Pro
Yog

-- 16.9
(2.3)
.

Hi-Pro
Yog
.
--32.6
(3.1)

Lettuce

Tomato

Ham

7.2
(2.2)
-11.9
(2.3)
- 8.6
(2.4)
- 5.1
(2.4)

-8.9
(1.9)
-11.7
(2.6)
- 9.9
(2.7)
- 11.4
(2.6)

--28.3
(3.4)
- 7.0
(2.7)
- 7.0
(2.4)

Bacon

Bread

-17.3
(2.3)
--

-9.1
(2.1)
-11.1
(2.7)
- 4.7
(1.6)
- 3.9
(2.2)

---

SENDORY-SPECIFIC SATIETY

581

TABLE 3
MEAN INITIALLIKING SCORES
Test Meal

Mean Initial Liking Score

(ram)

BLT sandwich
Ham sandwich
Mean difference
SEM differelace
Low-protein Yogurt
High-protein Yogurt
Mean difference
SEM difference

86a
82 a
- 4.0
(2.5)
71 b
80a
9.2
(3.4)

"like extremely" at the right end of the scale. Subjects used a

separate slip of paper, which contained one hedonic response
scale, for each sample and were asked not to look at responses to
previous samples.
After completing the hunger and liking ratings, subjects ate a
test meal. Twenty of the 40 judges who ate the sandwiches
received the ham sandwich first; 20 received the BLT first. The
same balanced orders were used for the yogurts. Two minutes
after eating the test meal, subjects repeated their hunger ratings
and their liking ratings for the rating set foods.

Data Analysis

a,b Within a pair of test meal types (e.g., BLT and

ham) numbers in a column with letter superscripts in
common do not differ significantly ( p < 0.05).

Ratings for liking, hunger, "how much could you eat," and
stomach fullness were measured in millimeters from the left
(low) end of the scale. Changes in the ratings were determined by
subtracting the ratings before a subject consumed a test meal
from the ratings 2 min after consuming a test meal. The data for
the sandwiches were analyzed separately from the data from the
yogurts.
SAS (15) was used to perform all of the analyses. We used an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine if the test meal
(eaten food) decreased significantly more in liking than the
uneaten foods. For this ANOVA, changes in liking served as the
dependent variable, subjects as blocks, and type of food as a
treatment factor. We created a new variable called sensoryspecific satiety by subtracting each judge's change in liking of
the eaten food from that judge's mean change in liking of the
uneaten foods (the M & M , cheese, potato chip, and juice).
ANOVAs with sensory-specific satiety as the dependent variable,
subjects as blocks, and gender or protein as treatment factors
were used to determine if the gender of the subjects or the protein
content of the test meals related to different amounts of sensoryspecific satiety.
We used paired t-tests to determine if there were differences
in the initial liking and hunger indices for the low- vs. high-protein pairs.

protein content of the BLT sandwich and to achieve a closer

flavor match to the high-protein yogurt. Frozen strawberries and
an artificial strawberry flavor were added to both the low-protein
and the high-protein yogurt to mask the slight off-flavor of the
whey protein isolate. ThJckenUp (Sandoz Nutrition, Minneapolis, MN), a modified food starch, was added to both the yogurts
to thicken them after the components had been mixed in.
The sensory properties of the yogurts were closely matched
but not identical. The predominant flavors were the sweet/sour
taste of the yogurt and strawberries and the aroma of the added
strawberry flavor. Ideally, the sensory properties of the sandwiches would have also been the same. We achieved similar
flavors in the sandwiches by using ham or bacon (both predominately smokey and salty flavors) and by using similar bread,
lettuce, and tomato in both sandwiches. Differences in the weight
or the sensory qualities of the test meals were undesirable
because they were confounded with differences in protein. However, if we observed the same effects in both the yogurt and the
sandwich systems they would likely be due to differences in
protein--not to these other differences.

Procedure
RESULTS

Subjects arrived at a:~signed times between 1100 and 1300 h.

Upon arrival, they rated their feelings of hunger, stomach fullness, and "how much they could eat" (three separate hunger
indices) using 145-mm line scales. All subjects tasted and rated
their liking for the food:~ in the rating set in the following order:
mini-ritz cracker, ham or bacon, M & M , test meal (mini-ham
sandwich, mini-BLT, hi~gh-protein yogurt, or low-protein yogurt),
cheddar cheese, orange juice, lettuce, tomato, potato chip, and
bread. About 3 - 5 g of each rating set food was served except for
the mini-sandwiches. Mini-sandwiches were about one-eighth of
a test meal sandwich. The hedonic scale used was a 100-mm line
scale anchored with the labels "dislike extremely" at the left and

In all cases the foods that were eaten as test meals decreased
significantly more in liking than the uneaten foods; thus,
sensory-specific satiety was observed (Table 2). The decreases in
liking for the high-protein test meals (ham sandwich, high-protein
yogurt) were significantly greater than the decreases in liking for
the low-protein versions of the test meals (BLT sandwich, lowprotein yogurt) [for sandwiches, F ( I , 79) ~ 21.2, p < 0.0001; for
yogurt, F(1, 7 9 ) = 2 0 . 4 , p <0.0001]. The mean changes in
liking for each of the test meals are shown in Table 2.
The initial liking ratings for the ham sandwich and the BLT
were not significantly different from each other. The initial liking

TABLE 4
MEAN INITIALHUNGER INDICESRATINGS* AND MEAN CHANGESFOR EACH TEST MEAL(mm)
TestMeal
B L T s~Lndwich
H a m s~mdwich
Low-protein yogurt
High-protein yogurt

Initial
Hunger
108 a
109 a
103 b
115 a

(3.5)
(2.8)
(4.1)
(3.4)

Hunger
Change
-

68 b
95 a
67 b
88 a

(4.1)
(4.0)
(3.4)
(5.2)

Initial
Fullness
25 a
28 a
39 a
31 a

(3.0)
(2.8)
(4.0)
(3.5)

Fullness
Change
67 b
100 a
71 b
89 a

(5.3)
(3.6)
(4.0)
(4.9)

Initial
"How Much
CouldYouEat"
104 a
95 a
102 a
111 a

(3.4)
(4.4)
(3.8)
(3.3)

"How Much
CouldYouEat"
Change
--

59 b
71 a
55 b
81 a

(3.8)
(6.6)
(4.1)
(4.6)

* From a 145-ramscale. SEs are shown in parentheses.

~b Within a pair of test meal types (e.g., BLT and ham) numbers in a column with letter superscripts in common do not differ
significantly(p < 0.05).

582

VANDEWATER AND VICKERS

rating for the high-protein yogurt was significantly greater than

the initial liking rating for the low-protein yogurt ( t = 2.73,
p = 0.01). The initial liking ratings for each of the test meals are
shown in Table 3.
Women and men did not differ in the extent of sensory-specific
satiety [for ham/BLT: females = 37, males = 32, F(1, 37) = 0.6,
p = 0.49; for yogurt: females = 22, males = 17, F(I, 38) = 1.6,
p = 0.59].

Changes in Hunger Indices

The high-protein versions of the test meals produced significantly greater decreases in hunger and "how much could you
eat" ratings and a significantly greater increase in stomach
fullness than the low-protein versions (Table 4).
Initial hunger, fullness, and "how much could you eat"
ratings for the ham sandwich and the BLT were not significantly
different from each other. Initial hunger and "how much could
you eat" ratings were significantly greater for the high-protein
yogurt compared to the low-protein yogurt. Initial stomach fullness ratings were not significantly different for the yogurts (Table

4).
DISCUSSION
The high-protein test meals produced more sensory-specific
satiety in both the sandwich and the yogurt food systems. These
differences are likely due to the amount of protein instead of the
amounts of other macronutrients because in the sandwich system
the low-protein BLT was relatively high in fat whereas in the
yogurt system the low-protein meal was relatively high in carbohydrate. Our results are similar to those of Hill and Blundell (5),
who observed a larger decrease in preference for high-protein
foods after a high-protein meal. Barkeling et al. (I) provided
subjects with a high-protein lunch and a high-carbohydrate lunch
and then measured subjects' motivation to eat at a subsequent
meal. Both meals produced a relative aversion for high-protein
foods, but again the effect was greater after the high-protein meal
than after the high-carbohydrate meal. Experiments done by Rolls
et al. (14) and Johnson and Vickers (6) also showed trends for
high-protein preloads to decrease more in liking than low-protein
preloads. However, neither of those studies showed significantly
greater decreases in liking for the high-protein foods.
Our observation that the high-protein versions of the test
meals produced significantly greater decreases in hunger than the
low-protein versions is also supported by several other studies.
Booth et al. (2), found that subjects consumed less at a supplemental meal after eating a high-protein lunch than after eating a
low-protein lunch. Hill and Blundell (5), found that subjects
reported significantly greater feelings of stomach fullness and
less motivation to eat after consuming a high-protein meal,
compared with consuming a high-carbohydrate meal. Johnson
and Vickers (7) found that a high-protein food was more satiating
than a high-fat food, but not more satiating than a high-carbohydrate food. Rolls et al. (13) found a trend for a decreased
intake of food after both a high-protein or a high-carbohydrate
preload.
We wanted the initial liking ratings for both versions of a test

meal to be similar because equal liking ratings provide equal

opportunities for liking changes. The initial liking ratings for the
ham sandwich and the BLT were similar, but the initial liking
rating for the high-protein yogurt was significantly greater than
the initial liking rating for the low-protein yogurt. The difference
in yogurt ratings was surprising because the yogurts were very
closely matched in flavor and texture, and because the liking
ratings collected when judges were screened showed the low-protein yogurt to be slightly but not significantly better liked than
the high-protein yogurt. The higher initial liking rating for the
high-protein yogurt may have been related to the higher initial
level of hunger. Adding the initial hunger ratings as covariates in
the ANOVA used to determine whether the protein content of
yogurt affected sensory-specific satiety had no effect on the
significance of the protein content. Regression analysis indicated
that all the initial hunger indices were unrelated to the sensoryspecific satiety ( p > 0.10).
We included the sandwich components in the rating set to
determine whether sensory-specific satiety was specific for the
sandwich or whether it also extended to the components of the
sandwich. Liking decreases for the tomato, lettuce, and bread
were relatively small and similar to the liking decreases for those
items when the yogurts were consumed. Liking decreases for the
ham and bacon components were notably larger. Ham and bacon
probably have larger liking decreases because they may represent
the primary flavors in each sandwich. Rolls et al. (11,13) and
Johnson and Vickers (7) have shown that rating set foods with
flavors similar to the eaten foods decrease more in liking.
The sandwiches appeared to decrease more in liking than the
yogurts. One might have expected them to drop less because they
contained more fat, less protein, weighed less, and contained
fewer calories. Our study was not designed to compare the two
systems so we can only speculate about potential causes of this
difference. The sandwiches were solid foods that required chewing and probably therefore resided longer in the mouth, producing more exposure to their sensory characteristics and making
subjects more "tired" of eating the food. The sandwiches may
have some flavor attribute(s) (e.g., overall intensity, saltiness,
meatiness) that people tire of more easily. The cognitive perceptions of the two foods may have differed. The sandwiches may
have been perceived as a complete meal whereas the yogurt may
have been perceived as only a component of a meal. The
sandwiches contained meat, which may have been perceived as a
satisfying and filling meal component. Most of the subjects
participating in the sandwich tests did not like the yogurt or were
unwilling to consume the required amount (and vice versa for
those participating in the yogurt tests). Thus, subject characteristics may also account for the different decreases in liking.
CONCLUSION
Higher-protein foods, when eaten in equal calorie amounts in
the same food system, produce greater sensory-specific satiety
than low-protein foods. This effect was observed whether or not
the protein component of the food also served as a key flavor
component. Higher-protein versions of the food systems also
produced greater decreases in hunger.

REFERENCES
1. Barkeling, B.; Rossner, S.; Bjorvell, H. Effects of a high protein meal
(meat) and a high carbohydrate meal (vegetarian) on satiety measured
by automated computerized monitoring of subsequent food intake,

motivation to eat and food preferences. Int. J. Obes. 14:743-751;

1990.
2. Booth, D. A.; Chase, A.; Campbell, A. T. Relative effectiveness of

SENDORY-SPECIFIC SATIETY

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

protein in the late sta[:es of appetite suppression in man. Physiol.

Behav. 5:1299-1302; 1970.
de Castro, J. M.; Elmo~e, D. K. Subjective hunger relationships with
meal patterns in the spontaneous feeding behavior of humans: Evidence for a causal contLection. Physiol. Behav. 43:159-165; 1988.
Geliebter, A. A. Effex:ts of equicaloric loads of protein, fat, and
carbohydrate on food intake in the rat and man. Physiol. Behav.
22:267-273; 1979.
Hill, A. J.; Blundell J. E. Macronutrients and satiety: The effects of a
high-protein or high-c~xbohydrate meal on subjective motivation to
eat and food preferences. Nutr. Behav. 3:133-144; 1986.
Johnson, J. R.; Vickers, Z. M. Factors influencing sensory-specific
satiety. Appetite 19:15--31; 1992.
Johnson, J. R.; Vickers, Z. M. The effects of flavor and macronutrient composition of preloads on liking, hunger, and subsequent intake
in humans. Appetite 21:25-39; 1993.
Rolls, B. J.; Rolls, E. T.; Rowe, E. A. Sensory-specific satiety and
appetite. Int. J. Obes. 3:397-142; 1979.

583

9. Rolls, B. J.; Rolls, E. T.; Rowe, E. A.; Sweeney, K. Sensory-specific

satiety in man. Physiol. Behav. 27:137-142; 1981.
10. Rolls, B. J.; Rowe, E. A.; Rolls, E. T. How sensory properties of
foods affect human feeding behavior. Physiol. Behav. 29:409-417;
1982.
11. Roils, B. J.; Van Duijvenvoorde, P. M.; Roils, E. T. Pleasanl~ess
changes and food intake in a varied four-course meal. Appetite
5:337-348; 1984.
12. Rolls, B. J. Sensory-specific satiety. Nutr. Rev. 44:93-101; 1986.
13. Rolls, B. J.; Hetherington, M.; Burley, V. J. The specificity of
satiety: The influence of foods of different macronutrient content on
the development of satiety. Physiol. Behav. 43:145-153; 1988.
14. Rolls, B. J.; Hetherington, M.; Burley, V. J. Sensory stimulation and
energy density in the development of satiety. Physiol. Behav.
44:727-733; 1988.
15. SAS Institute Inc. SAS user's guide; statistics, version 5 edition.
Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 1985.