Effect of Kefir on Appetite

Subjective assessment of appetite sensations was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How hungry do you feel? (not at all hungry - as hungry as I ever felt)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and hunger rating was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.

Subjective assessment of appetite sensations was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How full do you feel? (not at all full - totally full)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and fullness rating was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a better outcome.

Subjective assessment of appetite sensations was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How strong is your desire to eat? (very weak - very strong)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and desiring to eat was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.

Subjective assessment of appetite sensations was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How much do you think you can eat? (no food at all - a large amount of food)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and prospective food consumption was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.

The separate visual analog scale factors like hunger, fullness, desiring for eat, and prospective food consumption were combined to produce an additional measure termed 'composite appetite score'. This average appetite score was computed for 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes using the following equation: [(hunger + desire to eat + prospective food consumption + (100 - fullness)]/4 Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.

Energy intake at ad libitum lunch was calculated.

Subjective assessment of desire for specific food types was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "Would you like to eat something sweet? (No, not at all - Yes, very much)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and desiring for sweet was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.

Subjective assessment of desire for specific food types was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "Would you like to eat something salty? (No, not at all - Yes, very much)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and desiring for salty was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.

Subjective assessment of desire for specific food types was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "Would you like to eat something savoury? (No, not at all - Yes, very much)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and desiring for savoury was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.

Subjective assessment of desire for specific food types was performed by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "Would you like to eat something fatty? (No, not at all - Yes, very much)" at time points 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes, and desiring for fatty was quantified as AUC (mm x min), which was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule by using those VAS scores. Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.

Palatability of test meals was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How is the visual appeal of test meal? (Good - Bad)" at time points 15 minutes (immediately after consuming test meal). Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.

Palatability of test meals was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How is the smell of test meal? (Good - Bad)" at time points 15 minutes (immediately after consuming test meal). Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.

Palatability of test meals was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How is the taste of test meal? (Good - Bad)" at time points 15 minutes (immediately after consuming test meal). Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.

Palatability of test meals was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "Is there any perceived taste in your mouth after test meal? (Much - None)" at time points 15 minutes (immediately after consuming test meal). Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a better outcome.

Palatability of test meals was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS) composed of lines (of 100 mm in length) with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. VAS ratings were measured by using a question "How is the palatability of test meal? (Good - Bad)" at time points 15 minutes (immediately after consuming test meal). Total scale score changes in a range of 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome.