Myths and Methodologies: Standardisation in human physiology research-should we control the controllables?

The premise of research in human physiology is to explore a multifaceted system whilst identifying one or a few outcomes of interest. Therefore, the control of potentially confounding variables requires careful thought regarding the extent of control and complexity of standardisation. One common factor to control prior to testing is diet, as food and fluid provision may deviate from participants' habitual diets, yet a self-report and replication method can be flawed by under-reporting. Researchers may also need to consider standardisation of physical activity, whether it be through familiarisation trials, wash-out periods, or guidance on levels of physical activity to be achieved before trials. In terms of pharmacological agents, the ethical implications of standardisation require researchers to carefully consider how medications, caffeine consumption and oral contraceptive prescriptions may affect the study. For research in females, it should be considered whether standardisation between- or within-participants in regards to menstrual cycle phase is most relevant. The timing of measurements relative to various other daily events is relevant to all physiological research and so it can be important to standardise when measurements are made. This review summarises the areas of standardisation which we hope will be considered useful to anyone involved in human physiology research, including when and how one can apply standardisation to various contexts.

Development of Momentary Appetite Capture (MAC): A versatile tool for monitoring appetite over long periods.

Understanding how an intervention impacts appetite in real-life settings and over several days remains a challenging and under-explored research question. To this end, we developed Momentary Appetite Capture (MAC), a form of ecological momentary assessment that combines automated text messaging with an online platform. Participants report their appetite using visual analogue scales (hunger, desire to eat, and fullness) and a virtual portion-size selection task. In two separate studies, we assessed the feasibility and test-retest reliability of MAC. Participants were prompted every 2 hours over a 14-hour window, and they repeated this assessment over two consecutive weekdays. For each participant, we calculated a daily time-averaged area under the curve (AUC) for each appetite measure. In Study One (N = 25) time-averaged AUC was significantly positively correlated across test days for hunger (r = 0.563, p = .003), desire to eat (r = 0.515, p = .008) and prospective portion size (r = 0.914, p < .001), but not for fullness (r = 0.342, p = .094). Participants completed 95% of MACs (380 of 400), and we used participant feedback to improve the MAC tool and study protocol for Study Two. In Study Two (N = 31), 94% of MACs were completed (468 of 496). Across days, time-averaged AUC was significantly positively correlated for hunger (r = 0.595, p = < .001), fullness (r = 0.501, p = .004), desire to eat (r = 0.585, p < .001), and prospective portion size (r = 0.757, p < .001). Together, these studies suggest that MAC could be an acceptable and reliable tool to track appetite throughout the day. In the future, MAC could be used to explore the impact of weight-loss interventions on natural fluctuations in appetite.

Myths and Methodologies: Standardisation in Human Physiology Research-Should We Control the Controllables?

The premise of research in human physiology is to explore a multifaceted system whilst identifying one or a few outcomes of interest. Therefore, the control of potentially confounding variables requires careful thought regarding the extent of control and complexity of standardisation. One common factor to control prior to testing is diet, as food and fluid provision may deviate from participants' habitual diets, yet a self-report and replication method can be flawed by under-reporting. Researchers may also need to consider standardisation of physical activity, whether it be through familiarisation trials, wash-out periods, or guidance on levels of physical activity to be achieved before trials. In terms of pharmacological agents, the ethical implications of standardisation require researchers to carefully consider how medications, caffeine consumption and oral contraceptive prescriptions may affect the study. For research in females, it should be considered whether standardisation between- or within-participants in regards to menstrual cycle phase is most relevant. The timing of measurements relative to various other daily events is relevant to all physiological research and so it can be important to standardise when measurements are made. This review summarises the areas of standardisation which we hope will be considered useful to anyone involved in human physiology research, including when and how one can apply standardisation to various contexts.

Ketogenic diet but not free-sugar restriction alters glucose tolerance, lipid metabolism, peripheral tissue phenotype, and gut microbiome: RCT.

Restricted sugar and ketogenic diets can alter energy balance/metabolism, but decreased energy intake may be compensated by reduced expenditure. In healthy adults, randomization to restricting free sugars or overall carbohydrates (ketogenic diet) for 12 weeks reduces fat mass without changing energy expenditure versus control. Free-sugar restriction minimally affects metabolism or gut microbiome but decreases low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). In contrast, a ketogenic diet decreases glucose tolerance, increases skeletal muscle PDK4, and reduces AMPK and GLUT4 levels. By week 4, the ketogenic diet reduces fasting glucose and increases apolipoprotein B, C-reactive protein, and postprandial glycerol concentrations. However, despite sustained ketosis, these effects are no longer apparent by week 12, when gut microbial beta diversity is altered, possibly reflective of longer-term adjustments to the ketogenic diet and/or energy balance. These data demonstrate that restricting free sugars or overall carbohydrates reduces energy intake without altering physical activity, but with divergent effects on glucose tolerance, lipoprotein profiles, and gut microbiome.