Reductions to main meal portion sizes reduce daily energy intake regardless of perceived normality of portion size: a 5 day cross-over laboratory experiment

Food portion sizes: trends and drivers in an obesogenic environment

The prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults has increased worldwide. A strong environmental factor contributing to the obesity epidemic is food portion size (PS). This review evaluates the current evidence linking food PS to obesity, examines the effects of PS on energy intake (EI), and discusses the drivers of food PS selection. The leading causes of the rise in PS include globalisation, intensive farming methods, the impact of World War II, due to shortage of staple foods, and the notion of 'waste not, want not'. Large PS of energy-dense foods may stimulate overconsumption, leading to high EI levels. However, the studies have not shown a cause-and-effect relationship, due to confounding factors. Important mechanisms explaining the attractiveness of larger PS leading to higher EI levels are value for money, portion distortion, labels on food packaging, and tableware. Consumers depend on external rather than internal PS cues to guide consumption, irrespective of satiety levels. Further research is recommended on food consumption patterns to inform policymakers and provide information and insights about changes in diet.

Differences between the normal and perceived appropriate portion sizes of discretionary foods

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the amount of discretionary foods that people normally consume and consider as appropriate at one eating occasion. This study aimed to provide an overview of the range and assess differences of the 'normal portion size' and 'perceived appropriate portion size' of energy-dense nutrient-poor discretionary foods among consumers aged 18-65 years.

METHODS

To measure normal and perceived appropriate portion sizes, a validated online image-series questionnaire consisting of eight successive portion size options for 15 discretionary foods was completed at two timepoints. Quantile regression models were used to estimate the ranges (lower boundary at 17th percentile, upper boundary at 83rd percentile) of normal and perceived appropriate portion sizes selected by two thirds of the study population. Models were adjusted for the effects of potential influencing factors including biological sex, age, usual physical activity level, cooking confidence, socio-economic status, body mass index, and baseline hunger levels.

RESULTS

A final sample of 295 participants were included in the analysis (51% females, mean age 39.5 ± 14.1 years). The normal portion sizes were significantly higher than the perceived appropriate portion sizes across all test foods, with the effects of sex, age, and BMI being significant for some foods.

CONCLUSION

The finding suggests that consumers would normally consume a portion size that was larger than what they perceive to be appropriate for discretionary foods. The estimated lower and upper boundaries would be valuable for the development of pragmatic public health messages to empower consumers towards better portion control.

Evaluation of the efficacy of a light ration adapted to cold weather during a 20-day expedition in Greenland

INTRODUCTION

Limiting body mass loss during military expeditions/training in the cold by providing rations containing easy-to-use, highly palatable, and familiar foods is feasible, but the bulk/weight is too high to be realistically used in a military context. We carried out an analysis of lighter rations adapted to cold weather (1,011 g, 15.7 MJ/3750 kcal) during a 20-day expedition in Greenland.

METHODS

Ten French soldiers daily reported all foods and beverages consumed, the reasons they did not consume certain foods, the palatability of each consumed food, the timing of intake, and the sensation of hunger using a diary.

RESULTS

Although energy intake increased in the 3rd week (vs 1st week; p = 0.015), it was insufficient to prevent the loss of body mass (-4.2 ± 1.9 kg, p = 0.002). More extensive analyses showed that 1) energy intake increased only during dinner (p = 0.024) and that hunger levels continued to increase before dinner (p = 0.029), 2) palatability increased during the 3rd week (vs 1st week) especially for savory day foods (p< 0.001), and 3) lack of hunger and lack of appeal (33 % each) were the main reasons for not consuming certain items.

CONCLUSION

Soldiers placed in total autonomy during a 20-day expedition in the cold and provided rations that were slightly undersized but adapted for cold conditions, surprisingly, remained picky, leading to large losses of body mass. Our results suggest a margin for improvement to stimulate spontaneous food intake. For example, more energy-dense and savory foods during the day and the replacement of certain disliked items.

Socioeconomic position and the influence of food portion size on daily energy intake in adult females: two randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Reducing portion sizes of commercially available foods could be an effective public health strategy to reduce population energy intake, but recent research suggests that the effect portion size has on energy intake may differ based on socioeconomic position (SEP).

OBJECTIVE

We tested whether the effect of reducing food portion sizes on daily energy intake differed based on SEP.

METHODS

Participants were served either smaller or larger portions of food at lunch and evening meals (N = 50; Study 1) and breakfast, lunch and evening meals (N = 46; Study 2) in the laboratory on two separate days, in repeated-measures designs. The primary outcome was total daily energy intake (kcal). Participant recruitment was stratified by primary indicators of SEP; highest educational qualification (Study 1) and subjective social status (Study 2), and randomisation to the order portion sizes were served was stratified by SEP. Secondary indicators of SEP in both studies included household income, self-reported childhood financial hardship and a measure accounting for total years in education.

RESULTS

In both studies, smaller (vs larger) meal portions led to a reduction in daily energy intake (ps < .02). Smaller portions resulted in a reduction of 235 kcal per day (95% CI: 134, 336) in Study 1 and 143 kcal per day (95% CI: 24, 263) in Study 2. There was no evidence in either study that effects of portion size on energy intake differed by SEP. Results were consistent when examining effects on portion-manipulated meal (as opposed to daily) energy intake.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing meal portion sizes could be an effective way to reduce overall daily energy intake and contrary to other suggestions it may be a socioeconomically equitable approach to improving diet.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

These trials were registered at www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov as NCT05173376 and NCT05399836.

Downsizing food: a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effect of reducing served food portion sizes on daily energy intake and body weight

Portion sizes of many foods have increased over time. However, the size of effect that reducing food portion sizes has on daily energy intake and body weight is less clear. We used a systematic review methodology to identify eligible articles that used an experimental design to manipulate portion size served to human participants and measured energy intake for a minimum of 1 d. Searches were conducted in September 2020 and again in October 2021. Fourteen eligible studies contributing eighty-five effects were included in the primary meta-analysis. There was a moderate-to-large reduction in daily energy intake when comparing smaller v. larger portions (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) = -0·709 (95 % CI: -0·956, -0·461), approximately 235 kcal (983·24 kJ)). Larger reductions to portion size resulted in larger decreases in daily energy intake. There was evidence of a curvilinear relationship between portion size and daily energy intake; reductions to daily energy intake were markedly smaller when reducing portion size from very large portions. In a subset of studies that measured body weight (four studies contributing five comparisons), being served smaller v. larger portions was associated with less weight gain (0·58 kg). Reducing food portion sizes may be an effective population-level strategy to prevent weight gain.

The Economics of a "portion size reduction" policy

This study develops novel models of heterogeneous consumer preferences for different dining options and imperfect competition among food suppliers to analyze the market and welfare effects of portion size reduction (PSR) for food away from home. Different scenarios on the nature of differentiation of the dining options, the information available to consumers, and their response to links between portion size and obesity, food waste, and climate change are considered within this framework. The market and welfare effects of the policy are quantified using a simulation analysis. The analysis shows that the market and welfare effects of the policy are case-specific and dependent on the relative magnitude of the cost and utility effects of PSR, the strength of the consumer preference for dining out, and the food suppliers' initial costs and degree of market power in the relevant markets. The policy can create winners and losers among consumers and accounting for consumer heterogeneity, as done in this study, is essential for capturing the asymmetric welfare effects of PSR. Intriguingly, consumers and suppliers can benefit from PSR even without accounting for any health or/and environmental benefits of reduced portion sizes.

Development and validation of a new methodological platform to measure behavioral, cognitive, and physiological responses to food interventions in real time

To fully understand the causes and mechanisms involved in overeating and obesity, measures of both cognitive and physiological determinants of eating behavior need to be integrated. Effectively synchronizing behavioral measures such as meal micro-structure (e.g., eating speed), cognitive processing of sensory stimuli, and metabolic parameters, can be complex. However, this step is central to understanding the impact of food interventions on body weight. In this paper, we provide an overview of the existing gaps in eating behavior research and describe the development and validation of a new methodological platform to address some of these issues. As part of a controlled trial, 76 men and women self-served and consumed food from a buffet, using a portion-control plate with visual stimuli for appropriate amounts of main food groups, or a conventional plate, on two different days, in a random order. In both sessions participants completed behavioral and cognitive tests using a novel methodological platform that measured gaze movement (as a proxy for visual attention), eating rate and bite size, memory for portion sizes, subjective appetite and portion-size perceptions. In a sub-sample of women, hormonal secretion in response to the meal was also measured. The novel platform showed a significant improvement in meal micro-structure measures from published data (13 vs. 33% failure rate) and high comparability between an automated gaze mapping protocol vs. manual coding for eye-tracking studies involving an eating test (ICC between methods 0.85; 90% CI 0.74, 0.92). This trial was registered at Clinical Trials.gov with Identifier NCT03610776.

Systematic review of the portion size norm of discretionary foods

CONTEXT

Portion size norm is described as the perception of how much of a given food people choose to eat. Reducing the portion size norm of foods that are high in saturated fat, added sugar, and added salt toward smaller sizes might be a potential strategy to promote appropriate portion size selections. However, an overview of existing portion size norms for discretionary foods has yet to be established.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to examine the portion size norm of discretionary foods and assess the methodologies used to investigate the norm.

DATA SOURCES

The literature search was conducted in 6 databases following the PRISMA guidelines (from inception to January 2022).

DATA EXTRACTION

Forty studies were eligible and grouped into 3 categories by portion size norm measures: normal (n = 26), appropriate (n = 8), and preferred portion sizes (n = 3). Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools.

DATA ANALYSIS

A wide range of portion sizes were considered normal for each food type, with means/medians varying from 2- to 4-fold among studies. Studies differed considerably in design, with variables including the setting, food type, food presentation, the manner in which portion-size-related questions were formulated, and the range and number of displayed serving size options. The quality of reviewed studies was mixed (25 studies had low or moderate risk of bias, 15 had high risk of bias), and the method of assessing portion size was not validated in 15 of 33 quantitative studies.

CONCLUSION

The assessment of portion size in future studies should be conducted using tools that are validated for the population of interest so that more definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding portion size norms for discretionary foods.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42021249911.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Effect of Portion Size and Ingestive Frequency on Energy Intake and Body Weight among Adults in Randomized Controlled Feeding Trials

Energy intake is the product of portion size (PS)-the energy content of an ingestive event-and ingestive frequency (IF)-the number of ingestive events per unit time. An uncompensated alteration in either PS or IF would result in a change in energy intake and body weight if maintained over time. The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the independent effects of PS and IF on energy intake and body weight among healthy adults in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A total of 9708 articles were identified in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases. The articles were divided among 10 researchers; each article was screened for eligibility by 2-3 independent reviewers. Exclusion criteria included: populations <19 y and >65 y, unhealthy populations (i.e. participants with an acute or chronic disease), assessments <24 h and <4 wk in duration for trials investigating energy intake or body weight, respectively. Controlled feeding trials (i.e. fixed energy intake) that manipulated IF and PS in the same study intervention (IF/PS) were evaluated separately and for the body weight outcome only. Twenty-two studies (IF = 4, PS = 14, IF/PS = 4) met the inclusion criteria. There was an insufficient number of studies to assess the effect of IF, PS, or IF/PS on body weight. There was heterogeneity in the effect sizes among all comparisons (I2 ≥75%). Consuming larger portion sizes was associated with higher daily energy intake [295 kcal (202, 388), n = 24; weighted mean differences (WMD) (95% CI), n = comparisons], and increased frequency of ingestive events was associated with higher energy intake [203 kcal (76, 330), n = 10]. Results from RCTs support that larger PS and greater IF are both associated with higher energy consumption. However, there is insufficient information to determine chronic effects on body weight. This protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) as CRD42018104757.

Energy Imbalance Gap, Anthropometric Measures, Lifestyle, and Sociodemographic Correlates in Latin American Adults-Results from the ELANS Study

Overweight and obesity are often explained by an imbalance between energy intake and expenditure. This, in addition to metabolic effects, makes it difficult to assess the real state of individual energy balance. This study aims to analyze the energy gaps between intake and expenditure in the adult population of Latin America, as well as its relationships with sociodemographic variables and nutrition status, to draw an epidemiological perspective based on the trends observed. The energy imbalance gap was used to this end. The difference between energy intake and expenditure can be applied as a reference to explain whether weight equilibrium can prevent weight gain. Moreover, the energy imbalance gap allows for a better understanding of the design of public health policies. Using data from the Latin American Study of Nutrition and Health, the energy imbalance gap in adult population from eight Latin-American countries was assessed in 5994 subjects aged from 19-65. Usual dietary intake was measured using two non-consecutive 24 h dietary recalls. The sociodemographic questionnaire was supplemented by anthropometric measurements. Physical activity was measured through the long International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Energy expenditure was obtained using the basal metabolic rate. For the overall sample, the mean energy intake was 1939.1 kcal (95% CI: 1926.9; 1951.3), the mean of energy expenditure was 1915.7 kcal (95% CI: 1906.4; 1924.9), and the mean of energy imbalance gap was 23.4 kcal (95% CI: 11.9; 35.0). Results show that energy intake and expenditure were higher in men. Moreover, subjects aged 19-34, of high socioeconomic level, who completed high school, were mestizos and were of normal weight consumed the highest number of calories. Overall, a positive energy imbalance gap was observed. Overweight and obese from Argentina, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela showed a significantly lower energy imbalance gap than underweight subjects. These findings confirm the high variability of energy imbalance gap and the accompanying correlates of energy intake and expenditure. Further research is needed to specifically address interventions in low and middle-income countries such as many in Latin America, to help reduce the prevalence of obesity and eradicate undernutrition.

"This snack is too small - I'll take a different one": Quantifying 'norm' and 'choice' boundaries to inform effective portion-reduction strategies

Previous research suggests that portion sizes can be categorised as 'normal' or 'abnormal' and that reduced portions which are still categorised as normal do not promote compensatory responses in intake. However, a critical question remains - will consumers choose a reduced portion product from among standard portion competitors? For the first time, we explore the effects of portion reduction on food choice. Participants (N = 45) categorised 20 different portions (range 40-420 kcal) of five snacks as normal or abnormal (to quantify individual 'norm boundaries' for each food) and rated their desire to eat each snack. Using a 2-alternative forced choice hypothetical task, we then calculated a 'choice boundary' by offering smaller portions of their most-desired snack (range 40-240 kcal) alongside standardised portions (240 kcal) of the less-desired foods. Boundaries were derived using probit analysis (choice boundary mean = 185.8 kcal, SD = 54, norm boundary mean = 127.3 kcal, SD = 49.5) and these deviated significantly (p < .01, d = 0.98, mean difference = 58.0 kcal, SD = 59.1). Critically, this shows that only a small reduction - where the product is still considered normal - can nudge a consumer to select an alternative. Choice boundaries were also affected by differences in desire to eat; when two foods were desired to a similar degree, only minor reductions in the size of the favourite food elicited a switch in choice. Together, these findings indicate that portion reduction can also influence food choice, highlighting the importance of measuring choice boundaries before reformulating commercial products.

Impact of decreasing the proportion of higher energy foods and reducing portion sizes on food purchased in worksite cafeterias: A stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Overconsumption of energy from food is a major contributor to the high rates of overweight and obesity in many populations. There is growing evidence that interventions that target the food environment may be effective at reducing energy intake. The current study aimed to estimate the effect of decreasing the proportion of higher energy (kcal) foods, with and without reducing portion size, on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluated 2 interventions: (i) availability: replacing higher energy products with lower energy products; and (ii) size: reducing the portion size of higher energy products. A total of 19 cafeterias were randomised to the order in which they introduced the 2 interventions. Availability was implemented first and maintained. Size was added to the availability intervention. Intervention categories included main meals, sides, cold drinks, snacks, and desserts. The study setting was worksite cafeterias located in distribution centres for a major United Kingdom supermarket and lasted for 25 weeks (May to November 2019). These cafeterias were used by 20,327 employees, mainly (96%) in manual occupations. The primary outcome was total energy (kcal) purchased from intervention categories per day. The secondary outcomes were energy (kcal) purchased from nonintervention categories per day, total energy purchased per day, and revenue. Regression models showed an overall reduction in energy purchased from intervention categories of -4.8% (95% CI -7.0% to -2.7%), p < 0.001 during the availability intervention period and a reduction of -11.5% (95% CI -13.7% to -9.3%), p < 0.001 during the availability plus size intervention period, relative to the baseline. There was a reduction in energy purchased of -6.6% (95% CI -7.9% to -5.4%), p < 0.001 during the availability plus size period, relative to availability alone. Study limitations include using energy purchased as the primary outcome (and not energy consumed) and the availability only of transaction-level sales data per site (and not individual-level data).

CONCLUSIONS

Decreasing the proportion of higher energy foods in cafeterias reduced the energy purchased. Decreasing portion sizes reduced this further. These interventions, particularly in combination, may be effective as part of broader strategies to reduce overconsumption of energy from food in out-of-home settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN87225572.

Socioeconomic position, energy labelling and portion size selection: An online study comparing calorie and physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labelling in UK adults

Limited research has examined the impact of energy labelling on portion size selection. It is also unclear whether physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) is more effective than standard kilocalorie (kcal) energy labelling in promoting healthier dietary behaviour and whether effectiveness varies based on socioeconomic position (SEP). In the present online study, 1667 UK adults of lower and higher SEP made virtual portion size selections for 18 common main meal foods under one of four conditions: kcal labelling only, PACE labelling only, kcal and PACE labelling, no labelling. Contrary to predictions, participants in the kcal labelling condition (+55 kcal, p < 0.001) chose larger portion sizes compared to the no labelling condition, whereas the PACE labelling (−17 kcal, p = 0.065) and no labelling condition did not significantly differ. The presence of PACE information on labels was associated with selection of significantly smaller portions when compared to labels that only included kcal information. Effects of labels on portion size selection were not moderated by participant SEP in primary analyses. The present study of virtual portion size selections suggests that kcal labelling resulted in larger portion size selections than no labelling, but this counter-intuitive effect was attenuated when kcal and PACE labelling were combined. Further research examining the impact of PACE labelling on real-world food selection in participants of lower and higher SEP is now warranted.

Individual differences and moderating participant characteristics in the effect of reducing portion size on meal energy intake: Pooled analysis of three randomized controlled trials

Portion size impacts on the amount of energy consumed during a meal. However, research findings on participant characteristics that moderate the effect of portion size on energy intake are mixed. Using data pooled across three randomized control trials, we examined the impact of reducing meal portion size on meal energy intake in 111 adult participants varying in sex (55 M, 56 F), body weight (BMI range = 19-42) and a broad range of participant characteristics, including usual portion size, restrained, emotional and external eating, satiety responsiveness, plate clearing tendencies, concerns about wasting food and self-control. In each trial, a repeated-measures design was used and participants consumed three ad-libitum lunchtime meals differing in portion size; large-normal portion size condition (100%) vs. small-normal portion size condition (~ 75%) vs. smaller than normal portion size condition (~ 50%). In mixed ANOVAs, we did not find convincing evidence that any participant characteristic reliably moderated the impact that reducing portion size had on energy intake. For the majority of participants energy intake decreased when portion size was reduced and it was more common for participants to consistently reduce their energy intake than consume a similar amount when portion size was reduced. We also found little evidence that a sub-group of participants existed whose energy intake was consistently resistant to portion size reductions. Portion size may be a universal driver of energy intake, as reducing meal portion size appears to decrease meal energy intake among most people. Food portion downsizing may therefore be an equitable intervention approach to reducing population level energy intake.

Out of the lab and into the wild: The influence of portion size on food intake in laboratory vs. real-world settings

External influences on eating behaviour, such as portion size, have been reliably shown to influence food intake in the laboratory. However, little research has examined whether laboratory settings under or overestimate the effect that external influences have on food intake compared to when studied in the real-world. In Study 1, 60 participants (mean age = 32 years) were randomized to consume a large (200 g) or small (100 g) portion of popcorn under controlled laboratory conditions and during a separate session in their home. Results showed that the effect of portion size on food intake was larger at home (d = 0.97) than in the laboratory (d = 0.56). Furthermore, participants reported feeling more relaxed eating at home compared to the laboratory. In Study 2, we examined whether comparable results were observed in a semi-naturalistic laboratory designed to resemble a home setting. 59 participants (mean age = 28 years) completed the same procedure as Study 1 in a standard and a semi-naturalistic laboratory setting. Although participants reported having higher levels of private self-awareness in the standard laboratory, the effect that portion size had on food intake did not differ between the standard laboratory (d = 0.50) and the semi-naturalistic laboratory (d = 0.49). The impact that external influences on eating, such as portion size, have on food intake in the real-world may be underestimated when studied under laboratory conditions.