4.7 Article

Effects of portion size and energy density on young children's intake at a meal

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 86, Issue 1, Pages 174-179

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/86.1.174

Keywords

portion size; energy density; eating behavior; children; satiation

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD032973-10, R01 HD032973] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK071095] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Large portions of energy-dense foods are one feature of obesity-promoting dietary environments. Entree portion size has been shown to influence energy intake at meals by young children. The role of energy density (ED) in children's response to portion size, however, is unknown. Objective: We aimed to test the effects of portion size and ED on children's food and energy intakes at a meal. Design: Participants were 53 (28 girls and 25 boys; 15 Hispanic, 20 black, 16 white, 2 other race) 5- to 6-y-old children [mean ( SD) body mass index percentile: = 61 +/- 28]. A 2 X 2 within-subjects design was used to manipulate entree portion size (250 compared with 500 g) and ED (1.3 compared with 1.8 kcal/g). Fixed portions of other familiar foods were provided. Weighed intake, food preference, and weight and height data were obtained. Results: Effects of portion size (P < 0.0001) and ED (P < 0.0001) on entree energy intake were independent but additive. Energy intake from other foods at the meal did not vary across conditions. Compared with the reference portion size and ED condition, children consumed 76% more energy from the entree and 34% more energy at the meal when served the larger, more energy-dense entree. Effects did not vary by sex, age, entree preference, or body mass index z score. Conclusions: These findings provide new evidence that portion size and ED act additively to promote energy intake at meals among preschool-aged children.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available