3.9 Article

Larger portion sizes lead to a sustained increase in energy intake over 2 days

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION
Volume 106, Issue 4, Pages 543-549

Publisher

AMER DIETETIC ASSOC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2006.01.014

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK59853] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective We tested the effect on energy intake of increasing the portion size of all foods and beverages served over 2 consecutive days. Design The study used a randomized crossover design. Subjects/setting Subjects were 32 adults from a university community. Intervention For 2 consecutive days in each of 3 weeks, subjects ate their main meals in a controlled setting and were given snacks for consumption between meals. We used the same two daily menus each week, but varied the portion sizes of all foods and beverages served in a given week (either 100%, 150%, or 200% of baseline amounts). Main outcome measures Energy intake and ratings of hunger and satiety were measured. Statistical analyses performed A linear mixed model with repeated measures was used. Results There was a significant effect of portion size on energy intake in both men and women (P < 0.0001). Increasing portions by 50% increased daily energy intake by 16% (women: 335 kcal/day; men: 504 kcal/day), and increasing portions by 100% increased intake by 26% (women: 530 kcal/day; men: 812 kcal/day). Energy intake did not differ between the 2 days of each week. Daily ratings of fullness were lowest in the 100% portion condition (P = 0.0004), but did not differ significantly in the 150% and 200% conditions. Conclusions Increasing the portion size of all foods resulted in a significant increase in energy intake that was sustained over 2 days. These data support suggestions that large portions are associated with excess energy intake that could contribute to increased body weight.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available