Several dietary patterns, both macronutrient and food based, can lead to weight loss. A key strategy for weight management that can be applied across dietary patterns is to reduce energy density. Clinical trials show that reducing energy density is effective for weight loss and weight loss maintenance. A variety of practical strategies and tools can help facilitate successful weight management by reducing energy density, providing portion control, and improving diet quality. The flexibility of energy density gives patients options to tailor and personalize their dietary pattern to reduce energy intake for sustainable weight loss.
Background Although short-term studies have found that serving larger portions of food increases intake in preschool children, it is unknown whether this portion size effect persists over a longer period or whether energy intake is moderated through self-regulation. Objectives We tested whether the portion size effect is sustained in preschool children across 5 consecutive days, a period thought to be sufficient for regulatory systems to respond to the overconsumption of energy. Methods With the use of a crossover design, over 2 periods we served the same 5 daily menus to 46 children aged 3–5 y in their childcare centers. In 1 period, all foods and milk were served in baseline portions, and in the other period, all portions were increased by 50%. The served items were weighed to determine intake. Results Increasing the portion size of all foods and milk by 50% increased daily consumption: weighed intake increased by a mean ± SEM of 143 ± 21 g/d (16%) and energy intake increased by 167 ± 22 kcal/d (18%; both P < 0.0001). The trajectories of intake by weight and energy across the 5-day period were linear and the slopes did not differ between portion conditions (both P > 0.13), indicating that there were sustained increases in intake from larger portions without compensatory changes over time. Children differed in their response to increased portions: those with higher weight status, lower ratings for satiety responsiveness, or higher ratings for food responsiveness had greater increases in intake from larger portions (all P < 0.03). Conclusions This demonstration that preschool children failed to adjust their intake during prolonged exposure to larger portions challenges the suggestion that their self-regulatory behavior is sufficient to counter perturbations in energy intake. Furthermore, overconsumption from large portions may play a role in the development of overweight and obesity, as the magnitude of the effect was greater in children of higher weight status. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02963987.
Aim: The robust effect of portion size on intake has led to growing interest in why individuals consume more food when served larger portions. A number of explanations have been proposed, and this review aims to provide insight into potential underlying factors by summarizing recent studies testing moderators of the portion size effect. Summary of findings: Provision of portion size information, such as through labeling or training in portion control, failed to attenuate food intake in response to increasing meal size. This indicates that a lack of knowledge about appropriate portions may not be sufficient to explain the portion size effect. In contrast, there is evidence for a role of decision making in the response to large portions, with value being one consideration of importance. The portion size effect may be more closely related to the inherent value of food than monetary value, since provision of the opportunity to take away uneaten food after a meal, which can reduce food waste, attenuated the portion size effect but variations in pricing did not. A number of studies also support an influence of orosensory processing on the portion size effect; large portions have been shown to relate to increased bite size and faster eating rate. Reduced oral processing time when consuming large portions could contribute to the effect by delaying sensory-specific satiety. Findings from a recent study supported this by demonstrating that sensory-specific satiety did not differ between larger and smaller portions despite substantial differences in intake. Conclusions: A number of moderators of the portion size effect have been identified, including factors related to the environment, the food, and the individual. It is likely that multiple variables contribute to the response to large portions. Future research should aim to determine the relative contribution of explanatory variables across different contexts and individuals.
Serving larger portions leads to increased food and energy intake, but little is known about strategies to moderate this response. This study tested how the effect of portion size on meal intake was influenced by providing the option to take away uneaten food in a "doggy bag" (to-go container). Women were randomly assigned to one of two subject groups: a To-Go Group (n = 27) that was informed before each meal that their leftover food would be packaged to take away after the meal, and a Control Group (n = 26) that was not given this option. In a crossover design, subjects came to the lab once a week for four weeks to eat a dinner composed of five foods. Across meals, the portion size of all foods was varied (100%, 125%, 150%, and 175% of baseline). Results showed that the portion size effect, defined as the trajectory of intake across the weight of food served, differed significantly by subject group (P ≤ 0.025). In the Control Group, increasing the portion size of all foods led to substantial increases in intake (P < 0.0001); for every 100 g added to the baseline portion, women in this group consumed an additional mean (±SEM) of 64 ± 12 g of food and 90 ± 19 kcal, until intake leveled off. In contrast, intake of women in the To-Go Group increased by only 17 ± 12 g and 19 ± 18 kcal for every additional 100 g served; these increases did not differ significantly from zero (P > 0.15). Thus, the effect of portion size on intake was attenuated in the To-Go Group compared to the Control Group. These data indicate that packaging uneaten food after a meal could be an effective strategy to reduce overconsumption from large portions.
Summary Background Early rapid weight gain (RWG) increases, whereas longer durations of breastfeeding decreases, odds for later obesity. Objectives To determine the independent and interactive effects of early weight gain and diet on infant weight status trajectories and odds for overweight at 1 year. Methods We conducted secondary analysis on data from two longitudinal trials with repeated anthropometric measures. One trial consisted of predominantly or exclusively breastfed (BF, n = 97) infants, whereas the other consisted of exclusively formula‐fed (FF, n = 113) infants. Weight‐for‐length z‐score (WLZ) change from 0.5 to 4.5 months was used to categorize early weight gain as slow (<−0.67; SWG), normal (−0.67 to 0.67; NWG) or rapid (>0.67; RWG). Linear‐mixed effects models were fit to examine the independent effects and interaction of early diet (BF, FF) and weight gain (SWG, NWG, RWG) groups on WLZ trajectories; logistic regression was used to assess odds for overweight at 1 year. Results While similar percentages (41%) of BF and FF infants experienced RWG, we found a significant diet × early weight gain group interaction (P < .001) on weight status. At 1 year, the WLZ of FF infants with RWG (1.57 ± 0.99) was twice that of BF infants with RWG (0.83 ± 0.92). Using BF infants with NWG as the reference group, FF infants with RWG had increased odds [OR: 25.3 (95% CI: 3.21, 199.7)] for overweight at 1 year, whereas BF infants with RWG did not. Conclusions Early diet interacts with early weight gain and influences weight status trajectories and overweight risk at 1 year.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.