Do calorie-controlled portion sizes of snacks reduce energy intake?

Abstract

In a cross-over study, participants (n=59) were randomly assigned to receive either 100 kcal packs or standard size packages of snacks for 1-week. After a minimum of a 1-week washout period, participants received the other form of the snack for 1 week. Snack consumption was recorded by participants in a diary. Participants consumed an average of 186.9 fewer grams of snacks per week when receiving 100 kcal snack packs compared to standard size packages of snacks. Post-hoc comparisons revealed the effect of package size depended on both randomization order and study week. Total grams of snacks consumed in week 1 differed significantly between the two randomized groups. In week 2, however, grams of snacks did not differ significantly between the two groups. This interaction was primarily due to a significantly lower consumption of snacks from standard size packages in the week following the portion-controlled packages. The results suggest that portioncontrolled packaging reduce total intake from the provided snacks. Further, initial exposure to portion-controlled packages might have increased awareness of portion size such that less was consumed when larger packages were available.

Food Environment Interventions to Improve the Dietary Behavior of Young Adults in Tertiary Education Settings: A Systematic Literature Review

“…32 One study included weight changes as a health-related target. 21 The findings suggest that most interventions [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] led to significant improvement in dietary behavior of young adults and only two yielded no significant improvements. 26,32 Intervention Approach Information Relating to Healthy Foods through Signage and Labels.…”

“…Three studies examined the availability of healthy products or changed the portion size of unhealthy foods. [28][29][30] Studies by Stroebele and colleagues 29 and Freedman and colleagues 30 used portion size (continued on next page) Calorie labeling was associated with 3.5 kg less weight gain, representing an effective intervention approach to combat the rapid weight gain seen in young adults.…”

“…31,32 Nearly all interventions exclusively targeted nutrition/dietary habits as outcome measures. [18][19][20][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Some included nonehealth-related targets such as customer satisfaction and intent to purchase, 20 awareness, 29,32 food production, food waste, 30 and food insecurity. 32 One study included weight changes as a health-related target.…”

“…The range of interventions identified included information relating to healthy foods through POP signage and nutrition labels (n¼10) [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] ; availability of healthy food through changing catering practices and portion sizes (n¼3) [28][29][30] ; combining nutrition promotion or information with providing incentives to increase purchases of healthy food, such as price reductions of healthy foods; or making healthy foods more accessible (n¼2). 31,32 Nearly all interventions exclusively targeted nutrition/dietary habits as outcome measures.…”

Preventing the pack size effect: Exploring the effectiveness of pictorial and non-pictorial serving size recommendations

“…This effect is often referred to as the portion size effect or pack size effect. Whether it concerns pasta (Burger, Fisher, & Johnson, 2011;Diliberti, Bordi, Conklin, Roe, & Rolls, 2004), sandwiches (Rolls, Roe, Meengs, & Wall, 2004), snacks (Rolls, Morris, & Roe, 2002;Rolls, Roe, Kral, Meeng, & Wall, 2004;Stroebele, Ogden, & Hill, 2009), stale popcorn (Wansink & Kim, 2005), or vegetables (Mathias et al, 2012;Rolls, Roe, & Meengs, 2010), the bigger the portion or pack from which people eat, the higher their consumption. Similar effects have been found for nonfood products (Wansink, 1996).…”