The Effects of Portion Size on Food Consumption: Does Size Matter

1
The Effects of Portion Size on Food Consumption
Does Size Matter?

• By
• Debbie Kimberlin

2
Topics of Discussion

• Historical look at portion sizes
• Trends/changes in portion sizes
• Restaurant portions
• Value marketing
• Changes in calorie consumption
• Public perception of portion size
• Impact of package size
• Research Studies
• Implications

3
Purpose

• To evaluate the effects portion size has on food
  consumption and determine whether a larger
  portion size means a greater energy intake.

4
Rationale

• Increasing rate of obesity
• children and adults
• increased health costs
• Increase in number of large portions avail.
• Lack of knowledge by public on portions

5
Historical glance
6
Then and NowBagel

• 20 years ago
• 3 in diameter
• 140 calories
• Today
• 350 calories

7
Then and NowBurger

• 20 years ago
• 333 calories
• Today
• 590 calories

8
Then and nowFries

• 20 years ago
• 2.4 oz
• 210 calories
• Today
• 6.9 oz
• 610 calories

9
Then and NowSpaghetti

• 20 years ago
• 1 C. pasta-sauce w/ 3 meatballs
• 500 calories
• Today
• 2 C. pasta-sauce w/3 meatballs
• 1,025 calories

10
Introduction of Larger Portion Sizes 1970-1999
11
Patterns Trends in Portion Size1977-1998

• Objective
• determine trends in portion sizes
• by eating location and food source
• Analysis of data
• Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-1978
• Continuing Survey of Intake by Individuals
  1989-1991 1994-1996, and 1998

12
Patterns Trends

• Foods chosen
• identified by greatest calorie changes from
  1977-1996
• Calculated average calorie count of popular foods
• pizza, hamburgers, french fries

13
Patterns Trends Results

• 1977-1996 portion sizes and energy intake
  increased at all locations examined
• exception is pizza
• salty snacks increased by 93 kcal
• soft drinks increased by 49 kcal
• hamburgers by 97 kcal
• french fries increased by 68 kcal
• Mexican dishes increased by 133kcal

14
Portion Size (oz.) 1977-1998
15
Portion Size (oz.) by eating location
16
Restaurant Portions

• National Restaurant Association comparison
• 1988-1993 menus from same 66 restaurant
• Results
• of menus featuring more than one portion size
  (queen-size or king size) steaks increased
  by 12
• Restaurants offer 22-36 oz portions

17
AICR Survey

• 1,011 Americans 18 years old
• Americans believe rest. portions are bigger
• Satisfied with smaller portions
• Amount served constituted qty eaten

18
Compared to 10 years ago, do you think restaurant
food portions are
19
What criteria do you use to determine size of
portions you eat?
20
When dining out, which statement best describes
how you felt about your portion size
21
Value Marketing

• More for less money
• Increases company profits
• We spend a little extra for larger portions
• We feel weve gotten a deal
• Bundling
• Value Meal
• Combo Meal

22
Value Meals

• McDonalds Quarter Pounder
• Regular vs. value meal1.41, 660 kcal, 4 g sat.
  fat
• Wendys Double w/cheese
• Regular vs. Combo meal1.57, 600 kcal, 7 g sat.
  fat
• Burger King Whopper
• Regular vs. value meal1.69, 590 kcal

23
The Cost of Super Sizing

• Small increase in price, large increase in kcal
  and fat
• Cinnabon
• Minibon
• Classic Cinnabon
• 7-Eleven
• the Big One Snickers
• King Size Kit Kat

24
Calorie Comparison-7-Eleven
25
Other Trends

• Lean Cuisine Hearty Portions
• weighs 50 more than original
• Joy of Cooking brownie recipe
• yields 16 vs. 30 when published
• Nestle Toll House cookies
• recipe yields 60 vs. 100 when written in 1949
• Car manufacturers
• install larger cup holders to accommodate

26
Changes in Calorie Consumption 1971-2000

• CDC study
• Womens intake of calories rose
• from 1,542 kcal to 1,877 kcal
• 22 increase
• Mens intake of calories rose
• from 2,450 kcal to 2,618 kcal
• 7 increase

27
Portion Size Perception

• People perceive a portion as a serving
• Dietetic Undergraduate Study
• consisted of 2 intro nutrition classes
• undergraduate/graduate students (n100)
• brought in sample of medium food
• Results
• only 3 bagels equaled FGP serving size

28
Influence of package size

• Movie popcorn
• Ate 44 more when given large container
• Crisco/Creamette
• M Ms Popcorn
• 79 parents sent home with candy popcorn
• 112 MMs from 1lb bag eaten
• 156 MMs from 2lb bag
• Roughly half tub of popcorn eaten-both sizes

29
5-yr old vs. 3-yr old study

• Subjects
• 32 pre-school children
• 16 3-year olds 16 5-year olds
• Procedure
• 3 lunch sessions
• served mac cheese varying in portion size
• also served carrots, applesauce and milk

30
5-yr old vs. 3-yr old study

• Results
• Older children consumed more mac cheese when
  given a larger portion
• Younger children did not have change in food
  intake when given larger portions
• Discussion
• As children develop, food intake affected by
  variety of factors

31
Childrens bite size vs. entrée study

• Objectives
• determine effects of exposure to large portion
• evaluate responsiveness to portion size
• Subjects
• 30 pre-school age children
• Design
• Evaluation of intake, bite size comments about
  portion size

32
Childrens bite size vs. entrée study
33
Childrens bite size vs. entrée study-measures

• Entrée energy intake-reference large
• Observation of comments about portions
• Observation of bite size frequency
• Self-served portion size of main entrée

34
Childrens bite size vs. entrée study

• Results
• Consumption 25 greater
• Bite sizes larger with larger portion
• Few comments made about portion
• Self-selection did not differ from reference
• Discussion
• Large portion may constitute obesigenic
  environment

35
Early childhood study

• Objective
• identify portion sizes, temporal stability, and
  relations to energy intake, wt. status,
  sociodemographic characteristics
• Design
• evaluation of CSFII94-96, 98 NFCS 1977-78 and a
  longitudinal sample studies 12-18 mo.

36
Early childhood study

• Results
• Portions remained similar for most foods
• exception was meat portions
• Portions increased for milk, bread, cereal, juice
  and peanut butter
• Body wt. positively related to energy intake and
  portion size but not number of eating occasions

37
Normal-weight and overweight men and women

• Objectives
• examine effect of portion size on intake for
  single meal
• Subjects
• 51 men and women
• Design
• served lunch 1 day/week for 4 weeks
• macaroni cheese (500, 625, 750, 1000 g)

38
Normal-weight and overweight men and women

• Results
• subjects consumed 30 more when offered largest
  portion
• Conclusions/Discussion
• larger portion led to greater intake regardless
  of serving method and subject characteristic

39
Sandwich Study

• Objective
• effect on energy intake of increasing portion
  size of a food served as a discrete unit
• Subjects
• 75 young adults (37 Female ,38 Male)
• Design
• subjects ate lunch 1/wk for 4 weeks
• served four sizes of sandwich (6, 8, 10, 12 in)

40
Sandwich Study

• Results
• portion size significantly influenced intake
  (P
• Conclusions/Applications
• increasing portion size increases intake
• dietitians should provide strategies

41
The French Paradox

• Objective
• Compare portion size of foods in restaurants,
  supermarkets, cookbooks, buffet guides
• Design
• Comparison of Paris and Philadelphia
• Conducted Jan-March 2001

42
The French Paradox

• Portion size in restaurants
• American portions were 25 larger
• Portion size in restaurant guides
• Mentioned more frequently in PA
• Paris mention of larger size 52
• PA mention larger size 88

43
The French Paradox

• Portions inferred from cookbooks
• Joy of Cooking vs Je sais cuisiner
• Size of Individual portions in supermarkets
• 17 foods were comparable
• 14 out of 17 items-American larger portion size
• Time spent eating
• mean time at McDonalds in France22.2 min
• mean time at McDonalds in U.S.14.4 min

44
Time to change

• McDonalds eliminating super size items
• super size drink avail. during promotion only
• changes completed by end of 2004

45
Cheeseburger Bill

• Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act
• block lawsuits-fat suits
• protects distributors/sellers of food
• Approved-U.S. House of Representatives
• March 10, 2004

46
Conclusion

• Portion sizes are larger than in the past
• Increasing portion increases consumption
• likely contributes to overeating
• Caloric intake has risen since 70s
• Larger package sizeincreased consumption
• Americans are getting larger

47
Implications

• Educate on difference in serving vs. portion
• Educate on serving size
• Encourage clients to order smaller items
• avoid super-sizing, etc.
• Education-control of portion at home

48
Questions

• ????