No abstract

Objective: The study aims at examining the conformity degree of fixed meals by restaurants in Tokyo, Kanagawa, and Saitama prefectures with the criterion of the Smart Meal. Methods: The weight of two fixed meals were measured at each restaurant, and the nutritional values were calculated. The meals were divided into two groups based on their energy. One group had ＂less than 650 kcal＂ and the other had ＂650 kcal or higher＂. The conformity degree with the Smart Meal criterion was examined by descriptive statistics. Results: 48 fixed meals by 25 restaurants were examined. The criterion contains energy, salt, vegetable, protein, fat, and carbohydrate standards. The numbers of meals which met these standards were 7 (77.8%), 6 (66.7%), 4 (44.4%), 4 (44.4%), 1 (11.1%), 4 (44.4%), respectively in the ＂less than 650 kcal＂ group (n = 9, 18.8%). In the ＂650 kcal or higher＂ group (n = 39, 81.3%), the numbers of meals which met these standards were 12 (30.8%), 8 (20.5%), 12 (30.8%), 22 (56.4%), 9 (23.1%), 13 (33.3%), respectively. Of both groups, none of them met all the standards of the Smart Meal. Conclusions: None of the meals met the criterion of the Smart Meal. In the ＂less than 650 kcal＂ group, many meals met the salt standard. In the ＂650 kcal or higher＂ group, few meals met the energy and salt standards. Additionally, few meals met the vegetable and PFC%E standards of both groups.

In order for people to make healthy food choices, the food environment needs to be improved and residents must be aware of it. This research aimed to assess the reliability and validity of the Perceived Neighborhood Food Environment (PNFE) scale, which assesses participants’ perceptions of the present condition of their food environment. Data from the Survey on the Present Condition and Consciousness of Dietary Education conducted by the Cabinet Office of Japan in 2010 were used, and 1,853 participants were included. We performed an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and examined internal consistency and the criterion-related validity of the PNFE. The PNFE comprised two factors: “regional food culture” (5 items) and “physical availability of food” (3 items). The model fitness indices were good (GFI = .97, AGFI = .95, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .073) and Cronbach’s α was .77 for the whole scale. Reasonable results were obtained for criterion-related validity. We confirmed the reliability and validity of the PNFE scale. By utilizing the scale for future research in other countries, its reliability and validity for a wider range of residents will likely be confirmed. In addition, consideration should be given to the items used for confirming the validity of the scale in the next study to ensure that they are appropriate for other countries included in the research.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate portion sizes of rice at restaurants. Methods:We targeted 22 local restaurants in the Tokyo, Japan, metropolitan area (Tokyo, Kanagawa, and Saitama) and 22 chain restaurants. We measured the amount of rice and every dish in set meals and diameters of dishes of rice and calculated the nutritional value of meals at the local restaurants.For the chain restaurants, we collected data on the amount, energy, and dishes of rice using their homepages.Results: The minimum, maximum, and median (25 th and 75 th percentiles) amounts of rice were 142 g, 341 g, and 188 g (163 g, 222 g) at the local restaurants. The minimum, maximum, and median amounts of rice were 180 g, 250 g, and 199 g (181 g, 228 g) at the chain restaurants. More rice bowls than rice plates were used at the restaurants. The diameter of rice bowls positively correlated with the amount of rice served at the local restaurants (ρ = 0.625, p = 0.006). Conclusions:The amount of rice at most local restaurants was over 160 g and under 200 g. The amount of rice at most chain restaurants was over 180 g and under 200 g. The median amount of rice at local restaurants was smaller than that of the chain restaurants. The amount of rice at local restaurants varied widely and was sometimes outside of proper range. Most restaurants used rice bowls, and the bigger the rice bowls, the more amount of rice served.Jpn. J. Nutr. Diet., 77 (4) 105～112 (2019)

No abstract