Detecting differences between portion sizes: Discrimination differs when making simultaneous or memory-based comparisons

McCaig, Duncan; Ferriday, Danielle; Benton, Christopher P.; Brunstrom, Jeffrey M.; Rogers, Peter J.

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.08.069

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…or based on their memory of the standard portion presented earlier in the test session (McCaig et al . ). Not surprisingly, there is less sensitivity to portion size differences in the latter situation, but overall, the findings suggest that significant reductions in portion sizes could be achieved through ‘stealth’ ( i.e .…”

Section: Reducing Portion Size Without Reducing Meal Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Connecting biology with psychology to make sense of appetite control

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eating more than is required to maintain bodyweight is weakly resisted physiologically, as appetite does not closely track body energy balance. What does limit energy intake is the capacity of the gut to accommodate and process what is eaten. As the gut empties, we are ready to eat again. We typically refer to this absence of fullness as 'hunger', but in this state, even when it is prolonged (e.g. by missing one or two meals), our mental and physical performance is not compromised because body energy stores are mobilised to sustain energy supply to our brain and muscles. We illustrate this by discussing research on the effects of missing breakfast. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it appears that missing breakfast leads to a reduction in total daily energy intake and does not impair cognitive function (in adequately nourished individuals). The problem with missing a meal or eating smaller meals, however, is that we miss out on (some of) the pleasure of eating (food reward). In current studies, we are investigating how to offset the reduced reward value of smaller food portions, by, for example, altering flavour intensity, food variety and unit size, in order to maintain overall meal satisfaction and thereby reduce or eliminate subsequent compensatory eating.

show abstract

Section: Reducing Portion Size Without Reducing Meal Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Connecting biology with psychology to make sense of appetite control

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is possible that the overt manipulation used in this study (highlighting the degree of portion reduction) amplified the prevalence of negative reactions. However, previous research found that individuals readily discriminate between differences in portion sizes [51], which suggests that the participants in the present study would have been aware of the reduction even if they were not explicitly told that the second portion was reduced by 25%. In addition, highlighting the degree of reduction reflects actual packaging of manufactured food (e.g., 30% less sugar) [52].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…This practice is likely to become increasingly prevalent in the future due to the calorie reduction program recommended by Public Health England [17]. While some manufacturers may attempt to disguise portion reductions, consumers’ ability to discriminate between different portion sizes suggest that any portion interventions are unlikely to be covert [51]. One strategy to reduce resistance to portion reduction might be to tackle consumers’ misunderstanding of physiology.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Barriers to Reducing Portion Size: A Qualitative Focus Group Study of British Men and Women

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reducing portion size might reduce meal satisfaction, which could minimize adherence to portion size interventions. The present study sought to identify the perceived barriers for consumers to eat smaller portions. A secondary aim explored the relative contribution of enjoyment of taste and post-meal fullness as determinants of meal satisfaction. Focus groups (N = 42) evaluated consumers’ feelings toward a small reduction in portion size. Thematic analysis of written free association tasks and open-ended group discussions revealed that most participants expected to feel hungry and unsatisfied, which motivated them to consume something else. However, others expected to feel comfortable, healthy, and virtuous. The acceptability of the reduced portion was also determined by meal characteristics (e.g., time and setting) and individual characteristics (e.g., predicted energy requirements). Compared to post-meal fullness, enjoyment of taste was perceived to be the more important determinant of meal satisfaction. In conclusion, interventions should present portion reduction as a marginal modification with little physiological consequence to energy reserves, while emphasizing the positive feelings (e.g., comfort, satisfaction, and self-worth) experienced after consuming a smaller portion. Additionally, focusing on taste enjoyment (rather than fullness) might be a useful strategy to maintain meal satisfaction despite a reduction in meal size.

show abstract

“…It is unclear why his relationship was not found. Part of the rationale for investigating the influence of ideal food portion size was to identify a threshold below ideal food portion size, just before the reduction is detectable (McCaig, Ferriday, Benton, Brunstrom, & Rogers, 2016) (i.e., the point at which behavioural compensation would occur (Rogers, Ferriday, et al, 2016)). This might, in turn, identify the optimal range for successful energy restriction and ultimately weight loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food portion size influences accompanying beverage selection in adults

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Observational research has demonstrated that eating and drinking episodes are not strongly predicted by hunger and thirst states, respectively (McKiernan, Hollis, McCabe, & Mattes, 2009). One reason for the weak relationships might be because foods and beverages, and therefore eating and drinking, are not always clearly distinguished from one another. Foods and beverages share several defining characteristics (e.g., both items enter the body via the oralgastric route, they are often flavored and caloric, and can be either liquid, semi-solid, or solid)

show abstract

Detecting differences between portion sizes: Discrimination differs when making simultaneous or memory-based comparisons

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Connecting biology with psychology to make sense of appetite control

Connecting biology with psychology to make sense of appetite control

Identifying Barriers to Reducing Portion Size: A Qualitative Focus Group Study of British Men and Women

Food portion size influences accompanying beverage selection in adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About