“This snack is too small - I'll take a different one”: Quantifying ‘norm’ and ‘choice’ boundaries to inform effective portion-reduction strategies

Shahrokni, Roya O.; Ferriday, Danielle; Miguel, Sonia; Laurent, Aurelie L.; Brunstrom, Jeffrey M.

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2021.105886

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to the preliminary nature of this study, there was insu cient information for power analysis as the effect size and expected variability could not be estimated. There is no speci c guidance on sample size estimation for portion size related outcomes in consumer studies [31], a target sample size of 300 participants from the general Australian population, with a quota of 50 for each age (18-30, 31-50, 51-65 years) and sex group was considered appropriate based on reviews of similar descriptive dietary assessment studies on portion sizes [20,[32][33][34][35]. The sampling quota was set using the build-in function in Qualtrics (Provo, UT, USA, 2022).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences between the normal and perceived appropriate portion sizes of discretionary foods

Rangan,

Liu,

Allman-Farinelli

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There are limited data on the amount of discretionary foods that people normally consume and consider as appropriate at one eating occasion. This study aimed to provide an overview of the range and assess differences of the ‘normal portion size’ and ‘perceived appropriate portion size’ of energy-dense nutrient-poor discretionary foods among consumers aged 18–65 years.Methods To measure normal and perceived appropriate portion sizes, a validated online image-series questionnaire consisting of eight successive portion size options for 15 discretionary foods was completed at two timepoints. Quantile regression models were used to estimate the ranges (lower boundary at 17th percentile, upper boundary at 83rd percentile) of normal and perceived appropriate portion sizes selected by two thirds of the study population. Models were adjusted for the effects of potential influencing factors including biological sex, age, usual physical activity level, cooking confidence, socio-economic status, body mass index, and baseline hunger levels.Results A final sample of 295 participants were included in the analysis (51% females, mean age 39.5 ± 14.1 years). The normal portion sizes were significantly higher than the perceived appropriate portion sizes across all test foods, with the effects of sex, age, and BMI being significant for some foods.Conclusion The finding suggests that consumers would normally consume a portion size that was larger than what they perceive to be appropriate for discretionary foods. The estimated lower and upper boundaries would be valuable for the development of pragmatic public health messages to empower consumers towards better portion control.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences between the normal and perceived appropriate portion sizes of discretionary foods

Rangan,

Liu,

Allman-Farinelli

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Systematic review of the portion size norm of discretionary foods

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Portion size norm is described as the perception of how much of a given food people choose to eat. Reducing the portion size norm of foods that are high in saturated fat, added sugar, and added salt toward smaller sizes might be a potential strategy to promote appropriate portion size selections. However, an overview of existing portion size norms for discretionary foods has yet to be established. Objective The aim of this systematic review was to examine the portion size norm of discretionary foods and assess the methodologies used to investigate the norm. Data Sources The literature search was conducted in 6 databases following the PRISMA guidelines (from inception to January 2022). Data Extraction Forty studies were eligible and grouped into 3 categories by portion size norm measures: normal (n = 26), appropriate (n = 8), and preferred portion sizes (n = 3). Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Data Analysis A wide range of portion sizes were considered normal for each food type, with means/medians varying from 2- to 4-fold among studies. Studies differed considerably in design, with variables including the setting, food type, food presentation, the manner in which portion-size-related questions were formulated, and the range and number of displayed serving size options. The quality of reviewed studies was mixed (25 studies had low or moderate risk of bias, 15 had high risk of bias), and the method of assessing portion size was not validated in 15 of 33 quantitative studies. Conclusion The assessment of portion size in future studies should be conducted using tools that are validated for the population of interest so that more definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding portion size norms for discretionary foods. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42021249911.

show abstract

Portion Size Norms of Discretionary Foods and Eating Settings: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Study

Liu,

Allman-Farinelli,

Rangan

2024

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The increase in serving sizes of energy-dense nutrient-poor discretionary foods over time, with attractively presented large servings and package sizes, has led to portion distortion and a new ‘normal’ for serving sizes. Little data exists on the variations of portion size norms of discretionary foods across settings. This study aimed to examine the differences in the range of normal portion sizes of commonly consumed foods between home and out-of-home settings (coffee shops, restaurants). Methods: A repeated cross-sectional design was used, with nine selected discretionary foods and beverages included in a validated online image-series questionnaire. Participants completed the questionnaire at two time points to report their normal portion sizes in home and out-of-home settings. Quantile regression models were used to examine differences in the range of normal portion sizes (17th to 83rd percentile, representing the majority of the study population) between settings. Results: A final sample of 295 participants was included in the analysis (51% females, mean age 40 ± 14 years). The ranges of normal portion sizes did not differ by settings for all test foods except for sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) tested in both containers and glassware. SSB showed smaller normal portion sizes at home compared to fast food restaurants (in a bottle/can and in a glass/cup; p < 0.001). Conclusions: These findings suggest that the portion size norms of many discretionary foods are mostly consistent in home and out-of-home settings. As the typical serving sizes available to consumers in the out-of-home settings are large, it is essential to establish practical serving size guidelines directed at the food industry to increase the availability of smaller size options and empower consumers towards better portion control.

show abstract

“This snack is too small - I'll take a different one”: Quantifying ‘norm’ and ‘choice’ boundaries to inform effective portion-reduction strategies

Cited by 3 publications

References 29 publications

Differences between the normal and perceived appropriate portion sizes of discretionary foods

Differences between the normal and perceived appropriate portion sizes of discretionary foods

Systematic review of the portion size norm of discretionary foods

Portion Size Norms of Discretionary Foods and Eating Settings: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About