Average Portion Size Research Articles

Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977-1998.

While general consensus holds that food portion sizes are increasing, no empirical data have documented actual increases. To determine trends in food portion sizes consumed in the United States, by eating location and food source. Nationally representative data from the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (1977-1978) and the Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (1989-1991, 1994-1996, and 1998). The sample consists of 63 380 individuals aged 2 years and older. For each survey year, average portion size consumed from specific food items (salty snacks, desserts, soft drinks, fruit drinks, french fries, hamburgers, cheeseburgers, pizza, and Mexican food) by eating location (home, restaurant, or fast food). Portion sizes vary by food source, with the largest portions consumed at fast food establishments and the smallest at other restaurants. Between 1977 and 1996, food portion sizes increased both inside and outside the home for all categories except pizza. The energy intake and portion size of salty snacks increased by 93 kcal (from 1.0 to 1.6 oz [28.4 to 45.4 g]), soft drinks by 49 kcal (13.1 to 19.9 fl oz [387.4 to 588.4 mL]), hamburgers by 97 kcal (5.7 to 7.0 oz [161.6 to 198.4 g]), french fries by 68 kcal (3.1 to 3.6 oz [87.9 to 102.1 g]), and Mexican food by 133 kcal (6.3 to 8.0 oz [178.6 to 226.8 g]). Portion sizes and energy intake for specific food types have increased markedly with greatest increases for food consumed at fast food establishments and in the home.

Identification of optimal ranges in ribeye area for portion cutting of beef steaks.

Restaurant-ready (21-d aged, needle tenderized) loin steaks (strip, S; and T-bone, TB) representing three portion sizes (227, 284, and 340 g for S; 397, 454, and 510 g for TB) were portioned from 71 low-Choice beef carcasses representing seven ribeye size groups (70.9 cm2 and less to 103.2 cm2 and greater, in 6.3-cm2 increments). Steaks (n = 568) were cooked on a grooved grill to temperatures of either 67 or 77 degrees C and evaluated for cooking characteristics, sensory attributes (n = 284), and shear force (n = 284) to identify optimal ribeye areas for portioned steaks. As expected, thickness of all portioned steaks decreased (P < .05) as ribeye size increased, whereas thickness of steaks increased (P < .05) as portion size increased. The S were significantly thicker than TB. The TB cooked faster (P < .05) than did S for ribeye areas 77.4 to 83.8 cm2 in the average portion sizes and for ribeye areas 71.0 to 96.6 cm2 in the large portion sizes. However, S cooked significantly faster than did TB for ribeye areas less than 70.9 cm2 in the average portion sizes. The S had higher (P < .05) initial tenderness scores and lower (P < .05) shear values than did TB. Initial tenderness scores were lower (P < .05) for ribeye areas greater than 103.2 cm2 compared with ribeye areas less than 83.8 cm2 and 90.3 to 96.6 cm2, with all others being intermediate. Shear force tended (P = .08) to follow the initial tenderness results. The S cooked to both end point temperatures, and TB cooked to 67 degrees C had higher (P < .05) initial tenderness scores than did TB cooked to 77 degrees C. Tenderness was reduced in TB cooked to higher temperatures as well as in S and TB portioned from ribeye areas greater than 103.2 cm2. Steaks portioned from carcasses with ribeye areas between 77.4 to 96.6 cm2 can optimize both cooking time and tenderness for the foodservice sector.

Food Photography I: the perception of food portion size from photographs

Fifty-one male and female volunteers aged 18-90 years from a wide variety of social and occupational backgrounds completed 7284 assessments of portion size in relation to food photographs. Subjects were shown six portion sizes (two small, two medium and two large) for each of six foods, and asked to compare the amount on the plate in front of them to (a) a series of eight photographs showing weights of portions from the 5th to the 95th centile of portion size (British Adult Dietary Survey), or (b) a single photograph of the average (median) portion size. Photographs were prepared either in colour or in black and white, and in two different sizes. The order of presentation of foods; use of black and white or colour; the size of photographs; and presentation of eight or average photographs were each randomized independently. On average, the mean differences between the portion size presented and the estimate of portion size using the photographs varied from -8 to +6 g (-4 to +5%) for the series of eight photographs, and from -34 to -1 g (-23 to +9%) for the single average photograph. Large portion sizes tended to be underestimated more than medium or small portion sizes, especially when using the average photograph (from -79 to -14 g, -37 to -13%). Being female, 65 years and over, or retired, or seeing photographs in colour, were all associated with small but statistically significant overestimations of portion size. Having a body mass index > or = 30 kg/m2 was associated with an 8% underestimate of portion size. We conclude that use of a series of eight photographs is associated with relatively small errors in portion size perception, whereas use of an average photograph is consistently associated with substantial underestimation across a variety of foods.

Influence of individually estimated portion size data on the validity of a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire.

Using data from a Danish dietary validity study, we evaluated the influence of including individually estimated portion size data on the validity of a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. A total of 144 subjects, aged 40-64 years were included. Correlation coefficients and classification of subjects into quintiles according to their intake of foods and nutrients were used to compare questionnaire data, with and without individually estimated portion size data, with data obtained by 2 x 7 days weighed diet records. For men, the mean correlation coefficient for food group comparisons was 0.47 when information about individually estimated portion sizes for food items that do not come in natural units was included in the analysis. Using a common average portion size reduced the mean correlation coefficient to 0.45. For women, similar changes were observed (0.36 to 0.35). For nutrients the mean values for the comparison changed from 0.51 to 0.49 and from 0.39 to 0.40 for men and women, respectively. For both men and women the classification into quintiles according to their intake of foods and nutrients showed only minor differences. We conclude that little extra information was gained by including individual portion size information for food items that do not come in natural units. This may reflect that portion sizes are of minor importance compared with frequencies or that the relevant individual portion sizes were not estimated correctly.