Search

Previous research suggests that portion sizes can be categorised as 'normal' or 'abnormal' and that reduced portions which are still categorised as normal do not promote compensatory responses in intake. However, a critical question remains - will consumers choose a reduced portion product from among standard portion competitors? For the first time, we explore the effects of portion reduction on food choice. Participants (N = 45) categorised 20 different portions (range 40-420 kcal) of five snacks as normal or abnormal (to quantify individual 'norm boundaries' for each food) and rated their desire to eat each snack. Using a 2-alternative forced choice hypothetical task, we then calculated a 'choice boundary' by offering smaller portions of their most-desired snack (range 40-240 kcal) alongside standardised portions (240 kcal) of the less-desired foods. Boundaries were derived using probit analysis (choice boundary mean = 185.8 kcal, SD = 54, norm boundary mean = 127.3 kcal, SD = 49.5) and these deviated significantly (p

Energy-containing liquids are claimed to have relatively low satiating power, although energy in liquids is not without effect on appetite. Using the preload test-meal method, effects on fullness and energy intake compensation were compared across four drinks (water, blackcurrant squash, milk and fruit smoothie) and the fresh fruit equivalent of the smoothie. Preload volumes were similar, and the energy value of each preload was 569 kJ, except for water (0 kJ). Healthy, adult participants rated the preloads for liking, enjoyment, satisfaction, familiarity and how ‘food-like’ they seemed. The preload to test-meal interval was 2 min (n = 23) or 2 h (n = 24). The effects of the preloads on fullness varied with food-likeness and the rate at which they were consumed. In contrast, energy intake compensation versus water did not differ between the energy-containing preloads, although it decreased over time (from 82% at 2 min to 12% at 2 h). In conclusion, although fullness increased with food-likeness, subsequent energy intake compensation did not differ for energy/nutrients consumed in drinks compared with a food. The results also support the proposal that food intake is influenced predominantly by the immediate, but rapidly waning, post-ingestive effects of the previous ‘meal’ (rather than by changes in energy balance).