Doggy bags and downsizing: Packaging uneaten food to go after a meal attenuates the portion size effect in women

Pairing Evidence-Based Strategies With Motivational Interviewing to Support Optimal Nutrition and Weight Gain in Pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

Because eating, nutrition, and weight management patterns adopted during pregnancy may persist beyond the postpartum period, pregnancy provides an opportunity for health education that affects the future health of the pregnant person, the fetus, and the family. This systematic review aimed to find nutrition and weight management behaviors that could be used safely during pregnancy to optimize gestational weight gain.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched for research or systematic reviews published in English from 2018 to 2023 using terms including gestational weight gain maintenance, weight, management, pregnancy, behavior, strategy, and strategies. Excluded research used pediatric or adolescent populations, restrictive diets such as no carbohydrate or no fat diets, fasting, bariatric surgery, weight loss medications, private industry, or profit-earning programs using food brands or specific diet programs.

RESULTS

The abstracts reviewed in these areas: excessive gestational weight gain (1019), low-glycemic index diet (640), Mediterranean diet (220), MyPlate diet (2), the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet (50), portion control (6), home meal preparation (6), mindful eating (13), intuitive eating (10), self-weighing (10), and motivational interviewing during pregnancy (107), were reduced to 102 studies. Studies in those 10 areas were reviewed for nutrition and eating behaviors that are safe to use during pregnancy and could be used along with motivational interviewing.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians can discuss these behaviors using motivational interviewing techniques to assist clients in optimizing gestational weight gain. Dialogue examples pairing these strategies with motivational interviewing principles are included.

Evidence-Based Eating Patterns and Behavior Changes to Limit Excessive Gestational Weight Gain: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

International prenatal care guidelines set a standard for clinicians to discuss gestational weight gain with their patients along with the complications associated with prepregnancy obesity and excessive gestational weight gain. Clinicians often lack evidence-based eating, nutrition, and activity strategies to share with patients.

METHODS

This systematic review aimed to find eating patterns and behaviors that could be used safely during pregnancy to limit excessive gestational weight gain. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched for research or systematic reviews performed in the United States or Canada and published in English from 2013 to 2023. Keyword search terms included weight, manage, behavior, strategy, strategies, gestational weight gain, and nutrition. Excluded research used pediatric or adolescent populations, restrictive diets, such as no carbohydrate or no fat diets, fasting, bariatric surgery, weight loss medications, private industry or profit-earning programs using food brands, or specific diet programs.

RESULTS

A total of 844 abstracts were retrieved, with 103 full-text studies reviewed. Behaviors had to be useful for maintaining a healthy gestational weight gain and had to be safe for use during pregnancy. Behaviors useful during pregnancy included meal planning, home meal preparation, portion control, using diets such as the Mediterranean diet, the low-glycemic index diet, and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet (DASH), regular physical activity, sleeping 6-7 h a night, mindful eating, intuitive eating, and regular seif-weighing.

CONCLUSION

The evidence-based strategies outlined in this review are safe for use during pregnancy and can assist patients in avoiding excessive gestational weight gain while maintaining the nutrition needed for healthy fetal growth.

Variety and portion size combine to increase food intake at single-course and multi-course meals

Increases in food variety and portion size independently promote intake. Little is known about how these effects combine or how they depend on meal structure. In two randomized crossover experiments, once a week for four weeks, women ate a lunch meal that was varied in two properties: variety (low: three bowls of the favorite dish vs. high: three bowls, each with a different main dish) and portion size (small: 450 g vs. large: 600 g). In Experiment 1 (n = 42), dishes were served simultaneously and in Experiment 2 (n = 49), dishes were served sequentially over three courses. At each meal, the primary outcome of food intake was measured; additionally, we measured sensory-specific satiety (SSS; the relative hedonic decline of a food as it is eaten). In Experiment 1 (simultaneous structure) variety and portion size did not interact (p = 0.72) but both independently increased intake; participants consumed 15 ± 7 g more at meals with high variety compared to low and 57 ± 7 g more from large portions compared to small (both p < 0.03). Similarly, in Experiment 2 (sequential structure) variety and portion size did not interact (p = 0.99) but participants consumed 30 ± 8 g more at high-variety meals and 51 ± 8 g more from large portions (both p < 0.001). SSS was not influenced by portion size in either experiment (both p > 0.16) or by variety in Experiment 1 (p = 0.58), but SSS was smaller at high-variety meals in Experiment 2 (p = 0.001). Thus, variety and large portions promoted greater food intake for a similar or smaller hedonic decline, indicating these effects were facilitated by delayed SSS. At meals with either a simultaneous or sequential structure, high variety and large portions combined to increase intake, suggesting that these common properties act together to promote overconsumption.

Eating rate and bite size were related to food intake across meals varying in portion size: A randomized crossover trial in adults

Serving larger portions leads to increased food intake, but behavioral factors that influence the magnitude of this portion size effect have not been well characterized. We investigated whether measures of eating microstructure such as eating rate and bite size moderated the portion size effect. We also explored how sensory-specific satiety (SSS; the relative hedonic decline of a food as it is eaten) was affected by eating microstructure and larger portions. In a randomized crossover design, 44 adults aged 18-68 y (66% women; 46% with overweight and obesity) ate lunch in the laboratory once a week for 4 weeks. The meal consisted of pasta that was varied in portion size (400, 500, 600, or 700 g) and 700 g of water. Meals were video-recorded to assess bite count and meal duration, which were used to calculate mean eating rate (g/min) and mean bite size (g/bite). At each meal participants also completed an assessment of SSS. The results showed that as larger portions were served, meal intake increased in a curvilinear manner (p < 0.0001). Measures of eating microstructure did not moderate the portion size effect but were related to intake across all portions; faster eating rate, larger bite size, higher bite count, and longer meal duration were associated with greater consumption at all meals (all p < 0.0001). SSS was not influenced by any measure of eating microstructure or by portion size (all p > 0.10). In summary, the portion size effect was not moderated by eating microstructure, but relatively faster eating rates and larger bite sizes at meals, along with large portions, combined to increase food intake.

Does labelling a food as 'light' vs. 'filling' influence intake and sensory-specific satiation?

Although several studies have investigated the influence of nutrition labelling on food intake, the effect of labels indicating a food's satiating power on food intake and sensory-specific satiation (SSS) is poorly understood. We investigated whether providing information about the satiating power of a meal affects intake and SSS. Participants (19 men and 18 women) consumed the same test meal of pasta salad ad libitum on two occasions, once described as 'light' and once as 'filling'. SSS was determined as the change in liking of the flavor and desire to eat the test meal before and after consumption, compared to seven uneaten foods. As hypothesized, intake increased by a mean (±SD) of 31 ± 59 g and 42 ± 81 kcal when the meal was labelled 'light' as opposed to 'filling' (p < 0.01). After eating, ratings for both liking and desire to eat decreased significantly more for the test meal than for the uneaten control foods (p < 0.001), demonstrating SSS. These relative changes in liking and desire to eat did not differ between the label conditions, despite differences in intake. Furthermore, accounting for amount consumed, the magnitude of SSS did not differ between the label conditions, which suggests that it did not explain the effect of the labels on intake. This study shows that labels indicating the satiating power of a meal can affect intake, warranting caution in the use of such labels on products intended to reduce intake.

Individual differences and moderating participant characteristics in the effect of reducing portion size on meal energy intake: Pooled analysis of three randomized controlled trials

Portion size impacts on the amount of energy consumed during a meal. However, research findings on participant characteristics that moderate the effect of portion size on energy intake are mixed. Using data pooled across three randomized control trials, we examined the impact of reducing meal portion size on meal energy intake in 111 adult participants varying in sex (55 M, 56 F), body weight (BMI range = 19-42) and a broad range of participant characteristics, including usual portion size, restrained, emotional and external eating, satiety responsiveness, plate clearing tendencies, concerns about wasting food and self-control. In each trial, a repeated-measures design was used and participants consumed three ad-libitum lunchtime meals differing in portion size; large-normal portion size condition (100%) vs. small-normal portion size condition (~ 75%) vs. smaller than normal portion size condition (~ 50%). In mixed ANOVAs, we did not find convincing evidence that any participant characteristic reliably moderated the impact that reducing portion size had on energy intake. For the majority of participants energy intake decreased when portion size was reduced and it was more common for participants to consistently reduce their energy intake than consume a similar amount when portion size was reduced. We also found little evidence that a sub-group of participants existed whose energy intake was consistently resistant to portion size reductions. Portion size may be a universal driver of energy intake, as reducing meal portion size appears to decrease meal energy intake among most people. Food portion downsizing may therefore be an equitable intervention approach to reducing population level energy intake.

Portion size normality and additional within-meal food intake: two crossover laboratory experiments

Reducing food portion size could reduce energy intake. However, it is unclear at what point consumers respond to reductions by increasing intake of other foods. We predicted that a change in served portion size would only result in significant additional eating within the same meal if the resulting portion size was no longer visually perceived as 'normal'. Participants in two crossover experiments (Study 1: n 45; Study 2: n 37; adults, 51 % female) were served different-sized lunchtime portions on three occasions that were perceived by a previous sample of participants as 'large-normal', 'small-normal' and 'smaller than normal', respectively. Participants were able to serve themselves additional helpings of the same food (Study 1) or dessert items (Study 2). In Study 1 there was a small but significant increase in additional intake when participants were served the 'smaller than normal' compared with the 'small-normal' portion (m difference = 161 kJ, P = 0·002, d = 0·35), but there was no significant difference between the 'small-normal' and 'large-normal' conditions (m difference = 88 kJ, P = 0·08, d = 0·24). A similar pattern was observed in Study 2 (m difference = 149 kJ, P = 0·06, d = 0·18; m difference = 83 kJ, P = 0·26, d = 0·10). However, smaller portion sizes were each associated with a significant reduction in total meal intake. The findings provide preliminary evidence that reductions that result in portions appearing 'normal' in size may limit additional eating, but confirmatory research is needed.

A review of evidence supporting current strategies, challenges, and opportunities to reduce portion sizes

Although there is considerable evidence for the portion-size effect and its potential impact on health, much of this has not been successfully applied to help consumers reduce portion sizes. The objective of this review is to provide an update on the strength of evidence supporting strategies with potential to reduce portion sizes across individuals and eating contexts. Three levels of action are considered: food-level strategies (targeting commercial snack and meal portion sizes, packaging, food labels, tableware, and food sensory properties), individual-level strategies (targeting eating rate and bite size, portion norms, plate-cleaning tendencies, and cognitive processes), and population approaches (targeting the physical, social, and economic environment and health policy). Food- and individual-level strategies are associated with small to moderate effects; however, in isolation, none seem to have sufficient impact on food intake to reverse the portion-size effect and its consequences. Wider changes to the portion-size environment will be necessary to support individual- and food-level strategies leading to portion control.

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

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.

Potential moderators of the portion size effect

AIM

The robust effect of portion size on intake has led to growing interest in why individuals consume more food when served larger portions. A number of explanations have been proposed, and this review aims to provide insight into potential underlying factors by summarizing recent studies testing moderators of the portion size effect.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Provision of portion size information, such as through labeling or training in portion control, failed to attenuate food intake in response to increasing meal size. This indicates that a lack of knowledge about appropriate portions may not be sufficient to explain the portion size effect. In contrast, there is evidence for a role of decision making in the response to large portions, with value being one consideration of importance. The portion size effect may be more closely related to the inherent value of food than monetary value, since provision of the opportunity to take away uneaten food after a meal, which can reduce food waste, attenuated the portion size effect but variations in pricing did not. A number of studies also support an influence of orosensory processing on the portion size effect; large portions have been shown to relate to increased bite size and faster eating rate. Reduced oral processing time when consuming large portions could contribute to the effect by delaying sensory-specific satiety. Findings from a recent study supported this by demonstrating that sensory-specific satiety did not differ between larger and smaller portions despite substantial differences in intake.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of moderators of the portion size effect have been identified, including factors related to the environment, the food, and the individual. It is likely that multiple variables contribute to the response to large portions. Future research should aim to determine the relative contribution of explanatory variables across different contexts and individuals.