Nutr Res Pract.  2016 Oct;10(5):524-529. 10.4162/nrp.2016.10.5.524.

Effect of plate size on meal energy intake in normal weight women

• Ayaz A
• Akyol A
• Cetin C
• Besler HT

• KMID: 2434087
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4162/nrp.2016.10.5.524

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES
Use of smaller plates to control food intake is a commonly recommended strategy for restricting energy intake, despite conflicting results. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine whether or not three different sizes of plates influence energy intake during a multi-itemed buffet meal in normal weight women.
SUBJECTS/METHODS
This was a cross-over study conducted on 37 female participants aged 19-25 years with normal BMI levels. Participants were recruited from Hacettepe University and the surrounding community. On experimental days, participants ate a standard breakfast and were then randomly assigned to eat lunch using a small (19 cm), medium (23 cm), or large (28 cm) diameter plate. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores on sensory and satiety outcomes were measured for all meals. Energy and macronutrient intakes during lunch were recorded.
RESULTS
There was no evidence that use of a smaller plate size reduced energy or specific macronutrient intake during the free choice lunch meal. Multiple visits to the serving table were not associated with energy or macronutrient intake. Plate size did not affect VAS scores during the test days.
CONCLUSIONS
Plate size did not influence energy intake, meal composition, or palatability in normal weight women during a multi-itemed open buffet lunch. Studies in natural settings at the population level are needed to clarify current outcomes.

Keyword

Plate size; obesity; energy intake; satiety response

MeSH Terms

Breakfast
Cross-Over Studies
Eating
Energy Intake*
Female
Humans
Lunch
Meals*
Obesity
Satiety Response

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 (a) Large (28 cm), (b) medium (23 cm), and (c) small (19 cm) plates used in the study

• 

  Fig. 2 Mean VAS scores (± SEM) during the three test days, n = 37. Small indicates 19 cm plate, medium indicates 23 cm plate, and large indicates 28 cm plate. A light breakfast was served at 08.00 h, immediately after recording baseline VAS scores. Lunch was served at 12.00 h. There were no statistically significant differences among the groups (P > 0.05).

Reference

1. Lifshitz F, Lifshitz JZ. Globesity: the root causes of the obesity epidemic in the USA and now worldwide. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2014; 12:17–34.

2. Levitsky DA, Pacanowski CR. Free will and the obesity epidemic. Public Health Nutr. 2012; 15:126–141.

3. Cawley J, Meyerhoefer C. The medical care costs of obesity: an instrumental variables approach. J Health Econ. 2012; 31:219–230.

4. Pearson N, Biddle SJ. Sedentary behavior and dietary intake in children, adolescents, and adults. A systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2011; 41:178–188.

5. Popkin BM, Adair LS, Ng SW. Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutr Rev. 2012; 70:3–21.

6. Young LR, Nestle M. Reducing portion sizes to prevent obesity: a call to action. Am J Prev Med. 2012; 43:565–568.

7. Sofer S, Stark AH, Madar Z. Nutrition targeting by food timing: time-related dietary approaches to combat obesity and metabolic syndrome. Adv Nutr. 2015; 6:214–223.

8. Nielsen SJ, Popkin BM. Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977-1998. JAMA. 2003; 289:450–453.

9. Piernas C, Popkin BM. Food portion patterns and trends among U.S. children and the relationship to total eating occasion size, 1977-2006. J Nutr. 2011; 141:1159–1164.

10. Mattes R. Energy intake and obesity: ingestive frequency outweighs portion size. Physiol Behav. 2014; 134:110–118.

11. Pedersen SD, Kang J, Kline GA. Portion control plate for weight loss in obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a controlled clinical trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167:1277–1283.

12. English L, Lasschuijt M, Keller KL. Mechanisms of the portion size effect. What is known and where do we go from here? Appetite. 2015; 88:39–49.

13. van Ittersum K, Wansink B. Plate size and color suggestibility: the Delboeuf Illusion's bias on serving and eating behavior. J Consum Res. 2012; 39:215–228.

14. Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (US). How Much Are You Eating?: Putting the Guidelines into Practice. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 267-1. Washington (D.C.): Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, U.S. Department of Agriculture;2002.

15. NHLBI Obesity Education Initiative Expert Panel on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Obesity in Adults (US). Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults. Bethesda (MD): National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute;1998.

16. DiSantis KI, Birch LL, Davey A, Serrano EL, Zhang J, Bruton Y, Fisher JO. Plate size and children's appetite: effects of larger dishware on self-served portions and intake. Pediatrics. 2013; 131:e1451–e1458.

17. Wansink B, van Ittersum K, Painter JE. Ice cream illusions bowls, spoons, and self-served portion sizes. Am J Prev Med. 2006; 31:240–243.

18. Wansink B, van Ittersum K. Portion size me: plate-size induced consumption norms and win-win solutions for reducing food intake and waste. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2013; 19:320–332.

19. Penaforte FR, Japur CC, Diez-Garcia RW, Hernandez JC, Palmma-Linares I, Chiarello PG. Plate size does not affect perception of food portion size. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2014; 27:Suppl 2. 214–219.

20. Shah M, Schroeder R, Winn W, Adams-Huet B. A pilot study to investigate the effect of plate size on meal energy intake in normal weight and overweight/obese women. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2011; 24:612–615.

21. Yip W, Wiessing KR, Budgett S, Poppitt SD. Using a smaller dining plate does not suppress food intake from a buffet lunch meal in overweight, unrestrained women. Appetite. 2013; 69:102–107.

22. Wiessing KR, Xin L, McGill AT, Budgett SC, Strik CM, Poppitt SD. Sensitivity of ad libitum meals to detect changes in hunger. Restricted-item or multi-item testmeals in the design of preload appetite studies. Appetite. 2012; 58:1076–1082.

23. Rolls BJ, Rowe EA, Rolls ET, Kingston B, Megson A, Gunary R. Variety in a meal enhances food intake in man. Physiol Behav. 1981; 26:215–221.

24. Rolls BJ, Rowe EA, Rolls ET. How sensory properties of foods affect human feeding behavior. Physiol Behav. 1982; 29:409–417.

25. Mattes R, Foster GD. Food environment and obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014; 22:2459–2461.

26. Herman CP, Polivy J. External cues in the control of food intake in humans: the sensory-normative distinction. Physiol Behav. 2008; 94:722–728.

27. Blundell J, de Graaf C, Hulshof T, Jebb S, Livingstone B, Lluch A, Mela D, Salah S, Schuring E, van der Knaap H, Westerterp M. Appetite control: methodological aspects of the evaluation of foods. Obes Rev. 2010; 11:251–270.

28. Flint A, Raben A, Blundell JE, Astrup A. Reproducibility, power and validity of visual analogue scales in assessment of appetite sensations in single test meal studies. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000; 24:38–48.

29. Provencher V, Jacob R. Impact of perceived healthiness of food on food choices and intake. Curr Obes Rep. 2016; 5:65–71.

30. Libotte E, Siegrist M, Bucher T. The influence of plate size on meal composition. Literature review and experiment. Appetite. 2014; 82:91–96.

31. Mechanick JI, Kushner RF, Sugerman HJ, Gonzalez-Campoy JM, Collazo-Clavell ML, Spitz AF, Apovian CM, Livingston EH, Brolin R, Sarwer DB, Anderson WA, Dixon J, Guven S. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Obesity Society. American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery medical guidelines for clinical practice for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009; 17:Suppl 1. S1–S70.

32. Koh J, Pliner P. The effects of degree of acquaintance, plate size, and sharing on food intake. Appetite. 2009; 52:595–602.

33. Rolls BJ, Roe LS, Halverson KH, Meengs JS. Using a smaller plate did not reduce energy intake at meals. Appetite. 2007; 49:652–660.

34. Ernst B, Wilms B, Thurnheer M, Schultes B. Eating behaviour in treatment-seeking obese subjects - Influence of sex and BMI classes. Appetite. 2015; 95:96–100.

35. Brondel L, Romer M, Van Wymelbeke V, Pineau N, Jiang T, Hanus C, Rigaud D. Variety enhances food intake in humans: role of sensory-specific satiety. Physiol Behav. 2009; 97:44–51.

36. Robinson E, Nolan S, Tudur-Smith C, Boyland EJ, Harrold JA, Hardman CA, Halford JC. Will smaller plates lead to smaller waists? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect that experimental manipulation of dishware size has on energy consumption. Obes Rev. 2014; 15:812–821.

37. Herman CP. The social facilitation of eating. A review. Appetite. 2015; 86:61–73.

38. Hetherington MM. Cues to overeat: psychological factors influencing overconsumption. Proc Nutr Soc. 2007; 66:113–123.

39. Wansink B, Cheney MM. Super bowls: serving bowl size and food consumption. JAMA. 2005; 293:1727–1728.

40. McClain AD, van den Bos W, Matheson D, Desai M, McClure SM, Robinson TN. Visual illusions and plate design: the effects of plate rim widths and rim coloring on perceived food portion size. Int J Obes (Lond). 2014; 38:657–662.

41. Parizel O, Sulmont-Rossé C, Fromentin G, Delarue J, Labouré H, Benamouzig R, Marsset-Baglieri A. The structure of a food product assortment modulates the effect of providing choice on food intake. Appetite. 2016; 104:44–51.

42. Rolls BJ. What is the role of portion control in weight management? Int J Obes (Lond). 2014; 38:Suppl 1. S1–S8.

43. Asarian L, Geary N. Sex differences in the physiology of eating. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2013; 305:R1215–R1267.

44. Robinson E, te Raa W, Hardman CA. Portion size and intended consumption. Evidence for a pre-consumption portion size effect in males? Appetite. 2015; 91:83–89.