Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29353006›Full record

Trial reportAppetite2018

Comparing the portion size effect in women with and without extended training in portion control: A follow-up to the Portion-Control Strategies Trial.

Faris M Zuraikat, Liane S Roe, Christine E Sanchez, Barbara J Rolls

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Appetite, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Evaluating augmented reality for 'real life' teaching of food portion concepts.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Understanding the science of portion control and the art of downsizing.The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Faris M ZuraikatDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Liane S RoeDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Christine E SanchezDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Barbara J RollsDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. Electronic address: bjr4@psu.edu.
Pennsylvania State University · US

Funding

Environmental Influences on Intake and ObesityR01DK059853 · NIDDK · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-UNIV PARK · PI ROLLS, BARBARA JEAN · 2001 to 2014
$5.0M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK059853
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following a 1-year randomized controlled trial that tested how weight loss was influenced by different targeted strategies for managing food portions, we evaluated whether the effect of portion size on intake in a controlled setting was attenuated in trained participants compared to untrained controls. Subjects were 3 groups of women: 39 participants with overweight and obesity from the Portion-Control Strategies Trial, 34 controls with overweight and obesity, and 29 controls with normal weight. In a crossover design, on 4 different occasions subjects were served a meal consisting of 7 foods that differed in energy density (ED). Across the meals, all foods were varied in portion size (100%, 125%, 150%, or 175% of baseline). The results showed that serving larger portions increased the weight and energy of food consumed at the meal (P < .0001), and this effect did not differ across groups. Increasing portions by 75% increased food intake by a mean (±SEM) of 111 ± 10 g (27%) and increased energy intake by 126 ± 14 kcal (25%). Across all meals, however, trained participants had lower energy intake (506 ± 15 vs. 601 ± 12 kcal, P = .006) and lower meal ED (1.09 ± 0.02 vs. 1.27 ± 0.02 kcal/g; P = .003) than controls, whose intake did not differ by weight status. The lower energy intake of trained participants was attributable to consuming meals with a greater proportion of lower-ED foods than controls. These results further demonstrate the robust nature of the portion size effect and reinforce that reducing meal ED is an effective way to moderate energy intake in the presence of large portions.

Indexed as

Portion SizeAdultAgedBody Mass IndexCross-Over StudiesDietEnergy IntakeFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMealsMiddle AgedObesityOverweightSample SizeTreatment OutcomeAdultsEnergy densityEnergy intakeFood intakePortion controlPortion size

Identifiers

PMID29353006
PMCPMC5817023
OpenAlexW2782771643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.