Showing posts with label portion size. Show all posts
Showing posts with label portion size. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
How Chefs think about Size - Portion Size that is (another b2d nugget)
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
"Despite the focus on the increase in portion sizes and the possible role in the development of obesity, little is known about how portion sizes are determined in restaurants." This is how an intriguing discussion of Chefs and their restaurant food size practices begins. The study aslo notes that eating out has gone up from 2.3x's a week in 1981 to 5 times in 2000. Within that period we know that standard dinner plates have gone from 10 to 12 inch plates. So what do chefs - the folks in the restaurant it turns out who set portion size - think of as "regular" sizes?
Interestingly, chefs over 51 (trained in the smaller portion size era of the 70's) serve smaller sizes than younger chefs raised in the bigger portion period in which we find our super sized selves.
If you think that Chefs are in the know about nutrition when it comes to food prep, this may be a leap of faith. The authors write:
What Motivates Chef Portion Size Selection? Survey says, not surprisingly: "presentation of food", cost, customer expectations. Competition and calorie count had only "some influence." But intriguingly, competition with other restaurants was strongly correlated with portion size of say pasta and steak. What's wild (ok, to me) is that where "customer expectiation" was high, larger veggie side plates were served BUT when calories were perceived to be a biggie, that's when veggie portion sizes got SMALLER. That's rather an interesting insight for what chefs might be taught, no?
And indeed, from the text above on portion sizes, restaurants are serving larger than 2-3oz of veggies - when they serve veggies - and what's wrong with that? 1/2 a cup is nothing. Bring it on - as long as it's sans the oil, butter, deep frying and etc's. Have the condiments on the side and add as necessary. Or not. But that is a topic for another day.
Chef Perceptions: Here's something else interesting from the study: Chefs thought that patrons would notice if a serving size on their plate was 25% smaller - but a few things here: we are lousy at figuring size. And as we know from the last b2d post on energy density work, we can keep the plate looking just as full by using low energy dense foods, and folks can feel satisfied by same.
What does this lack of knowledge in the kitchen mean for eating out? Be not afraid to ask the kitchen to put together something for you closer to your spec, and your sizes, perhaps. Putting together a variety of sides (smaller by nature than their full meal counter parts) can often be great. If you're anything like me - if it's in front of you, you'll eat it (interesting related work showing i fear i'm not unique in this) - so an easier thing for me is just not to have the bigger size in front of me and say "serve it, i just won't eat all of it"
Are these findings a surprise? That chefs (600 surveyed; 80% response rate) seem not to understand that veggies are largely low cal foods, or that their portion sizes are so out of whack with any recommendations for such sizes? Or is it to be expected that chefs simply learn what tastes good and how to prepare it in an appetising way, with younger chefs going for bigger sizes?
Does this mean it is all the more surprising that it was a chef, Jamie Oliver, who noticed the appalling quality of "school dinners" in the UK & now the US? That if a chef noticed, they must be truly terrible?
But perhaps more than anything else, this kind of survey means: trust no one. WHile the study's authors want to investigate ways to help chefs get up to speed with nutrition relative to the food they prepare, in the meantime, we need to educate ourselves about what's healthy or not; an appropriate portion or not, and perhaps what seems is a particular challenge for some folks, to make specific requests of a restaurant when eating out, based on that knowledge.
External Resources:
CITATIONS
"Despite the focus on the increase in portion sizes and the possible role in the development of obesity, little is known about how portion sizes are determined in restaurants." This is how an intriguing discussion of Chefs and their restaurant food size practices begins. The study aslo notes that eating out has gone up from 2.3x's a week in 1981 to 5 times in 2000. Within that period we know that standard dinner plates have gone from 10 to 12 inch plates. So what do chefs - the folks in the restaurant it turns out who set portion size - think of as "regular" sizes?If you think that Chefs are in the know about nutrition when it comes to food prep, this may be a leap of faith. The authors write:
An unexpected finding of this study was that chefs who reported that calorie content was an important factor when determining portion size reported serving a smaller portion of a vegetable side-dish, such as steamed broccoli, compared with chefs who did not identify calorie content as being important. This suggests that chefs do not understand that such vegetables are low in energy density and can help customers moderate energy intake.So, as we saw in the last b2d post about energy density rather than portion size being a big factor in successful weight management AND meal satisfaction, there's a huge whack of chefs who are failing on both energy density and portion size.
Figure Above: When chefs were asked to describe their perceptions of the average portion size of foods served in their establishments (Figure 1), the majority (76% ) reported serving "regular" portions, and <20% reported serving "large" or "extra-large" portions. When respondents were asked to estimate the typical portion size of penne pasta served in their restaurant, 4 oz (27% ), 6 oz (32% ), and 8 oz (18% ) portions were most frequently reported, with 90% of respondents serving portions larger than United States Department of Agriculture's recommendation of 1 oz. For strip steak, 48% of the respondents indicated that 12 oz steaks were typically served in their establishment, and 28% reporting 8 oz portions as being typical, with 83% of respondents serving portions that were larger than the 5.5 oz that the government recommends should be consumed each day. Most respondents (38% ) reported serving 3-oz portions of a vegetable side-dish, with 31% reporting 4-oz portions. Forty percent of these respondents served vegetable portions larger than United States Department of Agriculture's recommendation of ½ cup (2 to 3 oz). When asked about the size of plates used in their restaurants, 38% reported using 9.25- to 11-inch plates, and 33% reported using 11.25- to 13-inch plates.
What Motivates Chef Portion Size Selection? Survey says, not surprisingly: "presentation of food", cost, customer expectations. Competition and calorie count had only "some influence." But intriguingly, competition with other restaurants was strongly correlated with portion size of say pasta and steak. What's wild (ok, to me) is that where "customer expectiation" was high, larger veggie side plates were served BUT when calories were perceived to be a biggie, that's when veggie portion sizes got SMALLER. That's rather an interesting insight for what chefs might be taught, no?
And indeed, from the text above on portion sizes, restaurants are serving larger than 2-3oz of veggies - when they serve veggies - and what's wrong with that? 1/2 a cup is nothing. Bring it on - as long as it's sans the oil, butter, deep frying and etc's. Have the condiments on the side and add as necessary. Or not. But that is a topic for another day.
Chef Perceptions: Here's something else interesting from the study: Chefs thought that patrons would notice if a serving size on their plate was 25% smaller - but a few things here: we are lousy at figuring size. And as we know from the last b2d post on energy density work, we can keep the plate looking just as full by using low energy dense foods, and folks can feel satisfied by same.What does this lack of knowledge in the kitchen mean for eating out? Be not afraid to ask the kitchen to put together something for you closer to your spec, and your sizes, perhaps. Putting together a variety of sides (smaller by nature than their full meal counter parts) can often be great. If you're anything like me - if it's in front of you, you'll eat it (interesting related work showing i fear i'm not unique in this) - so an easier thing for me is just not to have the bigger size in front of me and say "serve it, i just won't eat all of it"
Are these findings a surprise? That chefs (600 surveyed; 80% response rate) seem not to understand that veggies are largely low cal foods, or that their portion sizes are so out of whack with any recommendations for such sizes? Or is it to be expected that chefs simply learn what tastes good and how to prepare it in an appetising way, with younger chefs going for bigger sizes?
Does this mean it is all the more surprising that it was a chef, Jamie Oliver, who noticed the appalling quality of "school dinners" in the UK & now the US? That if a chef noticed, they must be truly terrible?
TED prize winner, Jamie Oliver, giving his TED talk
But perhaps more than anything else, this kind of survey means: trust no one. WHile the study's authors want to investigate ways to help chefs get up to speed with nutrition relative to the food they prepare, in the meantime, we need to educate ourselves about what's healthy or not; an appropriate portion or not, and perhaps what seems is a particular challenge for some folks, to make specific requests of a restaurant when eating out, based on that knowledge.
External Resources:
- Precision Nutrition - free overview about painless healthy eating heuristics
- Georgie Fear's "Dig In" cook book - healthy AND tasty.
CITATIONS
Condrasky, M., Ledikwe, J., Flood, J., & Rolls, B. (2007). Chefs’ Opinions of Restaurant Portion Sizes* Obesity, 15 (8), 2086-2094 DOI: 10.1038/oby.2007.248
Harnack, L., Steffen, L., Arnett, D., Gao, S., & Luepker, R. (2004). Accuracy of estimation of large food portions☆ Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 104 (5), 804-806 DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2004.02.026
Wansink B, Painter JE, & North J (2005). Bottomless bowls: why visual cues of portion size may influence intake. Obesity research, 13 (1), 93-100 PMID: 15761167Tweet Follow @begin2dig
PDF
Sunday, May 16, 2010
b2d nugget: portion size is out; energy density is in for effective weight management
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
You'd think with bigger sizes, folks would feel more full after a feeding than with smaller sizes. Apparently not so.
In 2005, researchers were interested in whether the increase in portion size at restaurants and in snack foods was contributing to the obesity epidemic. Rightfully they acknowledge that while that would SEEM to make sense, it's tough to say so conclusively.
So what they did look at was - does eating more make one feel more full (and so maybe eat less at any point?). They also looked at "energy density" - how many calories are packed into a food item with the same weight (broccoli low ed; ice cream, high) - to see if that had an effect on fullness.
Here's the simple takeaway: big pig portions don't leave one more satisfied. But we all know small portions can leave one feeling well hungry. So, solution? Help folks start to mix in low energy dense foods, and that's way more successful than asking them to cut the fat. Guess what? weight loss ensues as their energy uptake (amount of calories a day) goes down.
Here's the abstract
That last line says "eating satisfying portions" - which means that portions can still be pretty unfettered IF you're eating low energy density food. I wrote awhile ago how making mounds of greens super edible just by adding some really good balsamic vinegar. The beauty is, low energy density foods are also often HIGH in nutrient density. So, for instance, leafy greens are rich in macro and micronutrients while being low in kcals.
There's another related study in 2007 that shows however IF you can encourage folks to cut the fat a bit, after awhile, we don't miss it. So again another strategy towards saving kcals and weight management. Here's the abstract about how this finding was constucted:
That's cool. We happily adapt. SO of course someone had to look at the combination of some reduced fat and some engery density lowering foods together. Backlash? not at all. Good results:
The main thing in this last finding it seems is that again, we don't have to fiddle portion size on the plate particularly - which folks have a difficult time with as we looked at back when considering stupid set point theory - BUT get the mix of lowering fat and upping VOLUME of low energy dense food - which means good colours on the plate too, that we get to reduced caloric intake without feeling like we're starving.
Related resources:
Citations
You'd think with bigger sizes, folks would feel more full after a feeding than with smaller sizes. Apparently not so.In 2005, researchers were interested in whether the increase in portion size at restaurants and in snack foods was contributing to the obesity epidemic. Rightfully they acknowledge that while that would SEEM to make sense, it's tough to say so conclusively.
So what they did look at was - does eating more make one feel more full (and so maybe eat less at any point?). They also looked at "energy density" - how many calories are packed into a food item with the same weight (broccoli low ed; ice cream, high) - to see if that had an effect on fullness.
british nutrition foundation "feed yourself fuller" chart
Here's the simple takeaway: big pig portions don't leave one more satisfied. But we all know small portions can leave one feeling well hungry. So, solution? Help folks start to mix in low energy dense foods, and that's way more successful than asking them to cut the fat. Guess what? weight loss ensues as their energy uptake (amount of calories a day) goes down.
Here's the abstract
The increase in the prevalence of obesity has coincided with an increase in portion sizes of foods both inside and outside the home, suggesting that larger portions may play a role in the obesity epidemic. Although it will be difficult to establish a causal relationship between increasing portion size and obesity, data indicate that portion size does influence energy intake. Several well-controlled, laboratory-based studies have shown that providing older children and adults with larger food portions can lead to significant increases in energy intake. This effect has been demonstrated for snacks and a variety of single meals and shown to persist over a 2-d period. Despite increases in intake, individuals presented with large portions generally do not report or respond to increased levels of fullness, suggesting that hunger and satiety signals are ignored or overridden. One strategy to address the effect of portion size is decreasing the energy density (kilojoules per gram; kilocalories per gram) of foods. Several studies have demonstrated that eating low-energy-dense foods (such as fruits, vegetables, and soups) maintains satiety while reducing energy intake. In a clinical trial, advising individuals to eat portions of low-energy-dense foods was a more successful weight loss strategy than fat reduction coupled with restriction of portion sizes. Eating satisfying portions of low-energy-dense foods can help to enhance satiety and control hunger while restricting energy intake for weight management.
There's another related study in 2007 that shows however IF you can encourage folks to cut the fat a bit, after awhile, we don't miss it. So again another strategy towards saving kcals and weight management. Here's the abstract about how this finding was constucted:
This study establishes the reliability and validity of the Fat Preference Questionnaire©, a self-administered instrument to assess preference for dietary fat. Respondents select the food which tastes better and is eaten more frequently from 19 sets of food. Each set is comprised of related foods differing in fat content. The questionnaire was administered to women in laboratory-based (n=63), cross-sectional (n=150), and weight-loss (n=71) studies. The percentage of food sets in which high-fat foods were reported to “taste better” (TASTE score) and to be “eaten more often” (FREQ score) was determined. A measure of dietary fat restriction (DIFF) was created by subtracting TASTE from FREQ. Food intake was assessed by direct measure, 24-h recall, or food diary. Additionally, participants completed a standard survey assessing dietary restraint. Test–retest correlations were high (r=0.75–0.94). TASTE and FREQ scores were positively correlated with total fat intake (r=0.22–0.63). DIFF scores positively correlated with dietary restraint (r=0.39–0.52). Participants in the weight-loss trial experienced declines in fat consumption, TASTE and FREQ scores, and BMI values, and an increase in DIFF scores. Weight loss correlated with declines in FREQ (r=0.36) scores and increases in DIFF scores (r=−0.35). These data suggest that preference for dietary fat declines when following a reduced-fat diet and an increase in restraint for intake of dietary fat is important for weight loss. The Fat Preference Questionnaire© is a stable, easily-administered instrument that can be used in research and clinical settings.
That's cool. We happily adapt. SO of course someone had to look at the combination of some reduced fat and some engery density lowering foods together. Backlash? not at all. Good results:
BACKGROUND: Consuming foods low in energy density (kcal/g) decreases energy intake over several days, but the effectiveness of this strategy for weight loss has not been tested. OBJECTIVE: The effects on weight loss of 2 strategies for reducing the energy density of the diet were compared over 1 y. DESIGN: Obese women (n = 97) were randomly assigned to groups counseled either to reduce their fat intake (RF group) or to reduce their fat intake and increase their intake of water-rich foods, particularly fruit and vegetables (RF+FV group). No goals for energy or fat intake were assigned; the subjects were instructed to eat ad libitum amounts of food while following the principles of their diet. RESULTS: After 1 y, study completers (n = 71) in both groups had significant decreases in body weight (P < 0.0001). Subjects in the RF+FV group, however, had a significantly different pattern of weight loss (P = 0.002) than did subjects in the RF group. After 1 y, the RF+FV group lost 7.9 +/- 0.9 kg and the RF group lost 6.4 +/- 0.9 kg. Analysis of all randomly assigned subjects also showed a different pattern of weight loss between groups (P = 0.021). Diet records indicated that both groups had similar reductions in fat intake. The RF+FV group, however, had a lower dietary energy density than did the RF group (P = 0.019) as the result of consuming a greater weight of food (P = 0.025), especially fruit and vegetables (P = 0.037). The RF+FV group also reported less hunger (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Reducing dietary energy density, particularly by combining increased fruit and vegetable intakes with decreased fat intake, is an effective strategy for managing body weight while controlling hunger.
The main thing in this last finding it seems is that again, we don't have to fiddle portion size on the plate particularly - which folks have a difficult time with as we looked at back when considering stupid set point theory - BUT get the mix of lowering fat and upping VOLUME of low energy dense food - which means good colours on the plate too, that we get to reduced caloric intake without feeling like we're starving.
Related resources:
- b2d nutrition index
- respect the fat
- what's a "whole protein" - esp. going veggie
- set point theory is crap
- why is fish oil anti-inflamatory?
Citations
Ello-Martin JA, Ledikwe JH, & Rolls BJ (2005). The influence of food portion size and energy density on energy intake: implications for weight management. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 82 (1 Suppl) PMID: 16002828Tweet Follow @begin2dig
LEDIKWE, J., ELLOMARTIN, J., PELKMAN, C., BIRCH, L., MANNINO, M., & ROLLS, B. (2007). A reliable, valid questionnaire indicates that preference for dietary fat declines when following a reduced-fat diet Appetite, 49 (1), 74-83 DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2006.12.001
Ello-Martin JA, Roe LS, Ledikwe JH, Beach AM, & Rolls BJ (2007). Dietary energy density in the treatment of obesity: a year-long trial comparing 2 weight-loss diets. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 85 (6), 1465-77 PMID: 17556681
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
