BACKGROUND: An increase in the proportion of vegetables at meals could help achieve recommended vegetable intakes and facilitate weight management. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the effects on food and energy intakes of varying the portion size and energy density of a vegetable that was added to a meal or substituted for other foods. DESIGN: In 2 experiments with crossover designs, men and women were served a meal of a vegetable, grain, and meat. Across the meals, the vegetable was served in 3 portion sizes (180, 270, or 360 g) and 2 energy densities (0.8 or 0.4 kcal/g) by altering the type and amount of added fat. In the addition study (n = 49), as the vegetable portion was increased, amounts of the grain and meat were unchanged, whereas in the substitution study (n = 48), amounts of the grain and meat decreased equally. RESULTS: An increase in the vegetable portion size resulted in greater vegetable consumption in both studies (mean +/- SE: 60 +/- 5 g; P < 0.0001). The addition of more of the vegetable did not significantly affect meal energy intake, whereas substitution of the vegetable for the grain and meat decreased meal energy intake (40 +/- 10 kcal; P < 0.0001). A reduction in vegetable energy density decreased meal energy intake independent of portion size (55 +/- 9 kcal; P < 0.0001). By combining substitution with a reduction in energy density, meal energy intake decreased by 14 +/- 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Serving more vegetables, either by adding more or substituting them for other foods, is an effective strategy to increase vegetable intake at a meal. However, to moderate meal energy intake, vegetables should be low in energy density; furthermore, the substitution of vegetables for more energy-dense foods is more effective than simply adding extra vegetables.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: An increase in the proportion of vegetables at meals could help achieve recommended vegetable intakes and facilitate weight management. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the effects on food and energy intakes of varying the portion size and energy density of a vegetable that was added to a meal or substituted for other foods. DESIGN: In 2 experiments with crossover designs, men and women were served a meal of a vegetable, grain, and meat. Across the meals, the vegetable was served in 3 portion sizes (180, 270, or 360 g) and 2 energy densities (0.8 or 0.4 kcal/g) by altering the type and amount of added fat. In the addition study (n = 49), as the vegetable portion was increased, amounts of the grain and meat were unchanged, whereas in the substitution study (n = 48), amounts of the grain and meat decreased equally. RESULTS: An increase in the vegetable portion size resulted in greater vegetable consumption in both studies (mean +/- SE: 60 +/- 5 g; P < 0.0001). The addition of more of the vegetable did not significantly affect meal energy intake, whereas substitution of the vegetable for the grain and meat decreased meal energy intake (40 +/- 10 kcal; P < 0.0001). A reduction in vegetable energy density decreased meal energy intake independent of portion size (55 +/- 9 kcal; P < 0.0001). By combining substitution with a reduction in energy density, meal energy intake decreased by 14 +/- 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Serving more vegetables, either by adding more or substituting them for other foods, is an effective strategy to increase vegetable intake at a meal. However, to moderate meal energy intake, vegetables should be low in energy density; furthermore, the substitution of vegetables for more energy-dense foods is more effective than simply adding extra vegetables.
Authors: Heidi Michels Blanck; Cathleen Gillespie; Joel E Kimmons; Jennifer D Seymour; Mary K Serdula Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2008-03-15 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Krista Casazza; Andrew Brown; Arne Astrup; Fredrik Bertz; Charles Baum; Michelle Bohan Brown; John Dawson; Nefertiti Durant; Gareth Dutton; David A Fields; Kevin R Fontaine; Steven Heymsfield; David Levitsky; Tapan Mehta; Nir Menachemi; P K Newby; Russell Pate; Hollie Raynor; Barbara J Rolls; Bisakha Sen; Daniel L Smith; Diana Thomas; Brian Wansink; David B Allison Journal: Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr Date: 2015 Impact factor: 11.176
Authors: Alissa D Smethers; Liane S Roe; Christine E Sanchez; Faris M Zuraikat; Kathleen L Keller; Samantha M R Kling; Barbara J Rolls Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Emma E Garnett; Andrew Balmford; Chris Sandbrook; Mark A Pilling; Theresa M Marteau Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 11.205