Literature DB >> 24510841

Portion size effects on weight gain in a free living setting.

Simone A French1, Nathan R Mitchell, Julian Wolfson, Lisa J Harnack, Robert W Jeffery, Anne F Gerlach, John E Blundell, Paul R Pentel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Examine the effect of weekday exposure over 6 months to different lunch sizes on energy intake and body weight in a free-living sample of working adults.
METHODS: Adults (n = 233) were randomly assigned to one of three lunch size groups (400 kcal, 800 kcal, and 1,600 kcal) or to a no-free lunch control group for 6 months. Weight and energy intake were measured at baseline, and months 1, 3, and 6.
RESULTS: Lunch energy was significantly higher in the 800 and 1,600 kcal groups compared with the 400 kcal group (P < 0.0001). Total energy was significantly higher for the 1,600 kcal group compared with the 400 and 800 kcal groups (P = 0.02). Body weight change at 6 months did not significantly differ at the 5% level by experimental group (1,600 kcal group: +1.1 kg (SD = 0.44); 800 kcal group: -0.1 kg (SD = 0.42); 400 kcal group: -0.1 kg (SD = 0.43); control group: 1.1 (SD = 0.42); P = 0.07). Weight gain over time was significant in the 1,600 kcal box lunch group (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Weekday exposure for 6 months to a 1,600 kcal lunch caused significant increases in total energy intake and weight gain.
Copyright © 2014 The Obesity Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24510841      PMCID: PMC4037334          DOI: 10.1002/oby.20720

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)        ISSN: 1930-7381            Impact factor:   5.002


INTRODUCTION

The food environment in the US has been transformed during the past two decades concurrent with the epidemic rise in obesity.[1] The pervasive availability of food and large portion sizes are aspects of the food environment that are potential contributors to overeating and excess weight gain.[2,3] However, at present, there is little experimental evidence available to evaluate the potential public health impact of exposure to large portion sizes on energy intake or body weight. Large portion sizes have been studied extensively in highly controlled laboratory settings and consistently show increases in energy intake over a short time frame.[4-6] This effect is robust across gender, body mass index, age and individual differences in measures of stable eating behaviors such as dietary restraint and disinhibition. In the longest-duration laboratory study conducted to date, participants were exposed to 50% larger portion sizes than usual for 11 days.[6] Energy intake during this period increased by 423 kcal per day and was sustained for the entire eleven-day period. Body weight change was not reported. Three cross-sectional studies examined the effects of portion size on a single eating episode in a naturalistic environment.[7-9] These cross-sectional studies neither examined effects within the same people over time, nor effects on total energy intake. Portion size effects on total energy intake and body weight over time within the same individuals have been examined in only one study, conducted by our research team.[10] In a within-subjects counterbalanced cross-over design, participants received an 800 kcal and a 1600 kcal box lunch weekdays for four weeks for each condition. Mean 24-hour energy intake was 278 kcal/day higher in the large portion compared with the standard portion condition (p<.001). Average weight change was 0.64 kg during the large portion and 0.06 kg during the standard portion conditions (p= 0.13). Clearly the effects of large portion sizes on energy intake appear to be robust in the laboratory, and in the few cross-sectional field studies conducted to date. However, studies have yet to examine the effects of large portion sizes in the context of the entire day’s energy intake in a free-living population. The effect of large portion size exposure on body weight change over a longer time period is unknown. Are people able to self-regulate energy intake over time despite exposure to large portion sizes, and thus maintain a stable body weight? An answer to this question is critical to understand whether the current food environment is contributing importantly to the obesity epidemic. This paper reports the results of a randomized trial that examined the effects of weekday exposure to one of three different lunch energy sizes on energy intake and body weight in a free living sample of adults over six months. It was hypothesized that exposure to large energy sizes at lunch would cause increases in lunch energy intake, total energy intake, and body weight during the six month experimental period compared to exposure to smaller portion sizes.

METHODS and PROCEDURES

Study Design Overview

The study design was a randomized controlled trial. Individuals were randomized to one of three conditions: a free box lunch of one of three calorie sizes; or to a no-free-lunch control group. Evaluation data were collected at baseline prior to randomization, and at six months. Dietary recalls and measured body weight were collected additionally at months one and three. The study was conducted from September 2010 through February 2013 and approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board.

Sample and Recruitment

The study was conducted at a large metropolitan medical complex that employed over 2,000 full time staff of diverse demographic backgrounds. The study purpose was described as “a study to examine the feasibility of offering box lunches at the worksite”. Interested participants were screened by telephone to determine eligibility. Eligibility criteria were: 1) age 18–60 years; 2) nonsmoker; 3) speak and read in English; 4) not taking medications that affect appetite or body weight; 5) able to pick up lunches at the medical complex Monday through Friday during the lunch hours; 6) not allergic to the foods in the study lunches; 7) willing to eat the foods in the study lunches (examples were provided of the types of foods); 8) not currently on a diet to lose weight; 9) no diagnosed eating disorder; 10) not planning to move from the area during the next six months; 11) not currently taking part in another research study; 12) not currently pregnant, nursing or pregnant in the last 12 months. Two-hundred thirty-three participants provided complete data at baseline and were randomized (Box Lunch Conditions: 400 kcal: n=57; 800 kcal: n=59; 1600 kcal: n=56; Control: n=61).

Box Lunch Intervention Exposure Procedure

The intervention consisted of Monday-Friday lunch box pick-ups by participants at the worksite for a six-month period. Staff distributed lunch boxes at a central location during the hours 11:00 am – 1:00 pm. Participants were required to pick up their own lunch boxes, but were not further instructed about consumption of the lunch. Overall, 91% of the lunches were picked up by participants (85% up on time; an additional 6% one day late). Participants randomized to the control condition did not receive a box lunch and were instructed to continue their usual lunch patterns.

Box Lunch Experimental Conditions

This experiment was a community-based intervention to examine portion size effects on energy intake and body weight in a free-living setting among a working population-based sample. It was not a feeding study and its focus was not on the metabolic or clinical aspects of macronutrient or energy density variations on energy intake. The research team collaborated with a grocery/catering retailer to develop the study menus and prepare the foods. The overall goal was to develop menus with specific energy content and highly similar foods of sizes that accommodated the energy requirements of each experimental condition. The energy sizes of the experimental conditions were 400 kcal, 800 kcal, and 1600 kcal. There was some variation in the types of foods provided across the energy size conditions. However, overall the menus were planned to be similar and the foods were for the most part identical across conditions (see Appendix for menus). Fifteen different box lunch menus were created and pilot tested prior to the beginning of the study. Menus were implemented on a three-week repeating cycle. However, the conditions were on different cycles, so that participants assigned to different conditions could not directly compare their lunch box items on any given day. The same size box was used in all three conditions. Only water was served as a beverage.
Appendix 1

All Salads

SaladIngredients1600 cal800 cal400 cal
AmountUnitGramsCaloriesFat (g)AmountUnitGramsCaloriesFat (g)AmountUnitGramsCaloriesFat (g)
Caribbean Turkey SaladIceberg lettuce6.0oz170.123.80.245.0oz141.819.90.203oz85.111.90.10
Smoked turkey breast5.0oz141.8198.51.704.0oz113.4158.81.342.5oz70.999.20.84
Diced mango6.0oz170.1110.60.465.0oz141.892.10.383oz85.155.30.23
Sliced strawberries5.0oz141.845.30.434.0oz113.436.30.343oz85.127.20.26
Daikon radishes2.0oz56.710.20.062.0oz56.710.20.061oz28.45.10.03
Cheddar cheese1.5oz42.5171.414.09
Light Raspberry Vinaigrette4.0fl oz128.0215.316.503.0fl oz96.0161.412.402fl oz64.0107.608.30
Breadstick2.0each84.0261.78.831.0each42.0130.94.40
Butter pat1each10.071.78.111each10.071.78.10
BrownieOld Fashion Brownie3.5oz99.2448.527.201bite21.097.75.701bite21.097.705.70
Bottled Water16.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.00
1557.077.62779.032.92404.015.46
Toasted Sesame Chicken SaladIceberg lettuce6oz170.128.90.515oz141.824.10.434oz113.419.30.34
Sliced chicken breast6oz170.1294.37.673oz85.1147.13.841oz28.4491.28
Pea pods4oz113.447.60.233oz85.135.70.172oz56.723.80.11
Red bell pepper, sliced5oz141.843.90.434oz113.435.20.342oz56.717.580.17
Mandarin oranges5oz141.853.90.063oz85.132.30.032oz56.721.550.02
Wonton strips2oz56.731216.31oz28.41568.130.5oz14.277.984.07
Green onion chopped3oz85.527.20.161.5oz42.513.60.080.5oz14.24.540.03
Sesame seeds2tbs18.8118.311.48
Light toasted sesame dressing3.5fl oz112.0207.672.5fl oz80.014851.5fl oz48.0893.00
whole wheat dinner roll1each41.1101.51.4
butter1pat10.071.78.1
Lemon bar3oz85.1348.714.12oz56.7232.49.381oz28.4116.24.69
Bottled Water16.9fl oz0016.9fl oz0016.9fl oz00.00
1655.667.44824.427.40419.013.71
Greek SaladRomaine Lettuce6oz170.128.90.515oz141.824.10.434oz113.419.30.34
Shaved Red Onion1oz28.411.30.031oz28.411.30.03.5oz14.25.70.01
Roasted Red Pepper4oz113.431.80.233oz85.1240.172oz56.715.90.11
Garbanzo Beans3oz85.1139.52.202oz56.793.001.501oz28.446.500.73
Diced Cucumber4oz113.4170.133oz85.112.800.092oz56.78.500.06
Feta Cheese3oz85.1224.518.102oz56.7149.712.000.5oz14.2373.02
Diced Tomatoes4oz113.420.400.233oz85.115.310.172oz56.710.200.11
Artichoke Heart5oz141.875.100.483oz85.145.800.292oz56.730.000.19
Sliced Chicken Breast5oz141.8245.26.403oz85.1147.13.841oz28.4491.30
Black olives2oz56.765.26.001oz28.432.63.031oz28.432.603.00
Light Basalmic Vinaigrette4fl oz128.094.006.403fl oz96.070.504.832fl oz64.047.003.20
Whole Wheat Dinner Roll1each41.1101.51.40
Butter Pat1each10.071.78.10
Grapes1cup151.0104.20.241cup151.0104.20.24
BrownieOld Fashion Brownie3 oz85.1384.423.301bite21.097.75.701bite21.097.705.69
Bottled Water16.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.00
1614.773.75828.132.32399.417.76
Chicken Caesar SaladRomaine Lettuce6oz170.128.90.515oz141.824.10.434oz114.419.30.34
Lite Caesar Dressing4fl oz120.01325.283fl oz90.0993.962fl oz60662.64
Sliced Chicken Breast4oz113.4196.25.113oz85.1147.13.841.5oz42.573.61.92
Parmesan Cheese2oz56.7244.4016.221.5oz42.5183.312.200.5oz14.261.104.06
Croutons1.5oz42.5197.77.801oz28.4131.805.190.5oz14.265.902.59
Whole Wheat Dinner Roll1each41.1101.51.381each41.1101.51.381each41.1101.51.38
Butter pat1each10.071.78.111each10.071.78.11
Strawberries1cup144.046.10.431cup144.046.10.431cup14446.10.43
Jumbo Chocolate Chip Cookie1each141.0617.822.04
Bottled Water16.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.00
1636.366.88804.635.54433.513.36
Southwest Chicken SaladRomaine Lettuce6oz170.128.90.515oz141.824.10.434oz113.419.30.34
Sliced Chicken Breast4oz113.4196.25.113oz85.1147.13.842oz56.798.12.56
Shredded Cheddar Cheese2oz56.7228.518.791.5oz42.5171.414.090.5oz14.257.14.70
Corn1oz28.423.00.261oz28.423.00.261oz28.423.000.26
Black Beans1oz28.439.70.181oz28.439.70.181oz28.439.700.18
Red Bell Pepper, diced3oz85.126.40.263oz85.126.40.262oz56.717.600.17
Cilantro0.5oz14.23.30.070.5oz14.23.30.070.5oz14.23.30.07
Chopped Green Onion0.5oz14.24.50.030.5oz14.24.50.030.5oz14.24.50.03
Diced Tomato4oz113.420.400.233oz85.115.300.172oz56.710.200.11
Light SW Ranch Dressing4fl oz122.5240.0015.003fl oz91.9180.0011.401.5oz45.990.05.70
Diced Pineapple5oz141.870.90.174oz113.456.70.143oz85.042.50.10
Baked Tortilla Chips, lowfat1oz28.4119.42.881oz28.4119.42.88
Jumbo Chocolate Chip Cookie1each141.0621.022.15
Bottled Water16.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.00
1622.265.64810.933.75405.314.22
Cobb SaladRomaine Lettuce6oz170.128.90.515oz141.8240.434oz113.419.30.34
Turkey breast5oz141.8198.401.703oz85.1119.101.001.5oz42.559.50.50
Bacon0.75oz21.31159.000.5oz14.276.66.000.25oz7.138.003.00
Eggs2oz56.787.96.001oz28.443.93.000.5oz14.2221.50
Cheddar cheese3oz85.1342.728.201oz28.4114.259.400.5oz14.257.14.70
Blue cheese dressing lowfat4fl oz124.51239.002.5fl oz77.876.75.001.5fl oz46.7463.00
Breadsticks2each84.0261.88.831each42.0130.94.40
Cantaloupe melon6oz170.157.80.324oz113.438.60.224oz113.438.60.22
Rice Krispie Treat3oz85.1413.67.201.5oz42.5206.83.601oz28.4124.02.16
Bottled Water16.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.00
1629.170.76830.933.05404.515.42
Artisan Blue SaladRomaine Lettuce5oz141.8240.434oz113.419.30.343oz85.114.460.26
Crumbled Blue Cheese2oz56.7200.1516.301oz28.41008.150.25oz7.1252.00
Raspberries4oz113.4590.743oz85.144.20.552oz56.729.50.37
Diced Cucumber4oz113.4170.132oz56.78.50.061oz28.44.250.03
Diced Mango5oz141.892.10.383oz85.155.30.231oz28.418.40.07
Light Raspberry Vinaigrette4fl oz128.0215.216.503fl oz96.0161.412.402fl oz64.0107.68.26
Sliced Chicken Breast4oz113.4196.25.112oz56.798.12.561oz28.4491.28
Carmelized Walnuts0.5oz14.292.79.200.5oz14.292.79.20
Shaved Red Onion1oz28.411.30.030.5oz14.25.70.010.25oz7.12.80.01
Breadstick or Roll2breadstick84.0274.5010.271breadstick42.0137.205.101dinner roll41.1101.501.38
Dessert3.4ozrice krispie treat96.4468.09.400.75ozrice krispie treat21.3103.41.801mini sugar cookie15.0683.09
Bottled Water16.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.00
1650.268.49825.840.40420.516.75

Box Lunch Quality Control

Every day an extra box lunch was ordered to conduct quality control measures. The research staff disassembled each box lunch item into ingredient components, weighed and measured them, and the energy intake values for each food item were calculated using the NDS-R software system.[11-13] The goal was to ensure that the box lunches did not deviate by more than 5% kcals above or below the kcal goal for each box lunch condition. This quality control process was conducted daily throughout the 27-month study period (a total of 515 box lunch meals). Over all the menu meals evaluated, the median deviation in kcals was small (23 kcals, 33 kcals and 16 kcals, in the 400, 800, and 1600 kcal conditions, respectively). Quality control analyses showed that 52% of the lunches measured were within the 5% kcal range. Ten percent of the lunches were below 95% kcals and 37% were above 105% kcals.

Data Collection Protocol

Data were collected by trained research staff blinded to study condition at a University research building located about a mile from the medical complex. Similar data collection procedures took place at six months when the intervention ended. Participants were paid $125 for each of the baseline and six-month measurements (two clinic visits at each of baseline and six months) and $50 each for the one month and three month set of three dietary recall interviews and measured body weight.

Measures

Body weight and height

All anthropometric measures were conducted by trained and certified research staff according to standardized protocols.[14] Body weight was measured to the nearest 0.1 kg using a calibrated electronic scale (Befour Inc, Saukville, WI). Height was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm with a wall-mounted stadiometer. Body weight was measured with participants in light clothing and without shoes. All measures were performed in duplicate. If there was greater than or equal to 1 cm or 0.5 kg deviation between the two measures, a third measurement was taken. The mean values of the two measures in closest agreement were used in analysis.

Dietary intake

Energy intake was measured using three unannounced 24-hour dietary recalls measured at baseline, one, three and six months (twelve dietary recalls per person during the six month study). Dietary recalls were conducted on non-consecutive days (two weekdays and one weekend day; all three within a time window of 21 days maximum) over the telephone using Nutrition Data System for Research (NDSR) software (Nutrition Coordinating Center (NCC), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Trained and certified staff at NCC collected the recalls.

Physical activity

Physical activity (PA) was measured objectively at baseline and at six months using a commercially available ActiGraph GT1M accelerometer (ActiGraph, Pensacola, FL).[16,17] Study participants were instructed to wear the GT1M monitor on the right hip for seven complete days except while sleeping or during water activity (e.g., bathing, swimming, showering and sleep).

Demographic variables

Demographic information was self-reported, and included household income before taxes, age, ethnicity, race, education level, job type and marital status.

Statistical Analysis

Planned Intent-to-Treat Analysis of Baseline to Six Month Changes

Two-hundred thirty-three participants provided data at baseline and were randomized. Two hundred twenty-nine (99.1%) participants were weighed at six months. Unless otherwise specified, analyses of baseline to six-month changes were performed in the intent-to-treat framework, including all randomized participants with available measurements at both time points. Analyses were conducted using SAS (Cary, NC) and R (R Development Core Team, 2012).[18] The planned primary analysis for the trial was an intent-to-treat comparison of the six-month change in body weight between the four randomized groups (control, and the three box lunch sizes). The same intent-to-treat approach was used to assess the secondary outcomes of lunch energy intake and total energy intake. A secondary analysis used the longitudinal measurements collected at baseline, months one, three and six to examine the rate of change in body weight and energy intake over the six-month intervention period. Linear regression models were used to evaluate differences in outcomes at six months. Despite randomization, job type and education were not balanced between groups, so they were adjusted for in the regression models. Models were also adjusted for baseline values of the outcomes (weight, or energy intake) to achieve a possible gain in precision. For the analysis of the rate of change, using all four data points (baseline, months one, three and six), generalized estimating equations[19] with an independence working correlation structure were used. Differences in the rate of change of outcomes over time were investigated via the interaction term of continuous time (in months) and a four-level categorical variable designating the experimental groups. Main effects for time and experimental condition were included, as were the adjustment covariates job type and education.

RESULTS

Demographic and Baseline Variables

Demographic and baseline variables by treatment group are shown in Table 1. The proportion of college-educated individuals and clerical workers differed by study condition. As noted above, analyses were adjusted for education and job type to account for these chance imbalances.
Table 1

Baseline Demographic Variables (Unadjusted Mean(sd) or Percent) (N=233)

TotalControl4008001600
n23361575956
Age (yrs)42.6(11.2)42.8(10.4)40.4(10.8)44.1(12.0)42.9(11.6)
Sex (%female)67.468.973.767.858.9
BMI (kg/m2)29.8(6.4)29.3(6.4)30.9(6.9)30.5(6.7)28.7(5.6)
Weight (kg)85.4(19.7)84.6(20.3)87.5(20.5)86.6(20.5)82.9(17.3)
Race (%white)69.173.862.571.967.9
Married/Living with (%) Partner58.849.257.950.951.8
Education (%)*
 < College15.011.524.610.114.3
 Some College33.527.933.349.223.2
 College degree33.539.329.830.533.9
 College +18.021.3AB12.3B10.2B28.6A
JobType (%)*
patient care33.338.327.831.642.3
administration11.113.37.415.87.3
clerical38.541.7A51.9A38.6AB21.8B
service/labor4.91.79.31.87.3
other9.35.03.712.316.4
Income (%)
≤ $40,00021.418,624.624.118.2
$40,000–$80,00041.937.349.139.741.8
>$80,00036.744.126.336.240.0
Moderate/Vigorous PA (mins/day)27.5(17.2)26.4(15.2)24.5(14.6)27.3(16.7)31.8(21.3)
Energy Intake (kcal/day)2012(679)1981(630)1953 (554)2111(717)2002(800)
Lunch energy (kcal/day)516(262)540 (278)519 (223)534 (305)468 (233)

Note:

p < .05 difference between treatment groups

Different superscripts show significantly different means; post hoc analysis (p < .05)

Baseline Lunch Energy Intake and Nutrient Values Compared with Box Lunches

Participant baseline lunch energy intake and nutrient values based on three 24-hour dietary recalls are shown in Table 2, along with the computed average mean energy and nutrient values for each of the box lunch energy groups (400, 800 and 1600 kcal). These data show that the percent fat, protein and carbohydrates in the three portion conditions were similar to participants’ baseline lunch intake. However, the fruit and vegetable servings provided in the lunch boxes were higher compared with participants’ usual lunch intake.
Table 2

Baseline Participant Lunch Intake (N=233) and the Intervention Box Lunch Nutrients

Box Lunch Nutrient Values
Baseline Participant Lunch Intake*400 kcal Box Lunch800 kcal Box Lunch1600 kcal Box Lunch

meansdmeansdmeansdmeansd
Kcal5162624131182120160442.9
% Fat3514325364383.9
% Protein199215214192.6
% Carbohydrate4717485455464.8
Fiber (g)5.23.66.13.09.14.114.26.9
Added Sugar (g)12.519.39.06.815.211.747.113.4
Fruit Servings (cups)0.150.350.560.330.830.360.950.51
Vegetable Servings (cups)0.620.691.170.901.601.242.081.55
Energy Density (kcal/g)0.90.70.50.10.80.11.20.2

Calculated from three nonconsecutive day, unannounced telephone-administered 24-hour recalls (two weekday; one weekend day)

Lunch Energy Intake Change Over Six Months Box Lunch Intervention

Table 3 shows adjusted mean lunch energy intake at six months by intervention group. In paired contrasts, the 1600 kcal box lunch group reported significantly higher lunch energy intake compared with each of the other groups (including the control group; p < 0.0001). Lunch energy intake increased significantly over time in the 1600 kcal lunch box group and decreased significantly over time in the 400 kcal box lunch group (p < 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis of no change in lunch energy intake over time for both groups; Table 4).
Table 3

Change in Lunch Energy, Total Energy and Body Weight Over Six Months by Treatment Group

No box lunchMean (SE)Treatment Group
400 kcalMean (SE)800kcalMean (SE)1600kcalMean (SE)
Lunch energy (kcal)**492AB (28)417A (30)557B (29)636C (30)
Total energy (kcal)*1938AC (66)1718B (70)1792AB (68)1996C (71)
Weight change (kg)1.1 (.42)−0.1 (.43)−0.1 (.42)1.1 (.44)

NOTE: Lunch and total energy: Least squared mean at six months, adjusted for baseline value, education and job type. Weight change: Least-squared mean increase at six months, adjusted for baseline value, education and job type.

significant difference, p <.00001.

significant difference, p = 0.02.

Different superscripts differ at p < 0.05 in pairwise comparisons.

Table 4

Rate of Change in Lunch Energy, Total Energy and Body Weight Over Six Months by Treatment Group.

No box lunchMeanTreatment Group
400 kcalMean800kcalMean1600kcalMean
Lunch Energy (kcal/month)−7.9−16.2*0.516.9*
Total Energy (kcal/month)−11.1−40.1*−33.2*−0.66
Weight Change (kg/month)0.24*−0.01−0.010.19*

Note: Results of longitudinal analysis using marginal linear regression model (GEE) with independence working correlation, adjusted for baseline BMI, education and job type.

significantly different from zero (p < 0.05).

Total Energy Intake Change Over Six Months Box Lunch Intervention

Table 3 shows adjusted mean total energy intake at six months by intervention group. The 1600 kcal box lunch group reported significantly higher total energy intake compared with the 800 kcal and 400 kcal box lunch groups (p = 0.02). Total energy intake decreased significantly over time in both the 400 kcal and 800 kcal box lunch groups (p< 0.05)(Table 4).

Weight Change Over Six-Month Box Lunch Intervention

Table 3 shows adjusted mean change in body weight over six months by treatment group. Overall, the differences between groups were not statistically significant at the 5% level (p = 0.07). Increase in weight over time was statistically significant in the 1600 kcal box lunch group (p< 0.05)(Table 4).

Physical Activity Change Over Six-Month Intervention Period

Physical activity change over six months did not significantly differ by treatment group. Adjusted for baseline value, job type and education, physical activity means (se) (moderate/vigorous mins/day) at six months were: control: 27.5 (1.9); 400 kcal: 28.0 (1.9); 800 kcal: 31.8 (1.9); 1600 kcal: 26.1 (2.0) (p = 0.20).

DISCUSSION

This study is a test in a real-world setting of a robust experimental finding that to date was produced only in tightly controlled laboratory feeding studies. It examined the effects of large box lunch energy sizes on energy intake and body weight change over six months in a naturalistic setting among a sample of working adults. The naturalistic setting of the experiment was designed to shed light on the potential effects of the widespread increases in portion sizes in both packaged and restaurant foods on energy intake and weight gain, and ultimately the population-wide obesity epidemic. The original hypothesis was that the 1600 kcal lunch group would increase lunch and total energy intake, and gain weight, over the six months exposure. The 800 kcal condition was hypothesized to represent a typical lunch energy exposure and the 400 kcal condition was thought to represent a smaller than typical exposure. The control group was not expected to increase energy intake or body weight. The results of the study were surprising and informative. As hypothesized, lunch energy intake was significantly higher in the large box lunch condition (1600 kcal) and in the medium box lunch condition (800 kcal) compared to the smallest box lunch condition (400 kcal). These results are consistent with experimental laboratory studies conducted over short time periods[4-6] and cross-sectional studies conducted field settings.[7-9] Thus, relative to small box lunch energy sizes, larger box lunch energy sizes delivered over six months led to higher energy lunch intake, and this effect persisted for up to six months. Higher energy intake at lunch would not be problematic if people spontaneously reduced their intake at other meals. The study results suggest that over six months, people may have compensated to some extent, but not entirely. Interestingly, the comparison group’s change in energy intake did not differ from the 1600 kcal box lunch group. It appears that in this study’s comparison group, change in total energy intake was the same as that of people exposed to a large free box lunch every weekday. Also of interest is the significant reduction in the total energy intake of the 400 kcal box lunch group, relative to the 1600 kcal and no-free-box-lunch comparison group. Most importantly, does exposure to large energy sizes at lunch over a six-month period lead to excess weight gain? Participants in the large box lunch group gained significant weight over the six-month period, but weight changes in the 400 kcal and 800 kcal box lunch conditions were not significantly different from zero. The control group gained more weight than expected over the six month study. Their energy intake and weight change may reflect the normal intake of this sample of working people who live in an obesigenic environment. The stability of body weight and decrease in energy intake observed in the small lunch condition might mitigate the rate of weight gain in such an environment. These findings are consistent with the single laboratory study on small portion size exposure over a two day period that resulted in lower energy intake.[4] The use of portion-controlled prepackaged meals also is associated with larger weight losses in clinical weight loss trials.[20-22] Since the participants in this free-living working adult sample were overweight, the small box lunch condition may have provided support for lower energy intake at lunch that was not compensated later during the day. This effect, if replicated, could be a promising strategy to support overweight adults’ effort to reduce energy intake and promote weight stability or weight loss over long time periods. Results from the weight loss literature show that the effects of portion controlled food provision are limited to the period during which food provision is provided.[22] The mechanisms that explain the relative decrease in energy intake and weight stability are not clear, but are important questions to pursue in future studies. A better understanding of how people consciously attend to and self-regulate portion sizes in their natural environment is critical to development of effective eating behavior interventions in the community that could help prevent excess energy intake and weight gain.[23-25] If people are not paying attention to or consciously self-regulating intake in the face of large portion size exposures, then package size regulation appears to be an even more critical intervention to prevent excess energy intake at meals. The strengths of the present study are many. Its six-month duration, randomized experimental design, use of state of the science dietary intake measures, direct measures of body weight, high intervention exposure rates (91% dose delivered) and high rate of cohort retention (99% at six months) also support the validity of the results. Limitations include the lack of interpretive consistency for the control group in relation to the three box lunch groups. Participants randomized to the control group did not receive daily free lunches for six months. It is not clear whether this may have led to changes in eating behaviors as a result of knowledge of being assigned to the control condition (no free lunch; eg., compensatory rivalry or resentful demoralization).[26] In addition to energy, the lunch conditions differed in composition in ways that might have affected satiety and energy intake. The fruit, vegetable and fiber composition of the box lunches was high relative to the participants’ baseline lunch intake, and the foods across conditions, although similar, were not identical. The validity of the dietary intake assessments may have been higher for the box lunch groups than for the control group during the experimental period because objective information was available on the food ingredients and sizes for the box lunches.[12,13,27] Therefore, food types and portion sizes consumed could be estimated more accurately for participants in one of the three box lunch conditions compared to those in the control group. Under-reporting of dietary intake is a well-established shortcoming of self-report dietary intake methods such as recalls.[27] However, assuming the magnitude of under-reporting is similar across experimental groups, between group comparisons should not be affected by this bias in reporting. The main conclusion of the present study is that chronic exposure to a high energy lunch weekdays for six months may represent a risk for excess energy intake and weight gain. Exposure to small lunch sizes is associated with relative decreases in energy intake and with weight stability. Future studies are needed to clarify whether chronic exposure to large portion sizes across several settings presents a risk for excess energy intake and weight gain. Also of interest is whether chronic exposure to smaller energy meals can enhance weight control in a free-living overweight population, and specification of the mechanisms of this effect.
Appendix 2

All Sandwiches

SandwichIngredients1600 cal800 cal400 cal
AmountUnitGramsCaloriesFat (g)AmountUnitGramsCaloriesFat (g)AmountUnitGramsCaloriesFat (g)
Turkey Club WrapFlour Tortilla112″102.7320.07.96110″71.3222.45.5318″45.6142.43.54
Leaf Lettuce2oz56.78.50.091oz28.44.30.041oz28.44.30.04
Applewood smoked bacon2oz56.7306.723.700.75oz21.31159.000.25oz7.138.32.96
Smoked Turkey4oz113.4158.801.342oz56.779.40.671oz28.439.700.34
Sliced Tomato1oz28.45.100.061oz28.45.10.061oz28.45.100.06
Sliced cheddar cheese, low fat2oz56.798.03.971oz28.4491.98000.00.00
Mayonnaise, lowfat/light2tb3097.09.901tb1548.64.960.5tb7.524.302.48
Baked Lays Potato Chips2oz56.7230.84.001cup28.4115.42.000
Whole Strawberries1.5cup21669.00.651oz144460.431cup14446.10.43
Old Fashioned Brownie2oz56.7256.015.501oz28.4128.17.801bite2197.75.70
Bottled Water16.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz00.0016.9fl oz0.00.00
1549.967.17813.332.47397.915.5
Chicken Caesar WrapFlour Tortilla112″102.7320.37.90110″71.3222.45.5018″45.6142.23.50
Leaf Lettuce1oz28.44.30.041oz28.44.30.041oz28.44.30.04
Sliced Chicken Breast4oz113.4196.25.103oz85.11474.001.5oz42.5732.00
Cardini’s Lite Caesar Dressing2fl oz56.016814.001fl oz28.084.237.001fl oz28.084.27.00
Shredded Parmesan Cheese4tbsp25.01077.003tbsp18.8805.001tbsp6.3272.00
Croutons0.5oz14.265.92.600.5oz14.265.902.600.25oz7.132.901.30
Diced Tomato1oz28.45.100.061oz28.45.100.061oz28.45.10.06
Grapes1Cup151.0104.20.241cup151.0104.20.240.50Cup75.552.10.12
Browniekiller brownie4.5 oz127.6592.032.50old fashion brownie1 oz28.4128.08.000
Bottled Water16.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.00
1563.069.44841.232.44420.816.02
Turkey Provolone on BunBun1kaiser bun70.9207.63.051multigrain big bun90.7241.33.301turkey bun68.0168.12.28
Roasted Red Pepper1oz28.48.80.091oz28.48.80.090.5oz14.24.40.04
Ken’s Roasted Red Pepper Sauce2tb30.0116.611.901tb1563.186.500.5tb7.529.162.98
Leaf Lettuce1oz28.44.30.041oz28.44.30.041oz28.44.30.04
Sliced Tomatoes3oz85.115.30.171.5oz42.57.70.091oz28.45.10.06
Smoked Turkey5oz141.8198.451.703oz85.1119.001.002oz56.779.400.67
Sliced Provolone3oz85.1298.522.602oz56.719915.001oz28.477.75.00
Baked Lays Potato Chips1oz28.4115.42.001oz28.4115.42.000
Pineapple1cup165.082.50.201cup16582.50.200.5cup82.541.30.10
Rice Krispie Bar4.5oz127.6616.912.4000
Bottled Water16.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.00
1664.454.15841.228.22409.511.17
Ham & Swiss WrapKendelson’t Pit Ham4oz113.4164.46.302oz56.782.23.141oz28.441.01.57
Swiss cheese reduced fat3oz85.1147.04.341oz28.449.01.450.5oz14.224.50.72
Raw Spinach1oz28.46.50.111oz28.46.50.111oz28.46.50.11
Craisins2oz56.7174.60.781oz28.487.30.390.5oz14.243.70.19
Mayonnaise, lowfat/light2tb3097.09.931tb1548.64.970.5tb7.524.32.48
Shaved Red Onion0.25oz7.12.80.010.25oz7.12.80.010.25oz7.12.80.01
Flour Tortilla112″102.7320.37.96110″71.3222.45.5318″45.6142.43.54
Lays Kettle Chips2oz56.7287.016.051oz28.4143.58.0000
Lemon bar3oz85.1384.818.201.5oz42.5192.49.101oz28.4128.36.08
Bottled Water16.9fl oz00.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.00
1584.463.68834.732.70413.514.70
Ham & Swiss on BunBun1kaiser bun70.9207.663.051multigrain big bun90.7241.33.301turkey bun68168.062.28
Kendelson’t Pit Ham5oz141.8205.57.843oz85.1123.34.701oz28.441.11.57
Sliced Swiss Cheese, reduced fat2oz56.798.12.901oz28.449.01.450.5oz14.224.50.72
Leaf Lettuce1oz28.44.250.041oz28.44.250.040.5oz14.22.130.02
Sliced Tomatoes3oz85.115.310.172oz56.710.20.111oz28.45.10.06
Dijon mustard2ts1010.70.611ts55.370.300.5tb7.58.050.46
Mayonnaise, low fat2tb3097.29.901tb1548.64.961tb1548.604.96
Pretzels2oz56.7215.51.500000
Baby Carrots4oz113.446.50.272oz56.723.30.142oz56.723.30.14
Ranch dressing, low fat2tb30.6603.801tb15.330.01.901tb15.330.01.90
Dessertkiller brownie5 oz141.8633.234.30M & M cookie1 each56.7277.513.59mini sugar cookie1 each1568.33.09
Bottled water16.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.00
1593.964.38812.8230.49419.1615.20
Greek Turkey FocacciaFocaccia5oz141.8425.014.104oz113.4340.111.262oz56.71705.63
Smoked Turkey4oz113.4158.801.342oz56.779.400.671oz28.439.700.34
Hummus2oz56.7108.54.791oz28.454.32.400.5oz14.227.11.20
Sliced Tomatoes1oz28.45.10.061oz28.45.10.061oz28.45.10.06
Feta Cheese1.5oz42.5112.39.051oz28.474.86.030.5oz14.237.43.00
Mixed Greens1oz28.44.30.041oz28.44.30.041oz28.44.30.04
Kettle Chips1oz28.4143.58.001oz28.4143.58.000
Cantaloupe Melon1cup16054.00.301cup16054.00.301cup160.054.40.30
CookieJumbo Choc Chip1 each141.8621.022.15mini sugar cookie1 each1568.33.09mini sugar cookie1 each15.068.33.09
Bottled Water16.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.00
1632.559.83823.831.85406.3013.66
Roast Beef FocacciaFocaccia5oz141.8425.114.074oz113.4340.111.263oz85.1255.18.40
Kendelson’s Roast Beef5oz141.8164.73.903oz85.198.82.342oz56.765.91.56
Cheddar Cheese, reduced fat2oz56.798.13.971oz28.449.11.980.5oz14.224.50.99
Horseradish spread4TB60194.020.002TB3087.010.000.5tbs7.524.302.48
Sliced Tomatoes2oz56.710.20.112oz56.710.20.111oz28.45.10.06
Leaf Lettuce2oz56.78.50.092oz56.78.50.091oz28.44.300.04
Lay’s Kettle Cooked Chips1oz28.4143.58.021oz28.4143.58.020
Diced Pineapple5oz141.870.90.175oz141.870.80.173oz85.142.50.10
Oatmeal Raisin Cookie2each113.4537.120.02000
Bottled Water16.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.0016.9fl oz0.00.00
1652.170.35808.033.97
Italian FocacciaFocaccia5oz141.842514.004.00oz113.434011.302.00oz56.7170.15.63
Baked, Sliced Ham2oz56.782.23.1400
Fresh Mozzarella, part skim2oz56.7171.211.400.75oz21.364.24.280.50oz14.242.82.84
Genoa Salami1oz28.4109.18.501.00oz28.41098.520.50oz14.254.64.30
Shaved Proscuitto2oz56.7101.05.111.00oz28.450.52.560.50oz14.225.21.30
Roasted Red Pepper1oz28.48.80.091.00oz28.48.80.091.00oz28.48.800.09
Roasted Red Pepper Dip1.5tb22.597.09.901.00tb1563.06.500.50tb7.531.63.23
Mixed Greens1oz28.44.30.041.00oz28.44.30.040.50oz14.22.10.02
Light Ranch Dressing3tb46.090.05.700.000
Pretzels2oz56.7215.51.501.00oz28.4107.70.750
Carrots/Grapescarrots5 oz141.858.10.34grapes.75 cup113.378.00.18grapes.75 cup113.378.00.18
M&M Cookie1each56.7277.513.6000
Bottled Water16.9fl oz0.00.0016.90fl oz0.00.0016.90fl oz00.00
1639.773.32825.534.22413.217.59
  22 in total

Review 1.  Environmental influences on eating and physical activity.

Authors:  S A French; M Story; R W Jeffery
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 21.981

2.  Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977-1998.

Authors:  Samara Joy Nielsen; Barry M Popkin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003 Jan 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Accuracy of estimation of large food portions.

Authors:  Lisa Harnack; Lyn Steffen; Donna K Arnett; Shujun Gao; Russell V Luepker
Journal:  J Am Diet Assoc       Date:  2004-05

4.  Validation of two-dimensional models for estimation of portion size in nutrition research.

Authors:  B M Posner; C Smigelski; A Duggal; J L Morgan; J Cobb; L A Cupples
Journal:  J Am Diet Assoc       Date:  1992-06

5.  Computerized collection and analysis of dietary intake information.

Authors:  D Feskanich; B H Sielaff; K Chong; I M Buzzard
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 5.428

6.  Sources of variance in daily physical activity levels as measured by an accelerometer.

Authors:  Charles E Matthews; Barbara E Ainsworth; Raymond W Thompson; David R Bassett
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.411

7.  Long-term effects of interventions for weight loss using food provision and monetary incentives.

Authors:  R W Jeffery; R R Wing
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  1995-10

8.  The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger.

Authors:  A J Stunkard; S Messick
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 3.006

9.  Increased portion size leads to increased energy intake in a restaurant meal.

Authors:  Nicole Diliberti; Peter L Bordi; Martha T Conklin; Liane S Roe; Barbara J Rolls
Journal:  Obes Res       Date:  2004-03

10.  Effects of portion size on chronic energy intake.

Authors:  Robert W Jeffery; Sarah Rydell; Caroline L Dunn; Lisa J Harnack; Allen S Levine; Paul R Pentel; Judith E Baxter; Ericka M Walsh
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 6.457

View more
  19 in total

Review 1.  The Influence of Portion Size and Timing of Meals on Weight Balance and Obesity.

Authors:  Christina Berg; Heléne Bertéus Forslund
Journal:  Curr Obes Rep       Date:  2015-03

2.  Chronic overeating impairs hepatic glucose uptake and disposition.

Authors:  Katie C Coate; Guillaume Kraft; Masakazu Shiota; Marta S Smith; Ben Farmer; Doss W Neal; Phil Williams; Alan D Cherrington; Mary Courtney Moore
Journal:  Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 4.310

3.  Fast-food consumption, diet quality and body weight: cross-sectional and prospective associations in a community sample of working adults.

Authors:  Timothy L Barnes; Simone A French; Nathan R Mitchell; Julian Wolfson
Journal:  Public Health Nutr       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 4.022

4.  Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Effect of Portion Size and Ingestive Frequency on Energy Intake and Body Weight among Adults in Randomized Controlled Feeding Trials.

Authors:  Kelly A Higgins; Joshua L Hudson; Anna M R Hayes; Ethan Braun; Eunjin Cheon; Sam C Couture; Nilupa S Gunaratna; Erica R Hill; Stephanie R Hunter; Bethany S McGowan; Evan J Reister; Yu Wang; Richard D Mattes
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 11.567

5.  Snacking behaviors, diet quality, and body mass index in a community sample of working adults.

Authors:  Timothy L Barnes; Simone A French; Lisa J Harnack; Nathan R Mitchell; Julian Wolfson
Journal:  J Acad Nutr Diet       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 4.910

6.  Describing the relationship between occupational and non-occupational physical activity using objective measurement.

Authors:  Meghan M JaKa; Jacob L Haapala; Julian Wolfson; Simone A French
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2015

7.  Changes in Typical Portion Sizes of Commonly Consumed Discretionary Foods among Australian Adults from 1995 to 2011-2012.

Authors:  Miaobing Zheng; Anna Rangan; Beth Meertens; Jason H Y Wu
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 5.717

Review 8.  Portion Size: Latest Developments and Interventions.

Authors:  Ingrid Steenhuis; Maartje Poelman
Journal:  Curr Obes Rep       Date:  2017-03

9.  Decision trees in epidemiological research.

Authors:  Ashwini Venkatasubramaniam; Julian Wolfson; Nathan Mitchell; Timothy Barnes; Meghan JaKa; Simone French
Journal:  Emerg Themes Epidemiol       Date:  2017-09-20

Review 10.  Portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco.

Authors:  Gareth J Hollands; Ian Shemilt; Theresa M Marteau; Susan A Jebb; Hannah B Lewis; Yinghui Wei; Julian P T Higgins; David Ogilvie
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-09-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.