| Literature DB >> 27698960 |
Aylin Ayaz1, Asli Akyol1, Cansu Cetin1, H Tanju Besler2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/Entities:
Keywords: Plate size; energy intake; obesity; satiety response
Year: 2016 PMID: 27698960 PMCID: PMC5037070 DOI: 10.4162/nrp.2016.10.5.524
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr Res Pract ISSN: 1976-1457 Impact factor: 1.926
Fig. 1(a) Large (28 cm), (b) medium (23 cm), and (c) small (19 cm) plates used in the study
Fig. 2Mean 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).
Area under curve (AUC) data of VAS scores
Mean VAS scores (± SEM) during the three test days, n = 37. There were no statistically significant differences between treatments (P > 0.05).
Energy and macro nutrient intake during the open buffet lunch meal
Mean VAS scores (± SEM) during the three test days, n = 37. Data on 2nd visits to serving table consists of n = 17 participants for small, n = 15 participants for medium, and n = 16 participants for large plates.
There were no statistically significant differences among the groups (P > 0.05).