First author, year (reference) | Intervention | Study design | Respondents | Effects |
---|---|---|---|---|
Antonuk, 2006 [43] | Package nutritional information; dual column labelling: not only nutritional information for one serving but also for the entire package | Random between subjects, parallel group design (nutritional information about serving size ('single column') vs nutritional information about serving size and entire package ('dual column') | College students, n = 112 | -Non dieters ate significant less of a snack food when confronted with dual labelling -No effect on intake of dieters |
Harnack, 2008 [44] | Elimination of value size pricing and calorie labelling of different fast food portion sizes | Random 2(value pricing or normal pricing) × 2(calorie labelling or no labelling) between subjects design | Regular fast food restaurant visitors, adolescents and adults, n = 594 | -No differences in energy composition of ordered meals |
Lieux, 1992 [45] | Maximum of 1 hot entrée per person, no larger portions on request | Observational within subjects study, with four measurements | College students, n = 214 | - Men increased selection of other foods so that energy intake remained the same - Women chose the same foods |
Rolls, 2006 [46] | 25% Reduction in portion size and 25% reduction in energy density (i.e. by substituting full-fat ingredients by low-fat ingredients or by increasing the proportion of fruit & vegetables | Within subjects cross over design with four conditions | Young women, n = 24 | -Independent effects of reducing portion size and energy density on energy intake found, effects sustained over 2 days -Stronger effect of reduction in energy density -No effect on ratings of hunger and fullness |
Ueland, 2009 [47] | Portion size information; written descriptions with a comparison to a reference amount, i.e. " this is 1,5 times a normal portion of this pasta" | Within subjects crossover design | Normal weight adults, n = 33 | -No effect on on total food intake -No effect on satiety |