Guddi
2007-10-31, 09:23
EDIT: Usel rubrik jag vet, någon moderator får gärna fixa till den... :em:
Stötte på dessa artiklarna på ett annat forum, tänkte att det säkert skulle vara intressant läsning för det flesta här på Kolo med.
1: Obes Res. 2005 Jan;13(1):93-100.
Bottomless bowls: why visual cues of portion size may influence intake.
Wansink B, Painter JE, North J.
OBJECTIVE: Using self-refilling soup bowls, this study examined whether visual
cues related to portion size can influence intake volume without altering either
estimated intake or satiation. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Fifty-four
participants (BMI, 17.3 to 36.0 kg/m2; 18 to 46 years of age) were recruited to
participate in a study involving soup. The experiment was a between-subject
design with two visibility levels: 1) an accurate visual cue of a food portion
(normal bowl) vs. 2) a biased visual cue (self-refilling bowl). The soup
apparatus was housed in a modified restaurant-style table in which two of four
bowls slowly and imperceptibly refilled as their contents were consumed. Outcomes
included intake volume, intake estimation, consumption monitoring, and satiety.
RESULTS: Participants who were unknowingly eating from self-refilling bowls ate
more soup [14.7+/-8.4 vs. 8.5+/-6.1 oz; F(1,52)=8.99; p<0.01] than those eating
from normal soup bowls. However, despite consuming 73% more, they did not believe
they had consumed more, nor did they perceive themselves as more sated than those
eating from normal bowls. This was unaffected by BMI. DISCUSSION: These findings
are consistent with the notion that the amount of food on a plate or bowl
increases intake because it influences consumption norms and expectations and it
lessens one's reliance on self-monitoring. It seems that people use their eyes to
count calories and not their stomachs. The importance of having salient, accurate
visual cues can play an important role in the prevention of unintentional
overeating.
2: Int J Obes (Lond). 2006 May;30(5):871-5.
The office candy dish: proximity's influence on estimated and actual consumption.
Wansink B, Painter JE, Lee YK.
OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE: Although there is increasing interest in how environmental
factors influence food intake, there are mixed results and misunderstandings of
how proximity and visibility influence consumption volume and contribute to
obesity. The objective of this paper is to examine two questions: first, how does
the proximity and salience of a food influence consumption volume? Second, are
proximate foods consumed more frequently because they are proximate, or are they
consumed more frequently because people lose track of how much they eat? RESEARCH
METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The 4-week study involved the chocolate candy consumption
of 40 adult secretaries. The study utilized a 2 x 2 within-subject design where
candy proximity was crossed with visibility. Proximity was manipulated by placing
the chocolates on the desk of the participant or 2 m from the desk. Visibility
was manipulated by placing the chocolates in covered bowls that were either clear
or opaque. Chocolates were replenished each evening, and placement conditions
were rotated every Monday. Daily consumption was noted and follow-up
questionnaires were distributed and analyzed. RESULTS: There were main effects
for both proximity and visibility. People ate an average of 2.2 more candies each
day when they were visible, and 1.8 candies more when they were proximately
placed on their desk vs 2 m away. It is important to note, however, that there
was a significant tendency for participants to consistently underestimate their
daily consumption of proximately placed candies (-0.9) and overestimate their
daily consumption of less proximately placed candies (+0.5). DISCUSSION: These
results show that the proximity and visibility of a food can consistently
increase an adult's consumption of it. In addition, these results suggest that
people may be biased to overestimate the consumption of foods that are less
proximate, and to underestimate those that are more proximate. Knowing about
these deviation tendencies is important for those attempting effectively monitor
their consumption of fat and sugar.
3: Am J Prev Med. 2006 Sep;31(3):240-3.
Ice cream illusions bowls, spoons, and self-served portion sizes.
Wansink B, van Ittersum K, Painter JE.
BACKGROUND: Because people eat most of what they serve themselves, any contextual
cues that lead them to over-serve should lead them to over-eat. In building on
the size-contrast illusion, this research examines whether the size of a bowl or
serving spoon unknowingly biases how much a person serves and eats. METHODS: The
2 x 2 between-subjects design involved 85 nutrition experts who were attending an
ice cream social to celebrate the success of a colleague in 2002. They were
randomly given either a smaller (17 oz) or a larger (34 oz) bowl and either a
smaller (2 oz) or larger (3 oz) ice cream scoop. After serving themselves, they
completed a brief survey as their ice cream was weighed. The analysis was
conducted in 2003. RESULTS: Even when nutrition experts were given a larger bowl,
they served themselves 31.0% more (6.25 vs 4.77 oz, F(1, 80) = 8.05, p < 0.01)
without being aware of it. Their servings increased by 14.5% when they were given
a larger serving spoon (5.77 vs 5.04 oz, F(1, 80)=2.70, p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS:
People could try using the size of their bowls and possibly serving spoons to
help them better control how much they consume. Those interested in losing weight
should use smaller bowls and spoons, while those needing to gain weight--such as
the undernourished or aged--could be encouraged to use larger ones. Epidemiologic
implications are discussed.
Stötte på dessa artiklarna på ett annat forum, tänkte att det säkert skulle vara intressant läsning för det flesta här på Kolo med.
1: Obes Res. 2005 Jan;13(1):93-100.
Bottomless bowls: why visual cues of portion size may influence intake.
Wansink B, Painter JE, North J.
OBJECTIVE: Using self-refilling soup bowls, this study examined whether visual
cues related to portion size can influence intake volume without altering either
estimated intake or satiation. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Fifty-four
participants (BMI, 17.3 to 36.0 kg/m2; 18 to 46 years of age) were recruited to
participate in a study involving soup. The experiment was a between-subject
design with two visibility levels: 1) an accurate visual cue of a food portion
(normal bowl) vs. 2) a biased visual cue (self-refilling bowl). The soup
apparatus was housed in a modified restaurant-style table in which two of four
bowls slowly and imperceptibly refilled as their contents were consumed. Outcomes
included intake volume, intake estimation, consumption monitoring, and satiety.
RESULTS: Participants who were unknowingly eating from self-refilling bowls ate
more soup [14.7+/-8.4 vs. 8.5+/-6.1 oz; F(1,52)=8.99; p<0.01] than those eating
from normal soup bowls. However, despite consuming 73% more, they did not believe
they had consumed more, nor did they perceive themselves as more sated than those
eating from normal bowls. This was unaffected by BMI. DISCUSSION: These findings
are consistent with the notion that the amount of food on a plate or bowl
increases intake because it influences consumption norms and expectations and it
lessens one's reliance on self-monitoring. It seems that people use their eyes to
count calories and not their stomachs. The importance of having salient, accurate
visual cues can play an important role in the prevention of unintentional
overeating.
2: Int J Obes (Lond). 2006 May;30(5):871-5.
The office candy dish: proximity's influence on estimated and actual consumption.
Wansink B, Painter JE, Lee YK.
OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE: Although there is increasing interest in how environmental
factors influence food intake, there are mixed results and misunderstandings of
how proximity and visibility influence consumption volume and contribute to
obesity. The objective of this paper is to examine two questions: first, how does
the proximity and salience of a food influence consumption volume? Second, are
proximate foods consumed more frequently because they are proximate, or are they
consumed more frequently because people lose track of how much they eat? RESEARCH
METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The 4-week study involved the chocolate candy consumption
of 40 adult secretaries. The study utilized a 2 x 2 within-subject design where
candy proximity was crossed with visibility. Proximity was manipulated by placing
the chocolates on the desk of the participant or 2 m from the desk. Visibility
was manipulated by placing the chocolates in covered bowls that were either clear
or opaque. Chocolates were replenished each evening, and placement conditions
were rotated every Monday. Daily consumption was noted and follow-up
questionnaires were distributed and analyzed. RESULTS: There were main effects
for both proximity and visibility. People ate an average of 2.2 more candies each
day when they were visible, and 1.8 candies more when they were proximately
placed on their desk vs 2 m away. It is important to note, however, that there
was a significant tendency for participants to consistently underestimate their
daily consumption of proximately placed candies (-0.9) and overestimate their
daily consumption of less proximately placed candies (+0.5). DISCUSSION: These
results show that the proximity and visibility of a food can consistently
increase an adult's consumption of it. In addition, these results suggest that
people may be biased to overestimate the consumption of foods that are less
proximate, and to underestimate those that are more proximate. Knowing about
these deviation tendencies is important for those attempting effectively monitor
their consumption of fat and sugar.
3: Am J Prev Med. 2006 Sep;31(3):240-3.
Ice cream illusions bowls, spoons, and self-served portion sizes.
Wansink B, van Ittersum K, Painter JE.
BACKGROUND: Because people eat most of what they serve themselves, any contextual
cues that lead them to over-serve should lead them to over-eat. In building on
the size-contrast illusion, this research examines whether the size of a bowl or
serving spoon unknowingly biases how much a person serves and eats. METHODS: The
2 x 2 between-subjects design involved 85 nutrition experts who were attending an
ice cream social to celebrate the success of a colleague in 2002. They were
randomly given either a smaller (17 oz) or a larger (34 oz) bowl and either a
smaller (2 oz) or larger (3 oz) ice cream scoop. After serving themselves, they
completed a brief survey as their ice cream was weighed. The analysis was
conducted in 2003. RESULTS: Even when nutrition experts were given a larger bowl,
they served themselves 31.0% more (6.25 vs 4.77 oz, F(1, 80) = 8.05, p < 0.01)
without being aware of it. Their servings increased by 14.5% when they were given
a larger serving spoon (5.77 vs 5.04 oz, F(1, 80)=2.70, p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS:
People could try using the size of their bowls and possibly serving spoons to
help them better control how much they consume. Those interested in losing weight
should use smaller bowls and spoons, while those needing to gain weight--such as
the undernourished or aged--could be encouraged to use larger ones. Epidemiologic
implications are discussed.