TY - JOUR
T1 - Perceived ‘healthiness’ of foods can influence consumers’ estimations of energy density and appropriate portion size
AU - Faulkner, Gemma
AU - Pourshahidi, Kirsty
AU - Wallace, Julie
AU - Kerr, Maeve
AU - McCaffrey, Tracy
AU - Livingstone, Barbara
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - Objectives: To compare portion size (PS) estimates, perceived energy density (ED), and anticipated consumption guilt (ACG) for ‘healthier’ vs ‘standard’ foods.Methods: Three pairs of isoenergy dense (kJ/100 g) foods—‘healthier’ vs ‘standard’ cereals, drinks and coleslaws - were selected. For each food, subjects served an appropriate PS for themselves and estimated its ED. Subjects also rated their ACG about eating the food on a scale of 1 (not at all guilty) to 5 (very guilty).Results: Subjects (n186) estimated larger portions of the ‘healthier’ coleslaw than the “standard” version, and perceived all ‘healthier’ foods to be lower in ED than their ‘standard’ alternatives, despite being isoenergy dense. Higher ACG was associated with the “standard” foods. Portion estimates were generally larger than recommendations and the ED of the foods was underestimated.Conclusions: The larger portions selected for the ‘reduced fat’ food in association with lower perceived ED and ACG, suggests that such nutrition claims could be promoting inappropriate PS selection and consumption behaviour. Consumer education on appropriate portions is warranted to correct such misconceptions.
AB - Objectives: To compare portion size (PS) estimates, perceived energy density (ED), and anticipated consumption guilt (ACG) for ‘healthier’ vs ‘standard’ foods.Methods: Three pairs of isoenergy dense (kJ/100 g) foods—‘healthier’ vs ‘standard’ cereals, drinks and coleslaws - were selected. For each food, subjects served an appropriate PS for themselves and estimated its ED. Subjects also rated their ACG about eating the food on a scale of 1 (not at all guilty) to 5 (very guilty).Results: Subjects (n186) estimated larger portions of the ‘healthier’ coleslaw than the “standard” version, and perceived all ‘healthier’ foods to be lower in ED than their ‘standard’ alternatives, despite being isoenergy dense. Higher ACG was associated with the “standard” foods. Portion estimates were generally larger than recommendations and the ED of the foods was underestimated.Conclusions: The larger portions selected for the ‘reduced fat’ food in association with lower perceived ED and ACG, suggests that such nutrition claims could be promoting inappropriate PS selection and consumption behaviour. Consumer education on appropriate portions is warranted to correct such misconceptions.
UR - https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/en/searchAll/index/?search=11381798&pageSize=25&showAdvanced=false&allConcepts=true&inferConcepts=true&searchBy=PartOfNameOrTitle
U2 - 10.1038/ijo.2013.69
DO - 10.1038/ijo.2013.69
M3 - Article
SN - 1476-5497
VL - 38
SP - 106
EP - 112
JO - International Journal of Obesity
JF - International Journal of Obesity
ER -