Title:
|
Food choice and energy intake: the impact of portion size, energy density and food cost
|
Understanding the complex linkage between obesity and food choice is pivotal to
establishing effective dietary guidance that resonates with consumers. The aims of this
thesis were to evaluate: (1) serving size (SS) guidance schemes and their effectiveness;
(2) consumer estimations of portion size (PS) and energy density (ED), and anticipated
consumption guilt (ACG) for perceived 'healthier' vs. 'standard' foods; (3) consumer
opinions, perceptions of efficacy and the precision of a range of portion size estimation
aids (PSEA); and (4) the nutritional quality (NQ) and energy cost (EC) of own brand
(OB) vs. market brand (MB) foods. A literature review and three studies were
undertaken. In the first study, three pairs of isoenergy dense (kJIlOOg) foods -
'healthier' vs. 'standard' cereals, drinks and coleslaws - were selected. For each food,
subjects (n186) served an appropriate PS for themselves, estimated its ED and rated
their ACG. Subjects estimated larger portions of the ' healthier' (reduced fat) 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 . In the second study, a range of PSEA were evaluated using
both qualitative (six focus groups, each of three to eight participants) and quantitative
(practical use of PSEA; n 120) methods. Consumers indicated preference for "visual"
PSEA (reference objects, household measures e.g. cup, and indicators on food
packaging) for amorphous cereal products such as rice. In the third study, a basket of
commonly consumed foods (n 32) were compared in terms of NQ and EC at two time
points using two methods of nutritional profiling. Despite OB foods being significantly
lower in EC (£/MJ) than the MB, there were no differences in the overall NQ. In
conclusion, consumer understanding of PS, perceptions of ED and preferences for
PSEA should be considered in future dietary guidance. OB foods should be promoted as
nutritionally comparable to their more expensive MB counterparts where appropriate.
|