Portion control tableware differentially impacts eating behaviour in women with and without overweight.

Portion control tableware has been described as a potentially effective approach for weight management, however the mechanisms by which these tools work remain unknown. We explored the processes by which a portion control (calibrated) plate with visual stimuli for starch, protein and vegetable amounts modulates food intake, satiety and meal eating behaviour. Sixty-five women (34 with overweight/obesity) participated in a counterbalanced cross-over trial in the laboratory, where they self-served and ate a hot meal including rice, meatballs and vegetables, once with a calibrated plate and once with a conventional (control) plate. A sub-sample of 31 women provided blood samples to measure the cephalic phase response to the meal. Effects of plate type were tested through linear mixed-effect models. Meal portion sizes (mean ± SD) were smaller for the calibrated compared with the control plate (served: 296 ± 69 vs 317 ± 78 g; consumed: 287 ± 71 vs 309 ± 79 g respectively), especially consumed rice (69 ± 24 vs 88 ± 30 g) (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). The calibrated plate significantly reduced bite size (3.4 ± 1.0 vs 3.7 ± 1.0 g; p < 0.01) in all women and eating rate (32.9 ± 9.5 vs 33.7 ± 9.2 g/min; p < 0.05), in lean women. Despite this, some women compensated for the reduced intake over the 8 h following the meal. Pancreatic polypeptide and ghrelin levels increased post-prandially with the calibrated plate but changes were not robust. Plate type had no influence on insulin, glucose levels, or memory for portion size. Meal size was reduced by a portion control plate with visual stimuli for appropriate amounts of starch, protein and vegetables, potentially because of the reduced self-served portion size and the resulting reduced bite size. Sustained effects may require the continued use of the plate for long-term impact.

Impact of Portion Control Tools on Portion Size Awareness, Choice and Intake: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Portion control utensils and reduced size tableware amongst other tools, have the potential to guide portion size intake but their effectiveness remains controversial. This review evaluated the breadth and effectiveness of existing portion control tools on learning/awareness of appropriate portion sizes (PS), PS choice, and PS consumption. Additional outcomes were energy intake and weight loss. Published records between 2006-2020 (n = 1241) were identified from PubMed and WoS, and 36 publications comparing the impact of portion control tools on awareness (n = 7 studies), selection/choice (n = 14), intake plus related measures (n = 21) and weight status (n = 9) were analyzed. Non-tableware tools included cooking utensils, educational aids and computerized applications. Tableware included mostly reduced-size and portion control/calibrated crockery/cutlery. Overall, 55% of studies reported a significant impact of using a tool (typically smaller bowl, fork or glass; or calibrated plate). A meta-analysis of 28 articles confirmed an overall effect of tool on food intake (d = -0.22; 95%CI: -0.38, -0.06; 21 comparisons), mostly driven by combinations of reduced-size bowls and spoons decreasing serving sizes (d = -0.48; 95%CI: -0.72, -0.24; 8 comparisons) and consumed amounts/energy (d = -0.22; 95%CI: -0.39, -0.05, 9 comparisons), but not by reduced-size plates (d = -0.03; 95%CI: -0.12, 0.06, 7 comparisons). Portion control tools marginally induced weight loss (d = -0.20; 95%CI: -0.37, -0.03; 9 comparisons), especially driven by calibrated tableware. No impact was detected on PS awareness; however, few studies quantified this outcome. Specific portion control tools may be helpful as potentially effective instruments for inclusion as part of weight loss interventions. Reduced size plates per se may not be as effective as previously suggested.