ライフサイエンスコーパス: portion size

1 the size of eating events (i.e., determined portion size).

2 t of a circular economy requiring very small portion size.

3 consumed coffee, with 1 cup as the standard portion size.

4 ected to evaluate familial susceptibility to portion size.

5 energy, nutrient, and food group intakes or portion sizes.

6 ules to learn how to self-select appropriate portion sizes.

7 g low-calorie or low-fat diets, and limiting portion sizes.

8 an fat reduction coupled with restriction of portion sizes.

9 in prevention among the females was to limit portion sizes (-1.9 kg; 95% CI: -2.6, -1.1) combined wit

10 onfigurations provided accurate estimates of portion sizes (+/-10%-15%, coefficient of variation [CV]

11 oss the meals, the vegetable was served in 3 portion sizes (180, 270, or 360 g) and 2 energy densitie

12 ubjects design was used to manipulate entree portion size (250 compared with 500 g) and ED (1.3 compa

13 als, a first course of raw carrots varied in portion size (30, 60, or 90 g), and no first course was

14 /g), each of which was served in 3 different portion sizes (500, 700, or 900 g).

15 decreased meal energy intake independent of portion size (55 +/- 9 kcal; P < 0.0001).

16 and weight among adolescents should address portion sizes, adolescent maturation, and dieting behavi

17 n moderation, with special attention to food portion size and content of non-complex carbohydrates wh

18 These findings provide new evidence that portion size and ED act additively to promote energy int

19 Compared with the reference portion size and ED condition, children consumed 76% mor

20 We aimed to test the effects of portion size and ED on children's food and energy intake

21 When the portion size and energy density (in kcal/g) of a food ar

22 2 daily menus, but all foods were varied in portion size and energy density between a standard level

23 Reductions in both portion size and energy density can help to moderate ene

24 We aimed to determine how the effects of portion size and energy density combine to influence ene

25 Reductions in portion size and energy density independently decreased

26 Increases in portion size and energy density led to independent and a

27 ts on food and energy intakes of varying the portion size and energy density of a vegetable that was

28 Reducing the portion size and energy density of all foods led to sign

29 Increases in both the portion size and energy density of food have both been s

30 e moderated the positive association between portion size and entree intake (P < 0.01); overweight ch

31 ish a causal relationship between increasing portion size and obesity, data indicate that portion siz

32 , respectively, and analyses of questions on portion size and supplement use showed few differences.

33 (p < or = 0.001) in the DHQ for questions on portion size and use of vitamin/mineral supplements, res

34 elationships of food insecurity with virtual portion sizes and BMI.

35 Portion sizes and energy intake for specific food types

36 stically to an obesogenic one with increased portion sizes and limited access to healthy food choices

37 Portion sizes and nutrient estimates were compared with

38 an increase in BMI, resting heart rate, food portion size, and a decrease in the number of eating occ

39 We found a significant interaction of phase, portion size, and body mass index on the pattern of oper

40 bility, the opportunity to order extra-large portion sizes, and general weight gain.

41 While general consensus holds that food portion sizes are increasing, no empirical data have doc

42 take of all food sources of soy, considering portion size as well as other dietary and nondietary fac

43 inal product is compromised requiring double portion sizes, as compared to 2006, in order to satisfy

44 t of absorbable monosaccharides of foods for portion size calculation.

45 individuals potentially affected by a 16-oz portion-size cap on SSBs and the potential effect on cal

46 d collapsing strategies for small age-gender-portion size cells, 4) excluded outliers in a regression

47 e reinforcing value with the 0- and 100-kcal portion-size conditions.

48 For each survey year, average portion size consumed from specific food items (salty sn

49 Control of portion size, consumption of a diet low in fat and energ

50 e specific eating context to affect pre-meal portion size decisions, suggesting that a fundamental sh

51 , sex, BMI, and responsiveness to increasing portion size (defined as individual slope estimates rela

52 We also investigated whether the response to portion size depended on which person, the subject or th

53 Portion sizes differed significantly between HHANES and

54 portion size and obesity, data indicate that portion size does influence energy intake.

55 Increasing portion size, eating away from home, and consuming a var

56 nd candidate eating behavior moderators were portion size, eating rate, and energy intake during lunc

57 We tested whether the portion size effect is sustained in preschool children a

58 eschool children, it is unknown whether this portion size effect persists over a longer period or whe

59 Children who were more responsive to portion-size effects were likely to self-serve and eat l

60 s such as genetics, protein and weight loss, portion size, energy density, and behavior; the need for

61 es between energy, nutrient, food group, and portion size estimates based on true and reported intake

62 t the human-AI interface included inaccurate portion-size estimates, obscured food visibility in imag

63 ddler energy and nutrient intakes because of portion size estimation errors.

64 was ~21%, with no clear pattern apparent on portion-size estimation bias for foods.

65 ces of errors were identified for memory and portion-size estimation bias.

66 ent ways: Dietary counseling and training on portion-size estimation could improve self-report accura

67 Training in portion-size estimation is known to improve the accuracy

68 ained), testing the hypotheses that a 45-min portion-size estimation training session would reduce ch

69 e intensive and lack accuracy with regard to portion-size estimation.

70 ends on clear images for food visibility and portion-size fidelity.

71 g the number and types of food-related cues, portion sizes, food availability, and food advertising.

72 ty factors, distribution of dietary intakes, portion sizes, food prices, greenhouse gas emission, aci

73 ood composition data, recipe information and portion sizes for ethnic foods are commonly reported pro

74 assessed usual frequency of consumption and portion sizes for the previous 12 months.

75 Entree portion size has been shown to influence energy intake a

76 nergy density (ED) in children's response to portion size, however, is unknown.

77 was to use food composition data to validate portion sizes, identify important sources of nutrients a

78 nded to be overweight and more responsive to portion size (ie, greater increases in entree intake as

79 intake, and secondary outcome measures were portion size (in grams), food groups, and other nutrient

80 nsumed a more-energy-dense (kcal/g) lunch as portion size increased (P < 0.0001).

81 Increasing portion size increased children's entree intake (P < 0.0

82 greater increases in entree intake as plated portion size increased).

83 Between 1977 and 1996, food portion sizes increased both inside and outside the home

84 generally tend to eat proportionally more as portion size increases.

85 tly associated with selecting larger virtual portion sizes (indirect effect = 6.82 kilocalories, 95%

86 Portion size influences children's energy intakes at mea

87 Incorporation of portion size information was unhelpful.

88 Portion size is a modifiable determinant of energy intak

89 One strategy to address the effect of portion size is decreasing the energy density (kilojoule

90 A policy to cap portion size is likely to result in a modest reduction i

91 We measured trends in portion sizes (kcal, g, and mL) of selected foods [sugar

92 A 25% decrease in portion size led to a 10% decrease in energy intake (231

93 gstone and Pourshahidi examine the impact of portion size manipulations on energy intake and weight m

94 dding foods, culturally specific recipes and portion sizes must be considered.

95 s with respect to Os concentration at a test portion size of 0.2 g.

96 The portion size of 3 entrees (lunch, dinner, and breakfast)

97 The energy density and the portion size of a food act independently to affect energ

98 Increasing the portion size of a vegetable served as a first course can

99 Increasing the portion size of all foods and milk by 50% increased dail

100 y recently proposed a restriction to cap the portion size of all sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) sol

101 ble consumption at the meal increased as the portion size of carrots increased (P < 0.0001).

102 Tripling the portion size of carrots, however, did not lead to a furt

103 energy products; and (ii) size: reducing the portion size of higher energy products.

104 The energy intake and portion size of salty snacks increased by 93 kcal (from

105 Doubling the portion size of several entrees and a snack served durin

106 Doubling the portion size of the first course increased carrot consum

107 We investigated whether increasing the portion size of vegetables served at the start of a meal

108 We investigated trends in portion sizes of energy-dense foods and energy intakes a

109 Larger portion sizes of foods and beverages could affect overal

110 rticularly at fast-food restaurants), larger portion sizes of foods and beverages, increased consumpt

111 of obesity has coincided with an increase in portion sizes of foods both inside and outside the home,

112 Portion sizes of other foods and beverages did not vary

113 In all age groups, larger portion sizes of pizza coincided with higher energy inta

114 uals and to examine the effects of different portion sizes of snack foods on food reinforcement.

115 nergy intakes at meals coincided with larger portion sizes of SSBs, French fries, or salty snacks.

116 Adolescent boys consumed larger portion sizes of the selected foods and had higher energ

117 e the combined effects of energy density and portion size on energy intake in women.

118 However, data on the effects of portion size on food intake in adults are limited.

119 We examined the effect of portion size on intake during a single meal.

120 The effect of portion size on intake was not significantly influenced

121 ergy (kcal) foods, with and without reducing portion size, on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias

122 es of 6 lunches, which varied only in entree portion size, once per week.

123 Effects of portion size (P<0.0001) and ED (P<0.0001) on entree ener

124 have examined the brain response to the food portion size (PS).

125 Decreasing portion sizes reduced this further.

126 Previous portion size research in children has focused on the imp

127 An increase in the vegetable portion size resulted in greater vegetable consumption i

128 insecurity, satiety insecurity, and virtual portion size selection.

129 ved ad libitum and matched for palatability, portion size served, total energy served, non-beverage e

130 Portion size significantly influenced energy intake at l

131 eighted median nutrient density x age-gender-portion size-specific median gram weights (Block method)

132 dolescents are more susceptible to increased portion sizing than are younger children.

133 h our food frequency questionnaire specified portion size, the assessment of diet using any method wi

134 We used frequency and portion size to estimate grams of meat consumed per day

135 We recommend reformulating menus to reduce portion sizes, total calories, added fat, and sodium con

136 Portion sizes vary by food source, with the largest port

137 al energy intakes from other foods for which portion size was not altered did not differ across condi

138 The response to the variations in portion size was not influenced by who determined the am

139 experimental design with reference and large portion sizes was used in a study of 59 low-income Hispa

140 For PortionSize, energy and portion size were underestimated by 13.3% and 14.0%, res

141 Portion sizes were calculated for 140 food samples, base

142 Portion sizes were compared across HHANES and the Second

143 instructed to reduce fat intake and decrease portion sizes, with a targeted energy deficit of 500 to