Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Appetite. 2015 Dec 23;98:95–100. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.12.023

Table 3.

Frequency of selection of relative portion sizes from each set of portions offered to 50 subjects

Relative size selected

Number of meals (% of meals in the set)
Set of portion sizes Smallest Medium Largest Total
Set 1 28 (56%) 14 (28%) 8 (16%) 50 (100%)
Set 2 31 (62%) 16 (32%) 3 (6%) 50 (100%)
Set 3 29 (58%) 10 (20%) 11 (22%) 50 (100%)
Total 88 (59%) 40 (27%) 22 (15%) 150 (100%)

Note: The set of portions offered had no significant effect on the distribution of the relative sizes chosen, according to ordinal logistic regression analysis (P = 0.33). Since there was no significant effect of sex on the distribution (P = 0.20), the numbers are presented for women and men combined.