Table 3:
Food item | Control Group (n = 26) |
To-Go Group (n=27) |
Portion size effect2 (P-value) | Group influence on portion size effect (P-value)3 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Portion size served |
Portion size served |
||||||||||
100% | 125% | 150% | 175% | 100% | 125% | 150% | 175% | Linear coefficient | Quadratic coefficient | ||
Chicken with sauce | 107.4±6.7 | 115.1±8.5 | 131.2±9.2 | 122.4±10.6 | 101.6±6.4 | 99.8±7.2 | 109.2±6.3 | 115.2±6.6 | 0.07 | 0.05 | <0.044 |
Orzo pasta with butter | 91.4±7.2 | 109.4±8.5 | 117.4±9.5 | 121.4±11.2 | 97.5±6.2 | 93.2±6.0 | 92.5±7.5 | 103.3±8.0 | 0.31 | 0.94 | <0.034 |
Broccoli | 93.7±5.4 | 109.2±6.6 | 126.0±8.6 | 113.4±9.6 | 83.2±6.4 | 98.3±7.9 | 105.6±9.0 | 105.9±9.1 | <0.0001 | 0.001 | >0.22 |
Garlic bread | 57.6±4.0 | 62.7±5.2 | 75.3±5.8 | 72.2±6.2 | 59.7±4.2 | 58.2±4.8 | 71.3±5.9 | 66.7±6.4 | 0.0005 | 0.02 | >0.38 |
Grapes | 67.1±3.7 | 75.5±5.5 | 85.3±6.5 | 93.3±8.2 | 53.2±6.2 | 70.3±6.9 | 70.8±9.1 | 81.8±10.1 | 0.005 | 0.34 | >0.91 |
Total meal food intake | 417.0±16.1 | 471.9±19.0 | 535.1±21.7 | 522.7±29.3 | 395.3±17.7 | 419.8±18.9 | 449.3±17.1 | 473.0±20.5 | <0.0001 | 0.9 | <0.0174 |
Total meal energy intake (kcal) | 602.8±26.6 | 679.0±31.9 | 776.4±37.1 | 759.4±48.3 | 599.4±26.5 | 606.7±26.8 | 671.0±28.9 | 686.0±34.2 | <0.0001 | 0.82 | <0.0254 |
Values are (raw) mean ± SEM.
Significance of the linear and quadratic coefficients of intake trajectory as portions were increased, as assessed by a random coefficients model.
Group difference in the linear and quadratic coefficients of the intake trajectory as portions were increased, as assessed by a random coefficients model.
Significant group difference in both the linear and quadratic coefficients of the portion size effect: linear increase followed by deceleration in intake for the Control Group compared to non-significant change in intake for the To-Go Group.