Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Appetite. 2018 Jul 7;129:162–170. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.07.009

Table 3:

Individual and total food intake (g) and meal energy intake (kcal) at test meals by 53 women according to subject group1

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
1

Values are (raw) mean ± SEM.

2

Significance of the linear and quadratic coefficients of intake trajectory as portions were increased, as assessed by a random coefficients model.

3

Group difference in the linear and quadratic coefficients of the intake trajectory as portions were increased, as assessed by a random coefficients model.

4

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.