Table 5.
Results of studies reporting changes in portion size intake (in consumed amounts or energy).
| Authors, Country | Study Design | Tool | Population | Main Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahn et al. 2010 [53] Korea |
Randomized crossover trial 3 months (at home) |
|
Adult women with type 2 diabetes (with and without overweight/obesity) (n = 42) |
The small bowl reduced total energy consumed and carbohydrate intake (in addition to body weight and blood glucose levels) |
| Ayaz et al. 2016 [54] Turkey |
Randomized crossover trial 3 days (buffet) |
|
Normal weight Women (n = 37) |
No effect of plate size on energy intake or on specific macronutrient intake |
| DiSantis et al. 2013 [50] USA |
Randomized crossover trial 8 days (school lunch) |
Dishware sizes:
|
4–5 y old children (n = 42) |
Child-size dishware reduced total energy consumed when compared to adult-size dishware. Adult-size dishware induced an increase of 0.43 kcal consumed for each additional kcal served |
| Fisher et al. 2013 [46] USA |
2 × 2 Randomized crossover trial | Serving spoon sizes: tablespoon and teaspoon Amount of entrée available: 275g and 550g |
4–6 y old children (n = 60) |
No effect of spoon size was reported on food intake. Larger served PS tended to induce higher consumption. |
| Koh and Pliner, 2009 (Study 4) [52] Canada |
Mixed-methods randomized controlled trial (crossover and parallel) 1 day |
|
Women, with and without overweight (n = 57) | The small plate (but not the large) induced participants to self-serve and eat less in the sharing condition only. Eating with friends led to self-serving more food than eating with strangers (effect of acquaintance). |
| Kosite et al. 2019 [71] UK |
Parallel randomized controlled trial 1 day |
|
Adults with overweight and obesity (n = 67 per group) |
No effect of plate size on total energy intake or eating parameters i.e. eating rate, bite size). Participants using the large plate left more food (average 8.6 g (95% CI [1.1, 16.0]) on the plate. |
| Mishra et al. 2012 [69] USA |
Parallel trials (field study and controlled lab setting) 1 d |
|
Adults (sample not reported) Lab study (n = 81) |
Smaller fork increased food consumption compared to the large size fork when used in restaurant setting. Opposite pattern was found in the lab where pasta consumption was decreased with the small fork. |
| Pilling et al. 2020 [44] UK |
Mega-analysis of 8 studies across 5 establishments |
Wine glasses size (bars)
Wine glasses size (restaurants)
|
Adults | No impact of glass size on wine sales seen in bars. For restaurants, only the 370 mL glass (and close volumes, i.e., 350 mL) increased wine sales when compared with the standard size glass (300 mL) |
| Robinson et al. 2016 [27] UK |
Parallel randomized controlled trial 1 day |
|
Adults with normal weight and overweight n = 31 Small bowl n = 30 Large bowl |
No effect size of bowl size was reported on food consumption |
| Rolls et al. 2007 (Study 1) [72] USA |
Randomized crossover trial 3 days |
|
Adults with overweight and obesity (n = 45) | No effect of plate size on meal energy intake |
| Rolls et al. 2007 (Study 2) [72] |
Randomized crossover trial 2 days |
|
Adults with overweight and obesity (n = 30) |
No effect of plate or spoon size on meal energy intake |
| Rolls et al. 2007 (Study 3) [72] |
Randomized crossover trial 3 days |
|
Adults with overweight and obesity (n = 44) | No effect of plate size on meal energy intake |
| Rolls et al. 2017 [12] USA |
Three-arm randomized controlled trial 12 months |
1st arm: Tool set and educational guidelines (Digital food scale; measuring cups and spoons; placemat illustrating appropriate proportions of meal components; portion size card with common objects) as part of the Portion-Control Strategies Trial. 2nd arm: Preportioned food group 3rd arm: Standard advice (control) |
Adults with overweight and obesity (n = 186; 62 per arm) | Only pre-portioned food group reduced food intake (by 11%). All groups showed a significant decrease on food energy density, but no difference was detected across groups after 3 months. |
| Shah et al. 2011 [55] USA |
Parallel randomized controlled trial 2 days |
|
Women with and without overweight and obesity (n = 20) |
Plate size did not impact on the amount of energy consumed, the taste of the menu, satiety or subjective appetite, regardless of body weight |
| Shimpo and Akamatsu 2018 [45] Japan |
Randomized crossover trial 4 days |
Bowl Size
Rice Portion Size
|
Men with normal weight and overweight (n = 21) | Rice portion size had a significant effect on intake whereas bowl size did not affect rice consumption. Exposure to large portion size promoted rice consumption |
| Vakili et al. 2019 [63] Iran |
Parallel randomized controlled trial 2 days |
Ceramic/glass tableware:
|
Clerical staff of the university with overweight and obesity (n = 40) | The small tableware reduced rice consumption, but no effect was found on total energy intake |
| Van Kleef et al. 2012 [60] USA |
Parallel randomized trial 1 day |
|
Normal weight undergraduate students Large Bowl (n = 37) Medium Bowl (n = 30) |
Large-size serving bowls led to consume 71% more pasta vs. medium bowls (reduction of 42% with medium bowls) |
| Venema et al. 2020 [70] Netherlands |
Mixed-methods randomized trial (Crossover for spoon size and parallel for habit context condition) 2 days |
|
Adults (n = 123) | Participants consumed less sugar added to the tea (27%) when they used the small-size spoon. This effect was attenuated in people with a stronger habit of adding a fixed amount of sugar to tea |
| Wansink and Van Ittersum 2013 (Study 2) [62] USA |
Observational Study 1 day (Chinese restaurant-buffet) |
|
Adults with overweight (n = 43) | Eating with a small plate reduced total energy intake by 31% and leftovers by 38%. The effect could be partly influenced by baseline hunger levels |
| Wansink et al. 2006 [61] USA |
Parallel semi-randomized trial 1 day (professional celebration) |
|
Adults (Nutrition Experts) (n = 85) |
Small bowl reduced self-served ice cream PSs by 24%. The small ice-cream scoop reduced (a) the amount of self-served ice cream by 12% regardless of bowl size (effect most notable with the small bowl); and (b) the amount loaded onto each scoop (2.2 vs. 3 oz). Although the small spoon increased the number of tablespoons, it did not increase consumption |
| Wansink et al. 2014 (Study 1) [49] USA |
Parallel randomized controlled trial 1 day (schools) |
|
Pre-school age children with obesity (n = 69) | Children requested and ate less cereal with small bowl (served by adults) compared to large bowl (reduction of 47%) |
| Wanskink et al. 2014 (Estudio 2) [49] | Randomized crossover trial 2 days (summer camp) |
|
6–12 y old children (Low-income families) (n = 18) | The small bowl reduced the amount self-selected and consumed (served by adults) by 41% compared to the large bowl |
| Yip et al. 2013 [56] New Zealand |
Randomized crossover trial 2 days |
|
Women with overweight and obesity (n = 20) | Plate size did not impact energy or macronutrient consumption at mealtime (buffet with attractive foods). |
Abbreviations: CHO, carbohydrate; FV, fruit and vegetables; PRO, protein; PS, portion size. The term calibrated is used to describe a portion control utensil with either printed indicators or segments separated with raised edges (3D). The term serving size is used as a proxy for self-selected portion size, as stated in the original publication.