OBJECTIVES This study examined the impact of perceived volume on satiety using normal rice bowl, diet rice bowl and small rice bowl. METHODS Thirty-six normal weight college female students participated in this study once a week for 3 weeks. Three hundred grams of fried rice in a normal rice bowl (1st week), 300 g of fried rice in a diet rice bowl (2nd week), and 300 g of fried rice in small rice bowl (3rd week) were served to the same participants over three consecutive weeks. After each lunch, the consumption volume of fried rice and the satiety rate were measured. RESULTS The consumption volume of fried rice was 248 g (414.5 kcal) with a normal rice bowl, 254 g (429.8 kcal) with a diet bowl, and 270 g (456.8 kcal) with a small rice bowl. Results showed that the subjects who were eating from the small rice bowl ate more fried rice (p < 0.05) than eating from the normal rice bowl and diet rice bowl. However, the satiety rate of fried rice in a diet rice bowl was significantly higher than that of normal rice bowl and small rice bowl (p < 0.05). The five point scale of perceived volume on fried rice served normal rice bowl, diet rice bowl and small rice bowl were 2.4, 4.0 and 2.1. CONCLUSIONS The visual cue plays a critical role in determining satiety and that perceived volume is perhaps more important than actual volume of consumed food in determining the level of fullness.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Effects of Food Consumption Monitoring Using Modified Rice Bowls on Food Intake, Satiety Rate, and Eating Rate Young-Suk Kim, Un-Jae Chang Journal of the Korean Dietetic Association.2015; 21(3): 194. CrossRef
Dietary Intervention Strategies to Reduce Energy Intake in Diabetes Mi Ra Rho The Journal of Korean Diabetes.2015; 16(1): 43. CrossRef
Using the diet rice bowl, this study examined whether visual cues related to portion size can influence intake volume without altering satiation. 24 subjects ate lunch and subsequent dinner meal in the lab once a week for 2 weeks. Each week at noon , they were served one of two different sizes of a rice (150 g of rice by the diet rice bowl and 210 g of rice by the general rice bowl) but recognized the same volume of which they could eat as much as they wanted of side dishes. Subjects returned to the lab five hours later for a standard dinner, which was consumed ad libitum. Results showed that the subjects who were eating from the diet rice bowl ate less rice (222.4 Kcal vs 306.5 Kcal, p < 0.001) and total energy intake (412.5 Kcal vs 499.2 Kcal, p < 0.001) than those eating from a general rice bowl at lunch. However, despite consuming 21% less energy intake at lunch, the rates of satiety were not significantly different after eating from the diet rice bowl and from the general diet bowl. And there were no significant difference in rice intake and energy intake at dinner between the diet rice bowl and the general rice bowl. These results suggest decreasing the portion size by the diet rice bowl with biased visual cues leads to decreased rice intake and energy intake without altering the satiation. This is, the decreased amount of rice in a diet rice bowl may implicitly suggest what might be construed as an appropriate amount to consume and eventually it suggests smaller consumption norms.