Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-54cdcc668b-tx8dt Total loading time: 0.261 Render date: 2021-03-08T17:18:00.458Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Food Photography I: the perception of food portion size from photographs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2007

M. Nelson
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition and dietetics, Kings's college London, Campden Hill Road, London W8 7AH
M. Atkinson
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition and dietetics, Kings's college London, Campden Hill Road, London W8 7AH
S. Darbyshire
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition and dietetics, Kings's college London, Campden Hill Road, London W8 7AH
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fifty-one male and female volunteers aged 18–90 years from a wide variety of social and occupational backgrounds completed 7284 assessments of portion size in relation to food photographs. Subjects were shown six portion sizes (two small, two medium and two large) for each of six foods, and asked to compare the amount on the plate in front of them to (a) a series of eight photographs showing weights of portions from the 5th to the 95th centile of portion size (British Adult Dietary Survey), or (b) a single photograph of the average (median) portion size. Photographs were prepared either in colour or in black and white, and in two different sizes. The order of presentation of foods; use of black and white or colour; the size of photographs; and presentation of eight or average photographs were each randomized independently. On average, the mean differences between the portion size presented and the estimate of portion size using the photographs varied from -8 to + 6g (-4 to + 5%) for the series of eight photographs, and from -34 to −1g (-23 to + 9%) for the single average photograph. Large portion sizes tended to be underestimated more than medium or small portion sizes, especially when using the average photograph (from -79 to -14g, -37 to -13%). Being female, 65 years and over, or retired, or seeing photographs in colour, were all associated with small but statistically significant overestimations of portion size. Having a body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 was associated with an 8% underestimate of portion size. We conclude that use of a series of eight photographs is associated with relatively small errors in portion size perception, whereas use of an average photograph is consistently associated with substantial underestimation across a variety of foods.

Type
The perception of portion sizes
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1994

References

Byers, T., Marshall, J., Fiedler, R., Zielenzny, M. & Graham, S. (1985). Assessing nutrient intake with an abbreviated dietary interview. American Journal of Epidemiology 122, 4150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chu, S. Y., Kolonel, L. N., Hankin, J. H. & Lee, J. (1984). A comparison of frequency and quantitative dietary methods for epidemiologic studies of diet and disease. American Journal of Epidemiology 119, 323333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edington, J., Thorogood, M., Geekie, M., Ball, M. & Mann, J. (1989). Assessment of nutritional intake using dietary records with estimated weights. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 2, 407414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, J., Foster, K., Tyler, M. & Wiseman, M. (1990). The Dietary and Nutrifional Survey of British Adults. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Guthrie, H. A. (1984). Selection and quantification of typical food portions by young adults. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 12, 14401444.Google Scholar
Hankin, J. H., Wilkins, L. R., Kolonel, L. N. & Yoshizawa, C. N. (1991). Validation of a quantitative diet history method in Hawaii. American Journal of Epidemiology 133, 616628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pietinen, P., Hartman, A. M., Haapa, E., Rasanen, L., Haapakoski, J., Palmgren, J., Albanes, D., Virtamo, J. & Huttunen, J. K. (1988 a). Reproducibility and validity of dietary assessment instruments. I. A self-administered food use questionnaire with a portion size picture booklet. American Journal of Epidemiology 128, 655666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pietinen, P., Hartman, A. M., Haapa, E., Rasanen, L., Haapakoski, J., Palmgren, J., Albanes, D., Virtamo, J. & Huttunen, J. K. (1988 b). Reproducibility and validity of dietary assessment instruments. 11. A qualitative food frequency questionnaire. American Journal of Epidemiology 128, 667675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutishauser, I. H. E. (1982). Food models, photographs or household measures? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of Australia 7, 144145.Google Scholar
Samet, J. M., Humble, C. G., Skipper, B. E. (1984). Alternatives in the collection and analysis of food frequency interview data. American Journal of Epidemiology 120, 572581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tjonneland, A., Overvad, K., Haraldsdottir, J., Bang, S., Ewertz, M. & Jenson, O. M. (1991). Validation of a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire developed in Denmark. International Journal of Epidemiology 20, 906912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 1021 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 8th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Food Photography I: the perception of food portion size from photographs
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Food Photography I: the perception of food portion size from photographs
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Food Photography I: the perception of food portion size from photographs
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *