Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T10:26:51.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2007

M. Nelson ,
M. Atkinson  and
S. Darbyshire
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

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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.

Keywords

Food photographyDietary surveyEpidemiology
Type
The perception of portion sizes
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 72 , Issue 5 , November 1994 , pp. 649 - 663
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1994

References

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, 41–50.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, 323–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 407–414.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, 1440–1444.CrossRefGoogle 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, 616–628.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, 655–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 667–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutishauser, I. H. E. (1982). Food models, photographs or household measures? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of Australia 7, 144–145.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, 572–581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 906–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar