Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Accuracy in the estimation of food servings against the portions in food photographs

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 62, pages 674–681 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective:

In diet surveys, quantitative underestimation of food consumption may be due to intentional misreporting or false portion-size reporting. Perception of food photographs used as aids for assessing the actual amounts may have an effect. This study was carried out to assess the validity of food photographs.

Design:

A real-time test protocol where 52 presented food servings were compared against photographed portions with similar food items.

Subjects:

Volunteers from the Rehabilitation Company Petrea (in Turku) were recruited, 161 adults participated, and for 146 subjects, complete data were collected.

Methods:

The proportions of correct estimations and reporting errors, in weights and percentages, are presented by gender and food group. Food descriptors, portion-size options and subject characteristics were studied as potential determinants of accuracy in portion-size estimation.

Results:

The total proportion of exactly correct estimations was 51% in men and 49% in women. The overall reporting error was −10 g in men and +1 g in women for the 52 food servings. Underreporting was typical for bread, spread and cold cuts and dishes in both genders. Over-reporting was typical for cereals in both genders and for snacks, vegetables and fruit in women. The estimation error was associated with the portion-size options but not associated with the energy density of food items, education or body mass index.

Conclusions:

Food portions in photographs seem to be a useful aid for the quantification of most food items. However, validation studies are needed to test the applicability of photographs for estimating current portions and for searching better tools in dietary surveys.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anttolainen M, Javanainen J, Kaartinen P, Lahti-Koski M, Lauronen J, Männistö S et al. (1998). The 1997 dietary survey of Finnish adults. Publications of the National Public Health Institute B8/1998.

  • Ayala G (2006). An experimental evaluation of a group- versus computer-based intervention to improve food portion size estimation skills. Health Edu Res 21, 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers E, Godwin S, Vecchio F (2000). Cognitive strategies for reporting portion sizes using dietary recall procedures. J Am Diet Assoc 100, 891–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frobisher C, Maxwell S (2003). The estimation of food portion sizes: a comparison between using descriptions of portion sizes and a photographic food atlas by children and adults. J Hum Nutr and Diet 16, 181–188.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Geier A, Rozin P, Doros G (2006). Unit bias. A new heuristic that helps explain the effect of portion size on food intake. Psychol Sci 17, 521–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haapa E, Toponen T, Pietinen P, Räsänen L (1985). Picture booklet of food portions (Annoskuvakirja). National Public Health Institute: Helsinki.

  • Hernández T, Wilder L, Kuehn D, Rubitzky K, Moser-Veillon P, Godwin S et al. (2006). Portion size estimation and expectation of accuracy. J Food Comp and Anal 19 (Suppl), S14–S21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirvonen T, Männistö S, Roos E, Pietinen P (1997). Increasing prevalence of underreporting does not necessarily distort dietary surveys. Eur J Clin Nutr 51, 297–301.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Karvetti R-L, Knuts L-R (1985). Validity of the 24-hour dietary recall. J Am Diet Assoc 85, 1437–1442.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs-Smith S, Graubard B, Kahle L, Subar A, Cleveland L, Ballard-Barbash R (2000). Low energy reporters vs others: a comparison of reported food intakes. Eur J Clin Nutr 54, 281–287.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • KTL, National Public Health Institute (2005). The Finnish food composition database Fineli®, version 5.http://www.fineli.fi.

  • Lara J, Scott A, Lean M (2004). Intentional mis-reporting of food consumption and its relationship with body mass index and psychological scores in women. J Hum Nutr Diet 17, 209–218.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas F, Niravong M, Villeminot S, Kaaks R, Clavel-Chapelon F (1995). Estimation of food portions size using photographs: validity, strengths, weaknesses and recommendations. J Hum Nutr Diet 8, 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthiessen J, Fagt S, Biltoft-Jensen A, Beck A, Ovesen L (2003). Size makes a difference. Public Health Nutr 6, 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Männistö S, Ovaskainen M-L, Valsta L (2003). The national FINDIET 2002 study. Publications of the National Public Health Institute B3 (in Finnish, with English tables, figures and summaries).http://www.ktl.fi/julkaisut/julkaisusarja_b/2003b3..

  • Nelson M, Haraldsdottir J (1998). Food photographs: practical guidelines I. Design and analysis of studies to validate portion size estimates. Public Health Nutr 1, 219–230.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen S, Popkin B (2003). Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977–1998. J Am Med Assoc 289, 450–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noethling U, Hoffmann K, Bergmann M, Boeing H (2003). Portion size adds limited information on variance in food intake of participants in the EPIC-Potsdam study. J Nutr 133, 510–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekkarinen M (1970). Methodology in the collection of food consumption data. World Rev Nutr Diet 12, 145–171.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pietinen P, Hartman A, Haapa E, Räsänen L, Haapakoski J, Palmgren J et al. (1988). Reproducibility and validity of dietary assessment instruments. I. A self-administered food use questionnaire with a portion size picture booklet. Am J Epidemiol 128, 655–666.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slimani N, Deharveng G, Charrondière R, van Kappel A, Ocké M, Welch A et al. (1999). Structure of the standardized computerized 24-h diet recall interview used as reference method in the 22 centers participating in the EPIC project. Comp Meth Prog Biomed 58, 251–266.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith A (1991). Cognitive processes in long-term dietary recall. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital and Health Statistics Series 6, 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Finland (2006). Time use survey of families. www.stat.fi loaded 3.7.2006.

  • Turconi G, Guarcello M, Berzolari FG, Carolei A, Bazzano R, Roggi C (2005). An evaluation of a color food photography atlas as a tool for quantifying food portion size in epidemiological dietary survey. Eur J Clin Nutr 59, 923–931.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vartiainen E, Laatikainen T, Tapanainen H, Salomaa V, Jousilahti P, Sundvall J et al. (2003). Changes in cardiovascular risk factors in the National FINRISK Study between 1982 and 2002 (in Finnish: Suomalaisten sydän- ja verisuonitautien riskitekijät FINRISKI-tutkimuksessa 1982–2002). Suomen Lääkärilehti 58, 4099–4106.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was funded by budgetary money from KTL and the premises for the implementation of the study were provided by Rehabilitation Company Petrea.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Promotion and Prevention of Chronic Diseases, Nutrition Unit, National Public Health Institute (KTL), Helsinki, Finland

    M-L Ovaskainen, M Paturi, H Reinivuo, M-L Hannila, H Sinkko, J Lehtisalo & S Männistö

  2. Petrea Rehabilitation Company of Social Insurance Institute, Turku, Finland

    O Pynnönen-Polari

Authors
  1. M-L Ovaskainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M Paturi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H Reinivuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M-L Hannila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H Sinkko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J Lehtisalo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. O Pynnönen-Polari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. S Männistö
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M-L Ovaskainen.

Additional information

Contributors: All authors read and approved the manuscript. M-LH contributed to analysis of data; JL contributed to study design and collection of data; SM contributed to study design and in writing the article; M-LO contributed to study design, analysis of data and in writing the article; MP contributed to study design, collection of data and in writing the article; OPP contributed to collection of data and in writing the article; HR contributed to study design and in writing the article; HS contributed to analysis of data and in writing the article.

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on European Journal of Clinical Nutrition website (http://www.nature.com/ejcn)

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ovaskainen, ML., Paturi, M., Reinivuo, H. et al. Accuracy in the estimation of food servings against the portions in food photographs. Eur J Clin Nutr 62, 674–681 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602758

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602758

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links