Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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:

Perceived ‘healthiness’ of foods can influence consumers’ estimations of energy density and appropriate portion size




To compare portion size (PS) estimates, perceived energy density (ED) and anticipated consumption guilt (ACG) for healthier vs standard foods.


Three pairs of isoenergy dense (kJ per 100 g) foods—healthier vs standard cereals, drinks and coleslaws—were selected. For each food, subjects served an appropriate PS for themselves and estimated its ED. Subjects also rated their ACG about eating the food on a scale of 1 (not at all guilty) to 5 (very guilty).


Subjects (n=186) estimated larger portions of the healthier coleslaw than that of the standard version, and perceived all healthier foods to be lower in ED than their standard alternatives, despite being isoenergy dense. Higher ACG was associated with the standard foods. Portion estimates were generally larger than recommendations and the ED of the foods was underestimated.


The larger portions selected for the ‘reduced fat’ food in association with lower perceived ED and ACG suggests that such nutrition claims could be promoting inappropriate PS selection and consumption behaviour. Consumer education on appropriate portions is warranted to correct such misconceptions.

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

Access options

Buy this article

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Ello-Martin JA, Ledikwe JH, Rolls BJ . The influence of food portion size and energy density on energy intake: implications for weight management. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 82: 236S–241S.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kelly MT, Wallace JMW, Robson PJ, Rennie KL, Welch RW, Hannon-Fletcher MP et al. Increased portion size leads to a sustained increase in energy intake over 4d in normal-weight and overweight men and women. Br J Nutr 2009; 102: 470–477.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. House of Commons Health Committee. Tackling Obesity in England 2001.

  4. The NHS Information Centre. Health Survey for England—2009: health and lifestyles 2010.

  5. Irish Universities Nutrition Alliance. National Adult Nutritional Survey—summary report on food and nutrient intakes, physical measurements, physical activity patterns and food choice motives 2011.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Young LR, Nestle M . The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the US obesity epidemic. Am J Public Health 2002; 92: 246–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Church S Trends in portion sizes in the UK—a preliminary review of published information 2008.

  9. Burger KS, Fisher JO, Johnson SL . Mechanisms behind the portion size effect: visibility and bite size. Obesity 2011; 19: 546–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rolls BJ, Roe LS, Meengs JS, Wall DE . Increasing the portion size of a sandwich increases energy intake. J Am Diet Assoc 2004; 104: 367–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Diliberti N, Bordi PL, Conklin MT, Roe LS, Rolls BJ . Increased portion size leads to increased energy intake in a restaurant meal. Obes Res 2004; 12: 562–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rolls BJ, Roe LS, Kral TVE, Meengs JS, Wall DE . Increasing the portion size of a packaged snack increases energy intake in men and women. Appetite 2004; 42: 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Raynor HA, Wing RR . Package unit size and amount of food: do both influence intake? Obesity 2007; 15: 2311–2319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Flood JE, Roe LS, Rolls BJ . The effect of increased beverage portion size on energy intake at a meal. J Am Diet Assoc 2006; 106: 1984–1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jeffery RW, Rydell S, Dunn CL, Harnack LJ, Levine AS, Pentel PR et al. Effects of portion size on chronic energy intake. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2007; 4: 27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Burger KS, Kern M, Coleman KJ . Characteristics of self-selected portion size in young adults. J Am Diet Assoc 2007; 107: 611–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Berg C, Lappas G, Wolk A, Strandhagen E, Toren K, Rosengren A et al. Eating patterns and portion size associated with obesity in a Swedish population. Appetite 2009; 52: 21–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kelly MT, Rennie KL, Wallace JMW, Robson PJ, Welch RW, Hannon-Fletcher MP et al. Associations between the portion sizes of food groups consumed and measures of adiposity in the British National Diet and Nutrition Survey. Br J Nutr 2009; 101: 1413–1420.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kral T, Roe L, Rolls B . Combined effects of energy density and portion size on energy intake in women. Am J Clin Nutr 2004; 79: 962–968.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. National Institutes of Health. Lowering blood cholesterol to prevent heart disease 1984.

  21. World Health Organisation. Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health 2004.

  22. Wansink B, Chandon P . Can "low-fat" nutrition labels lead to obesity? J Market Res 2006; 43: 605–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chernev A, Gal D . Categorization effects in value judgments: averaging bias in evaluating combinations of vices and virtues. J Market Res 2010; 47: 738–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Eves A, Gibson S, Kilcast D, Rose D . Influence of nutrition information on the attitudes and knowledge of dieters. Nutri Food Sci 1994; 94: 17–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mullie P, Godderis L, Clarys P . Determinants and nutritional implications associated with low-fat food consumption. Appetite 2012; 58: 34–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chan C, Patch C, Williams P . Australian consumers are sceptical about but influenced by claims about fat on food labels. Eur J Clin Nutr 2005; 59: 148–151.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kelly M, Wallace J, Robson P, Rennie K, Welch R, Livingstone B . The influence of cognitive cues on food portion size consumption. Obesity 2008; 16: S278–S278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Flynn MAT, O’Brien CM, Faulkner G, Flynn CA, Gajownik M, Burke SJ . Revision of food-based dietary guidelines for Ireland, phase 1: evaluation of Ireland’s food guide. Public Health Nutr 2012; 15: 518–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Britten P, Haven J, Davis C . Consumer research for development of educational messages for the MyPyramid food guidance system. J Nutr Educ Behav 2006; 38: S108–S123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schwartz J, Byrd-Bredbenner C . Portion distortion: typical portion sizes selected by young adults. J Am Diet Assoc 2006; 106: 1412–1418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Institute of Grocery Distribution. Portion size: understanding the consumer perspective 2009.

  32. Brogden N, Almiron-Roig E . Estimated portion sizes of snacks and beverages differ from reference amounts and are affected by appetite status in non-obese men. Public Health Nutr 2011; 14: 1743–1751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Institute of Grocery Distribution. Portion size communication in therapeutic practice: a survey of dietitians and nutritionists 2009.

  34. Brindal E, Wilson C, Mohr P, Wittert G . Perceptions of portion size and energy content: implications for strategies to affect behaviour change. Public Health Nutr 2012; 15: 246–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Speakman J, Walker H, Walker L, Jackson D . Associations between BMI, social strata and the estimated energy content of foods. Int J Obes 2005; 29: 1281–1288.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. van Strien T, Friijters JER, Bergers GPA, Defares PB . The Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ) for assessment of restrained, emotional, and external eating behaviour. Int J Eat Disord 1986; 5: 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hill AJ, Blundell JE . Nutrients and behaviour: research strategies for the investigation of taste characteristics, food preferences, hunger sensations and eating patterns in man. J Psychiatr Res 1983; 17: 203–212.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Food Standard’s Agency (2002), . Food Portion Sizes, 3rd edn, London, UK.

  39. Blake A, Guthrie H, Smiciklaswright H . Accuracy of food portion estimation by overweight and normal-weight subjects. J Am Diet Assoc 1989; 89: 962–964.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Geyskens K, Pandelaere M, Dewitte S, Warlop L . The backdoor to overconsumption: the effect of associating "low-fat" food with health references. J Public Policy Mark 2007; 26: 118–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Okada E . Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. J Market Res 2005; 42: 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Aydinoglu NZ, Krishna A . Guiltless gluttony: the asymmetric effect of size labels on size perceptions and consumption. J Consum Res 2011; 37: 1095–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Chandon P, Wansink B . The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health claims: lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. J Consum Res 2007; 34: 301–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Contento I, Zybert P, Williams S . Relationship of cognitive restraint of eating and disinhibition to the quality of food choices of Latina women and their young children. Prev Med 2005; 40: 326–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Dohm FA, Cachelin FM, Striegel-Moore RH . Factors that influence food amount ratings by white, hispanic, and Asian samples. Obes Res 2005; 13: 1061–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. safefood. A review of the milk supply chain. 2008; Available from (accessed 23 November 2012).

  47. Rolls BJ, Morris EL, Roe LS . Portion size of food affects energy intake in normal-weight and overweight men and women. Am J Clin Nutr 2002; 76: 1207–1213.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Chernev A . The Dieter’s paradox. J Consum Psychol 2011; 21: 178–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank Miss Liona Gormley, Miss Aisling Cowan, Miss Tara Hamilton and Miss Cheryl Conway for helping with data collection. GPF was involved in the recruitment, data collection, analysis and write-up of the paper; MBEL, JMWW and TAMcC designed the study protocol; LKP, MAK, TAMcC and MBEL provided guidance on analysis and commented on drafts of the manuscript. PhD sponsorship was obtained from the Department for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland. This material is based on works supported by safefood, the Food Safety Promotion Board, under Grant number 07-2010.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to M B E Livingstone.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

We dedicate this article to the memory of our colleague Professor Julie Wallace (7 April 1971–7 February 2012).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Faulkner, G., Pourshahidi, L., Wallace, J. et al. Perceived ‘healthiness’ of foods can influence consumers’ estimations of energy density and appropriate portion size. Int J Obes 38, 106–112 (2014).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


This article is cited by


Quick links