Restaurant Portions Far Exceed Guidelines

buy microsoft office enterprise 2007

buy Microsoft Office 2003 Professional sp3buy autodesk autocad 2009

Restaurant Portions Far Exceed Guidelines

The percentage of overweight Americans has increased in recent decades. Despite many possible reasons for the increased average weight, the root cause is essentially a greater overall energy intake than energy expenditure. One reason for obesity prevalence in the U.S. may be larger food portion sizes, especially outside of the home, which encourage individuals to eat more calories.

Portion sizes for popular take-out restaurants, fast-food chains, and family restaurants were measured and compared to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards, and to portion sizes in the past. Information was obtained from portion weights, package labels, and manufacturer claims. Below are the findings of the study:

Excluding white bread, all commonly available food portions exceeded USDA and FDA standards. The largest excesses occurred in cookies (700% over USDA suggestion size); pasta (480%); and muffins (333%).

Portion sizes for foods such as hamburgers, French fries, and soda were two to five times larger in the study than they were in the past.

Portion sizes started to increase in the 1970s, grew dramatically in the 1980s, and currently continue to rise parallel to increases in average American body weight.

According to the authors, food manufacturers and restaurants may have little incentive to reduce portion sizes: Profits for these companies rise when product size is increased. Also, a recent survey showed that Americans ignore portion sizes when attempting to follow a healthy diet. The authors conclude that public-health and practitioner efforts to explain the relationships between portion size, caloric content, weight, and overall health may be the answer to solving this problem.

Young LR, Nestle M. The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the U.S. obesity epidemic. American Journal of Public Health 2002:92(2), pp. 246-249.