Effect of breakfast cereal type on portion size and nutritional implications

2Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: The present study aimed to assess the effect of different types of breakfast cereal (BC) on portion size and the nutritional implications of potential under or overserving. Design: A cross-sectional analysis was performed using one BC from the seven established BC manufacturing methods (flaking (F), gun puffed (GP), oven puffed (OP), extruded gun puffed (EGP), shredded wholegrain (SW), biscuit formed (BF) and granola). Participants were asked to pour cereal as if they were serving themselves (freepour). Difference between the freepour and recommended serving size (RSS) was calculated (DFR). The Friedman test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test was used to test for a significant differences between cereal categories. Setting: City of Chester, North West of the UK. Participants: Adults (n 169; n 110 female, 32 (sd 18) years). Results: Freepour values were greater than RSS for all categories of BC. Median values for denser cereals such as SW, granola and oats were significantly (P < 0·001) greater than all other categories with granola having the highest median freepour value of 95 g. Median (and range of) DFR weight values for granola were significantly higher than other BC (50·0 g (-24·0 to 267·0 g), P < 0·001). BC with the lowest median DFR were F1 (7·0 g (-20 to 63·0 g)), GP (6·0 g (-26·0 to 69·0 g)), EGP (6·0 g (-26·0 to 56·0 g)), OP (5·0 g (-27·0 to 53·0 g)) and BF (0·0 g (-28·2 to 56·4 g)). Conclusions: The degree of overserving may be related to the type of BC with denser cereals more readily overserved. Encouraging manufacturers to reformulate cereals and improving their nutritional properties may have benefit in reducing excess energy intake.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lewis, I. M., Boote, L., & Butler, T. (2021). Effect of breakfast cereal type on portion size and nutritional implications. Public Health Nutrition, 24(11), 3276–3285. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021000744

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free