A comparison of development methods used to define portion sizes in food-based dietary guidelines around the world
IntroductionFood-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) are essential public health tools for delivering dietary recommendations, and generally include guidance on portion sizes. Despite existing guidelines on developing and implementing FBDGs, there is still no consensus on best practices for their formu...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2025-02-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Nutrition |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2025.1532926/full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1823857016311906304 |
|---|---|
| author | Fanny Salesse Fanny Salesse Alison L. Eldridge Tsz Ning Mak Eileen R. Gibney Eileen R. Gibney |
| author_facet | Fanny Salesse Fanny Salesse Alison L. Eldridge Tsz Ning Mak Eileen R. Gibney Eileen R. Gibney |
| author_sort | Fanny Salesse |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | IntroductionFood-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) are essential public health tools for delivering dietary recommendations, and generally include guidance on portion sizes. Despite existing guidelines on developing and implementing FBDGs, there is still no consensus on best practices for their formulation. This paper compares the methodologies used by public health organizations to create FBDGs and examines how both methodology and geographical location may influence recommended portion sizes.MethodsDocuments on FBDG development were obtained from the Food and Agriculture Organization online repository of FBDGs, either directly from consumer-facing FBDG or from corresponding scientific reports. Methodological details in FBDG development were extracted and categorized. Recommended portions in grams per day were extracted for 15 food categories to enable comparison across development methods and global regions.ResultsFBDGs from 96 countries were accessed and translated. Of these, n = 83 were based on consensus/review, n = 15 used data-based approaches, and n = 30 included other minor calculations. Thirty-nine FBDGs were derived from a combination of consensus/review and another method. Of the countries providing portion size information, only one did not report its methodological approach. Comparisons of median portions sizes of food groups across methodologies showed no significant differences. Analyses across regions revealed that portion recommendations were generally consistent, with significant differences found only for one food group, namely, Fish & shellfish, where portion size recommendations were significantly higher in Europe compared to those in Latin America and the Caribbean.DiscussionResults indicate little variation in the recommendations for portion size across development methods, and for most food groups, across global regions. These findings suggest there is potential to harmonize portion size derivation in FBDGs at regional or global levels. However, further research is needed to assess whether harmonized guidance can apply to other aspects of FBDGs. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-cc71647195aa4e33876a2b5cbd72fed8 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2296-861X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-02-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Nutrition |
| spelling | doaj-art-cc71647195aa4e33876a2b5cbd72fed82025-02-12T05:14:53ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Nutrition2296-861X2025-02-011210.3389/fnut.2025.15329261532926A comparison of development methods used to define portion sizes in food-based dietary guidelines around the worldFanny Salesse0Fanny Salesse1Alison L. Eldridge2Tsz Ning Mak3Eileen R. Gibney4Eileen R. Gibney5Institute of Food and Health, University College Dublin, Dublin, IrelandInsight Centre for Data Analytics, University College Dublin, Dublin, IrelandNestlé Institute of Health Sciences, Nestlé Research, Lausanne, SwitzerlandNestlé Institute of Health Sciences Singapore Hub, Nestlé Research, Singapore, SingaporeInstitute of Food and Health, University College Dublin, Dublin, IrelandInsight Centre for Data Analytics, University College Dublin, Dublin, IrelandIntroductionFood-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) are essential public health tools for delivering dietary recommendations, and generally include guidance on portion sizes. Despite existing guidelines on developing and implementing FBDGs, there is still no consensus on best practices for their formulation. This paper compares the methodologies used by public health organizations to create FBDGs and examines how both methodology and geographical location may influence recommended portion sizes.MethodsDocuments on FBDG development were obtained from the Food and Agriculture Organization online repository of FBDGs, either directly from consumer-facing FBDG or from corresponding scientific reports. Methodological details in FBDG development were extracted and categorized. Recommended portions in grams per day were extracted for 15 food categories to enable comparison across development methods and global regions.ResultsFBDGs from 96 countries were accessed and translated. Of these, n = 83 were based on consensus/review, n = 15 used data-based approaches, and n = 30 included other minor calculations. Thirty-nine FBDGs were derived from a combination of consensus/review and another method. Of the countries providing portion size information, only one did not report its methodological approach. Comparisons of median portions sizes of food groups across methodologies showed no significant differences. Analyses across regions revealed that portion recommendations were generally consistent, with significant differences found only for one food group, namely, Fish & shellfish, where portion size recommendations were significantly higher in Europe compared to those in Latin America and the Caribbean.DiscussionResults indicate little variation in the recommendations for portion size across development methods, and for most food groups, across global regions. These findings suggest there is potential to harmonize portion size derivation in FBDGs at regional or global levels. However, further research is needed to assess whether harmonized guidance can apply to other aspects of FBDGs.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2025.1532926/fullfood-based dietary guidelinesportion sizedietary recommendationslinear programmingdiet modelingdietary intake |
| spellingShingle | Fanny Salesse Fanny Salesse Alison L. Eldridge Tsz Ning Mak Eileen R. Gibney Eileen R. Gibney A comparison of development methods used to define portion sizes in food-based dietary guidelines around the world Frontiers in Nutrition food-based dietary guidelines portion size dietary recommendations linear programming diet modeling dietary intake |
| title | A comparison of development methods used to define portion sizes in food-based dietary guidelines around the world |
| title_full | A comparison of development methods used to define portion sizes in food-based dietary guidelines around the world |
| title_fullStr | A comparison of development methods used to define portion sizes in food-based dietary guidelines around the world |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of development methods used to define portion sizes in food-based dietary guidelines around the world |
| title_short | A comparison of development methods used to define portion sizes in food-based dietary guidelines around the world |
| title_sort | comparison of development methods used to define portion sizes in food based dietary guidelines around the world |
| topic | food-based dietary guidelines portion size dietary recommendations linear programming diet modeling dietary intake |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2025.1532926/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT fannysalesse acomparisonofdevelopmentmethodsusedtodefineportionsizesinfoodbaseddietaryguidelinesaroundtheworld AT fannysalesse acomparisonofdevelopmentmethodsusedtodefineportionsizesinfoodbaseddietaryguidelinesaroundtheworld AT alisonleldridge acomparisonofdevelopmentmethodsusedtodefineportionsizesinfoodbaseddietaryguidelinesaroundtheworld AT tszningmak acomparisonofdevelopmentmethodsusedtodefineportionsizesinfoodbaseddietaryguidelinesaroundtheworld AT eileenrgibney acomparisonofdevelopmentmethodsusedtodefineportionsizesinfoodbaseddietaryguidelinesaroundtheworld AT eileenrgibney acomparisonofdevelopmentmethodsusedtodefineportionsizesinfoodbaseddietaryguidelinesaroundtheworld AT fannysalesse comparisonofdevelopmentmethodsusedtodefineportionsizesinfoodbaseddietaryguidelinesaroundtheworld AT fannysalesse comparisonofdevelopmentmethodsusedtodefineportionsizesinfoodbaseddietaryguidelinesaroundtheworld AT alisonleldridge comparisonofdevelopmentmethodsusedtodefineportionsizesinfoodbaseddietaryguidelinesaroundtheworld AT tszningmak comparisonofdevelopmentmethodsusedtodefineportionsizesinfoodbaseddietaryguidelinesaroundtheworld AT eileenrgibney comparisonofdevelopmentmethodsusedtodefineportionsizesinfoodbaseddietaryguidelinesaroundtheworld AT eileenrgibney comparisonofdevelopmentmethodsusedtodefineportionsizesinfoodbaseddietaryguidelinesaroundtheworld |