| Literature DB >> 25971247 |
Carol E O'Neil1, Theresa A Nicklas2, Victor L Fulgoni3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most children do not meet the recommendation for fruit consumption. Apples are the second most commonly consumed fruit in the US; however, no studies have examined the association of total apple products, apples, apple sauce, and 100 % apple juice consumption on diet quality and weight/adiposity in children.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25971247 PMCID: PMC4443546 DOI: 10.1186/s12937-015-0040-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr J ISSN: 1475-2891 Impact factor: 3.271
Demographic characteristics of children 2–18 years (N = 13,339) participating in NHANES 2003–2010 by total apple and apple product consumption
| Total apple products | Whole apples | Apple sauce | Apple juice | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Consumers ( | Non-Consumers ( | P-value | Consumers ( | Non-Consumers ( | P - value | Consumers ( | Non-Consumers ( | P-value | Consumers ( | Non-Consumers ( | P-value |
| Gender (%) | ||||||||||||
| Female | 49.9 ± 1.4 | 49.0 ± 0.8 | 0.584 | 50.4 ± 1.8 | 49.0 ± 0.8 | 0.466 | 49.5 ± 3.2 | 49.2 ± 0.8 | 0.930 | 49.9 ± 2.1 | 49.1 ± 0.8 | 0.732 |
| Ethnicity (%) | ||||||||||||
| NHW | 58.3 ± 2.0 | 61.0 ± 2.0 | 0.334 | 57.1 ± 2.3 | 60.8 ± 2.0 | 0.220 | 76.7 ± 3.2 | 59.7 ± 1.9 |
| 55.6 ± 2.6 | 60.9 ± 1.9 | 0.105 |
| NHB | 13.0 ± 1.1 | 14.9 ± 1.1 | 0.227 | 10.6 ± 1.1 | 15.0 ± 1.1 |
| 12.4 ± 2.0 | 14.5 ± 1.0 | 0.367 | 15.4 ± 1.4 | 14.3 ± 1.0 | 0.508 |
| MA | 15.9 ± 1.3 | 12.4 ± 1.2 | 0.039 | 18.0 ± 1.5 | 12.5 ± 1.2 |
| 5.2 ± 1.3 | 13.6 ± 1.2 |
| 16.1 ± 1.6 | 12.9 ± 1.1 | 0.104 |
| Age (Years) | 8.3 ± 0.2 | 10.7 ± 0.1 |
| 9.1 ± 0.2 | 10.3 ± 0.1 |
| 7.2 ± 0.3 | 10.2 ± 0.1 |
| 7.2 ± 0.2 | 10.5 ± 0.1 |
|
| PIR | 2.6 ± 0.1 | 2.5 ± 0.1 | 0.486 | 2.6 ± 0.1 | 2.5 ± 0.1 | 0.155 | 2.6 ± 0.2 | 2.5 ± 0.1 | 0.504 | 2.4 ± 0.1 | 2.5 ± 0.1 | 0.159 |
| PA (%) | ||||||||||||
| Sedentary | 13.0 ± 1.0 | 12.7 ± 0.6 | 0.839 | 12.4 ± 1.3 | 12.9 ± 0.5 | 0.722 | 8.2 ± 1.7 | 12.9 ± 0.5 |
| 16.0 ± 1.6 | 12.3 ± 0.5 | 0.032 |
| Moderate | 20.4 ± 1.1 | 19.8 ± 0.7 | 0.676 | 20.4 ± 0.7 | 17.6 ± 1.6 | 0.115 | 32.7 ± 3.7 | 19.6 ± 0.7 |
| 20.8 ± 1.7 | 19.9 ± 0.7 | 0.590 |
| Active | 66.7 ± 1.3 | 67.5 ± 0.9 | 0.621 | 66.8 ± 0.8 | 70.0 ± 2.2 | 0.164 | 59.1 ± 3.7 | 67.5 ± 0.8 | 0.025 | 63.2 ± 1.9 | 67.8 ± 0.8 | 0.025 |
| Current smoker (%) | 2.5 ± 0.4 | 7.5 ± 0.5 |
| 6.8 ± 0.4 | 2.3 ± 0.4 |
| 1.3 ± 0.7 | 6.3 ± 0.4 |
| 2.6 ± 0.7 | 6.7 ± 0.4 |
|
| Alcohol (g) | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 0.012 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.075 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.5 ± 0.1 |
| 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.016 |
Data Source: Children 2 to 18 years of age participating in the NHANES 2003–2010
Bolded values are significantly different p < 0.01; statistical differences were assessed using z-statistics
Abbreviations: LSM = Least Square Means; SE = Standard Error; NHW = Non-Hispanic White; NHB = Non-Hispanic Black; MA = Mexican American; PIR = poverty index ratio; PA = physical activity
Association between consumption of apple products, apples, apple sauce, and apple juice and Healthy Eating Index-2010 total and component scores in children participating in NHANES 2003–2010 (N = 13,339)
| Healthy eating index-2010 & Components | Total apple products | Apples | Apple sauce | Apple juice | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consumers ( | Non-Consumers ( | P-value | Consumers ( | Non-Consumers ( | P-value | Consumers ( | Non-Consumers ( | P-value | Consumers ( | Non-Consumers ( | P-value | |
| Total Score | 50.4 ± 0.4 | 41.9 ± 0.3 |
| 52.5 ± 0.5 | 42.7 ± 0.3 |
| 52.1 ± 0.8 | 47.2 ± 0.4 |
| 51.4 ± 0.6 | 46.5 ± 0.4 |
|
| Total Vegetables | 2.2 ± 0.1 | 2.1 ± 0.03 | 0.519 | 2.3 ± 0.1 | 2.1 ± 0.03 | 0.108 | 1.7 ± 0.1 | 2.0 ± 0.03 | 0.055 | 2.0 ± 0.1 | 2.0 ± 0.04 | 0.730 |
| Greens & Beans | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.03 | 0.052 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.02 | 0.021 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.03 | 0.070 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.03 | 0.162 |
| Total Fruit | 4.2 ± 0.04 | 1.9 ± 0.1 |
| 4.4 ± 0.1 | 2.2 ± 0.04 |
| 4.0 ± 0.1 | 3.1 ± 0.1 |
| 4.4 ± 0.1 | 2.9 ± 0.1 |
|
| Whole Fruit | 3.6 ± 0.1 | 1.5 ± 0.1 |
| 4.7 ± 0.04 | 1.6 ± 0.04 |
| 4.4 ± 0.1 | 2.5 ± 0.1 |
| 2.8 ± 0.1 | 2.5 ± 0.1 | 0.071 |
| Whole Grains | 2.0 ± 0.1 | 1.7 ± 0.1 |
| 2.1 ± 0.1 | 1.8 ± 0.1 | 0.002 | 2.5 ± 0.3 | 2.1 ± 0.1 | 0.102 | 2.2 ± 0.1 | 2.1 ± 0.1 | 0.457 |
| Dairy | 7.1 ± 0.1 | 6.8 ± 0.1 | 0.028 | 7.2 ± 0.1 | 6.9 ± 0.1 | 0.043 | 8.0 ± 0.3 | 7.7 ± 0.1 | 0.227 | 7.8 ± 0.2 | 7.7 ± 0.1 | 0.521 |
| Total Protein Foods | 3.4 ± 0.04 | 3.5 ± 0.03 | 0.032 | 3.5 ± 0.1 | 3.5 ± 0.03 | 0.451 | 3.3 ± 0.1 | 3.3 ± 0.03 | 0.608 | 3.3 ± 0.1 | 3.4 ± 0.04 | 0.362 |
| Seafood & Plant Protein | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.03 | 0.113 | 1.6 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.03 | 0.001 | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 0.699 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 0.230 |
| Fatty Acid Ratio | 3.8 ± 0.1 | 3.7 ± 0.1 | 0.466 | 3.9 ± 0.1 | 3.8 ± 0.1 | 0.377 | 3.3 ± 0.3 | 3.4 ± 0.1 | 0.787 | 3.5 ± 0.2 | 3.3 ± 0.1 | 0.281 |
| Sodium | 5.3 ± 0.1 | 4.9 ± 0.1 |
| 5.3 ± 0.2 | 5.0 ± 0.1 | 0.019 | 6.1 ± 0.4 | 5.4 ± 0.1 | 0.091 | 5.7 ± 0.2 | 5.4 ± 0.1 | 0.072 |
| Refined Grains | 5.4 ± 0.1 | 5.1 ± 0.1 | 0.022 | 5.3 ± 0.2 | 5.2 ± 0.1 | 0.408 | 6.2 ± 0.4 | 5.7 ± 0.1 | 0.300 | 6.0 ± 0.2 | 5.6 ± 0.1 | 0.064 |
| Empty Calories | 11.2 ± 0.2 | 8.6 ± 0.1 |
| 11.5 ± 0.3 | 8.9 ± 0.12 |
| 11.1 ± 0.4 | 10.1 ± 0.2 | 0.025 | 11.7 ± 0.3 | 9.8 ± 0.2 |
|
Data Source: Children 2 to 18 years of age participating in the NHANES 2003–2010
Bolded values are significantly different p < 0.01; statistical differences were assessed linear regression
Abbreviations: LSM-Least Square Means; SE-Standard Error
Covariates: Gender, ethnicity, age, Poverty Income Ratio (PIR 0–1.25, 1.25–3.4, ≥3.50), and Physical Activity Level (Sedentary, Moderate, Active)
Weight statusa apple products, apples, apple sauce, and apple juice of children participating in NHANES 2003–2010 (N = 13,339)
| Consumers | Non-Consumers | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| LSM ± SEb | LSM ± SE | ||
|
| |||
| BMI z-score | 0.4 ± 0.04 | 0.5 ± 0.03 |
|
| Waist Circumference (cm) | 68.2 ± 0.3 | 68.9 ± 0.3 | 0.066 |
| % Overweight | 14.1 ± 1.0 | 15.5 ± 0.6 | 0.233 |
| % Obese | 13.5 ± 0.9 | 16.9 ± 0.8 |
|
| % Overweight or Obese | 27.6 ± 1.5 | 32.4 ± 1.0 |
|
|
| |||
| BMI z-score | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.02 |
|
| Waist Circumference (cm) | 68.1 ± 0.4 | 68.9 ± 0.3 | 0.105 |
| % Overweight | 14.5 ± 1.6 | 15.2 ± 0.6 | 0.695 |
| % Obese | 12.6 ± 1.1 | 16.6 ± 0.7 |
|
| % Overweight or Obese | 27.1 ± 2.0 | 31.8 ± 1.0 | 0.040 |
|
| |||
| BMI z-score | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.02 | 0.301 |
| Waist Circumference (cm) | 67.7 ± 0.6 | 68.8 ± 0.2 | 0.101 |
| % Overweight | 14.2 ± 2.4 | 15.1 ± 0.6 | 0.688 |
| % Obese | 11.2 ± 2.0 | 16.2 ± 0.7 | 0.018 |
| % Overweight or Obese | 25.4 ± 3.2 | 31.3 ± 1.0 | 0.078 |
|
| |||
| BMI z-score | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.02 | 0.502 |
| Waist Circumference (cm) | 68.5 ± 0.4 | 68.8 ± 0.2 | 0.528 |
| % Overweight | 15.6 ± 1.6 | 15.0 ± 0.6 | 0.722 |
| % Obese | 13.8 ± 1.2 | 16.3 ± 0.7 | 0.074 |
| % Overweight or Obese | 29.4 ± 2.2 | 31.4 ± 1.0 | 0.407 |
aAdjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, poverty income ratio, physical activity level (sedentary, moderate, vigorous)
Bolded values are significantly different p < 0.01; statistical differences were assessed linear regression
bSE: Standard Error; LSM: Least Squares Mean
Odds ratios of waist circumference and weight status by apple product consumption
| Consumersa | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ORb,c | LCL | UCL | P-value | |
|
| ||||
| Obese | 0.75 | 0.59 | 0.95 |
|
| Overweight | 0.89 | 0.72 | 1.11 | 0.173 |
| Overweight or Obese | 0.79 | 0.66 | 0.94 |
|
|
| ||||
| Obese | 0.70 | 0.52 | 0.95 |
|
| Overweight | 0.95 | 0.68 | 0.32 | 0.681 |
| Overweight or Obese | 0.79 | 0.60 | 1.04 | 0.027 |
|
| ||||
| Obese | 0.62 | 0.32 | 1.18 | 0.056 |
| Overweight | 0.92 | 0.54 | 1.58 | 0.693 |
| Overweight or Obese | 0.73 | 0.45 | 1.19 | 0.098 |
|
| ||||
| Obese | 0.80 | 0.58 | 1.10 | 0.068 |
| Overweight | 1.05 | 0.76 | 1.45 | 0.707 |
| Overweight or Obese | 0.90 | 0.69 | 1.19 | 0.331 |
aNon-consumers are the comparison group
bAdjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, poverty income ratio, physical activity level
Non-consumers are the comparative group
b,cOR: Odds ratio; LCL: Lower 99th percentile confidence limit; UCL: Upper 99th percentile confidence limit; statistical differences were determined using logistic regression