Fang Fang Zhang1,2, Shanshan Liu1, Esther M John3, Aviva Must4, Wendy Demark-Wahnefried5. 1. Department of Nutrition Sciences, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Cancer Prevention Institute of California, San Francisco, California. 4. Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patterns of poor nutritional intake may exacerbate the elevated morbidity experienced by cancer survivors. It remains unclear whether cancer survivors adhere to existing dietary guidelines and whether survivors' diets differ from those of individuals without cancer over the long term. METHODS: The authors evaluated dietary intake and quality in 1533 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999 to 2010 compared with dietary intake and quality in 3075 individuals who had no history of cancer and were matched to the cancer survivors by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Dietary intake was assessed using 24-hour dietary recalls. The 2010 Healthy Eating Index (HEI-2010) was used to evaluate diet quality. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation HEI-2010 total score was 47.2 ± 0.5 in the cancer survivors and 48.3 ± 0.4 in the noncancer group (P = .03). Compared with the noncancer group, cancer survivors had a significantly lower score for empty calories (13.6 vs 14.4; P = .001), which corresponded to worse adherence to dietary intake of calories from solid fats, alcohol, and added sugars. Cancer survivors also had significantly lower dietary intake of fiber than the noncancer group (15.0 vs 15.9 g per day; P = .02). In relation to recommended intake, survivors' mean dietary intake of vitamin D, vitamin E, potassium, fiber, and calcium was 31%, 47%, 55%, 60%, and 73%, respectively; whereas their mean dietary intake of saturated fat and sodium was 112% and 133%, respectively, of the recommended intake. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors had poor adherence to the US Department of Agriculture 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and their intake patterns were worse than those in the general population for empty calories and fiber.
BACKGROUND: Patterns of poor nutritional intake may exacerbate the elevated morbidity experienced by cancer survivors. It remains unclear whether cancer survivors adhere to existing dietary guidelines and whether survivors' diets differ from those of individuals without cancer over the long term. METHODS: The authors evaluated dietary intake and quality in 1533 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999 to 2010 compared with dietary intake and quality in 3075 individuals who had no history of cancer and were matched to the cancer survivors by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Dietary intake was assessed using 24-hour dietary recalls. The 2010 Healthy Eating Index (HEI-2010) was used to evaluate diet quality. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation HEI-2010 total score was 47.2 ± 0.5 in the cancer survivors and 48.3 ± 0.4 in the noncancer group (P = .03). Compared with the noncancer group, cancer survivors had a significantly lower score for empty calories (13.6 vs 14.4; P = .001), which corresponded to worse adherence to dietary intake of calories from solid fats, alcohol, and added sugars. Cancer survivors also had significantly lower dietary intake of fiber than the noncancer group (15.0 vs 15.9 g per day; P = .02). In relation to recommended intake, survivors' mean dietary intake of vitamin D, vitamin E, potassium, fiber, and calcium was 31%, 47%, 55%, 60%, and 73%, respectively; whereas their mean dietary intake of saturated fat and sodium was 112% and 133%, respectively, of the recommended intake. CONCLUSIONS:Cancer survivors had poor adherence to the US Department of Agriculture 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and their intake patterns were worse than those in the general population for empty calories and fiber.
Authors: Ruth E Patterson; Marian L Neuhouser; Monique M Hedderson; Stephen M Schwartz; Leanna J Standish; Deborah J Bowen Journal: J Am Diet Assoc Date: 2003-03
Authors: Stephanie M George; Marian L Neuhouser; Susan T Mayne; Melinda L Irwin; Demetrius Albanes; Mitchell H Gail; Catherine M Alfano; Leslie Bernstein; Anne McTiernan; Jill Reedy; Ashley W Smith; Cornelia M Ulrich; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-08-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Alanna J Moshfegh; Donna G Rhodes; David J Baer; Theophile Murayi; John C Clemens; William V Rumpler; David R Paul; Rhonda S Sebastian; Kevin J Kuczynski; Linda A Ingwersen; Robert C Staples; Linda E Cleveland Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Karen Basen-Engquist; Catherine M Alfano; Melissa Maitin-Shepard; Cynthia A Thomson; Kathryn H Schmitz; Bernardine M Pinto; Kevin Stein; David S Zucker; Karen L Syrjala; Elizabeth Fallon; Colleen Doyle; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Fang Fang Zhang; Rohit P Ojha; Kevin R Krull; Todd M Gibson; Lu Lu; Jennifer Lanctot; Wassim Chemaitilly; Leslie L Robison; Melissa M Hudson Journal: J Nutr Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Doratha A Byrd; Tanya Agurs-Collins; David Berrigan; Richard Lee; Frances E Thompson Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2017-01-11
Authors: Jesseca A Paulsen; Travis S Ptacek; Stephen J Carter; Nianjun Liu; Ranjit Kumar; LaKeshia Hyndman; Elliot J Lefkowitz; Casey D Morrow; Laura Q Rogers Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-01-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Susan M Krebs-Smith; TusaRebecca E Pannucci; Amy F Subar; Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Jennifer L Lerman; Janet A Tooze; Magdalena M Wilson; Jill Reedy Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 4.910