Tommy Hon Ting Wong1, Zhixian Sui2, Anna Rangan2, Jimmy Chun Yu Louie3,4. 1. Faculty of Science, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, 5S-14 Kadoorie Biological Sciences Building, 1 Pokfulam Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China. 2. Charles Perkins Centre, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. 3. Faculty of Science, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, 5S-14 Kadoorie Biological Sciences Building, 1 Pokfulam Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China. jimmyl@hku.hk. 4. Charles Perkins Centre, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. jimmyl@hku.hk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Habitual consumers of different coffee types may vary in socioeconomic status (SES), which is an important determinant of diet quality. Nonetheless, research on diet quality among coffee consumers was scarce. We aimed to compare the diet quality of coffee consumers with different preferences towards coffee type and additive usage. METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, intake data of food, coffee, and additive usage from the adult respondents of the 2011-2012 Australian Health Survey were used. Participants were grouped according to the type of coffee (espresso and ground coffee, E&G; coffee made from coffee mixes and instant coffee, M&I; non-consumers, NC) and additives (milk, sugar, and intense sweetener) consumed. Adjusted food group intake was compared between consumption groups using general linear model. RESULTS: E&G drinkers had better SES than M&I and NC. After adjusting for covariates, the mean dairy intake of E&G drinkers was 22.2% higher than M&I drinkers (p < 0.001) and 33.1% higher than NC (p < 0.001). Mean discretionary food intake of E&G drinkers was 12.1% lower than M&I (p = 0.003) and 12.3% lower than NC (p = 0.001). In terms of additive usage, non-users of coffee additive had the lowest dairy food intake and the highest discretionary food intake. CONCLUSIONS: Coffee consumers' different preferences towards coffee type and additive usages reflected significant variations in their diet quality, even after adjustment of SES. Therefore, future epidemiological studies should consider separating coffee drinkers according to their habitual consumption of different types of coffee.
PURPOSE: Habitual consumers of different coffee types may vary in socioeconomic status (SES), which is an important determinant of diet quality. Nonetheless, research on diet quality among coffee consumers was scarce. We aimed to compare the diet quality of coffee consumers with different preferences towards coffee type and additive usage. METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, intake data of food, coffee, and additive usage from the adult respondents of the 2011-2012 Australian Health Survey were used. Participants were grouped according to the type of coffee (espresso and ground coffee, E&G; coffee made from coffee mixes and instant coffee, M&I; non-consumers, NC) and additives (milk, sugar, and intense sweetener) consumed. Adjusted food group intake was compared between consumption groups using general linear model. RESULTS: E&G drinkers had better SES than M&I and NC. After adjusting for covariates, the mean dairy intake of E&G drinkers was 22.2% higher than M&I drinkers (p < 0.001) and 33.1% higher than NC (p < 0.001). Mean discretionary food intake of E&G drinkers was 12.1% lower than M&I (p = 0.003) and 12.3% lower than NC (p = 0.001). In terms of additive usage, non-users of coffee additive had the lowest dairy food intake and the highest discretionary food intake. CONCLUSIONS: Coffee consumers' different preferences towards coffee type and additive usages reflected significant variations in their diet quality, even after adjustment of SES. Therefore, future epidemiological studies should consider separating coffee drinkers according to their habitual consumption of different types of coffee.
Authors: Frances E Thompson; Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Amy F Subar; Jill Reedy; TusaRebecca E Schap; Magdalena M Wilson; Susan M Krebs-Smith Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Laura O'Connor; Fumiaki Imamura; Marleen A H Lentjes; Kay-Tee Khaw; Nicholas J Wareham; Nita G Forouhi Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Phil M Choi; Benjamin Tscharke; Saer Samanipour; Wayne D Hall; Coral E Gartner; Jochen F Mueller; Kevin V Thomas; Jake W O'Brien Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 11.205