Marilyn Tseng1, Dawn B Neill2, Stephanie F Teaford3, Aydin Nazmi4. 1. STRIDE and the Kinesiology Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA. Electronic address: mtseng@calpoly.edu. 2. Social Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA. 3. STRIDE and the Kinesiology Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA. 4. Food Science and Nutrition Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Compare saturated fat, sugar, and sodium in the US Department of Agriculture sample menu with a version in which menu items were replaced with comparable ultra-processed foods. DESIGN AND SETTING: The authors modified 7 days of a US Department of Agriculture sample menu providing approximately 2,000 kcal/d by replacing foods with comparable ultra-processed alternatives and then visited 2 chain supermarkets in San Luis Obispo, CA (August, 2016) to locate shopping list items for the 2 menu versions. Product-specific bar codes were entered into an application for recording dietary intake and analyzing nutrient content. VARIABLES MEASURED/ANALYSIS: Paired t tests (with Bonferroni correction, α = .003) were performed to compare the menus' percent energy from saturated fat and sugar, and energy and sodium content. RESULTS: Mean energy was lower (1,618 vs 1,892 kcal/d; P = .002) whereas percent energy from sugar (24.9% vs 21.4%; P ≤ .001) and sodium content (2,784 vs 2,101 mg/d; P = .001) were higher in the ultra-processed vs original menu. In secondary analyses, mean cost of the ultra-processed version exceeded that of the original menu by $36.87. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: In a sample menu developed to meet US Dietary Guidelines, substituting items with ultra-processed foods provided fewer calories but more sugar and sodium. Distinguishing ultra-processed from less processed foods may help consumers make healthier choices when using MyPlate tools, particularly in a food environment that presents a wide range of alternatives.
OBJECTIVE: Compare saturated fat, sugar, and sodium in the US Department of Agriculture sample menu with a version in which menu items were replaced with comparable ultra-processed foods. DESIGN AND SETTING: The authors modified 7 days of a US Department of Agriculture sample menu providing approximately 2,000 kcal/d by replacing foods with comparable ultra-processed alternatives and then visited 2 chain supermarkets in San Luis Obispo, CA (August, 2016) to locate shopping list items for the 2 menu versions. Product-specific bar codes were entered into an application for recording dietary intake and analyzing nutrient content. VARIABLES MEASURED/ANALYSIS: Paired t tests (with Bonferroni correction, α = .003) were performed to compare the menus' percent energy from saturated fat and sugar, and energy and sodium content. RESULTS: Mean energy was lower (1,618 vs 1,892 kcal/d; P = .002) whereas percent energy from sugar (24.9% vs 21.4%; P ≤ .001) and sodium content (2,784 vs 2,101 mg/d; P = .001) were higher in the ultra-processed vs original menu. In secondary analyses, mean cost of the ultra-processed version exceeded that of the original menu by $36.87. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: In a sample menu developed to meet US Dietary Guidelines, substituting items with ultra-processed foods provided fewer calories but more sugar and sodium. Distinguishing ultra-processed from less processed foods may help consumers make healthier choices when using MyPlate tools, particularly in a food environment that presents a wide range of alternatives.
Authors: Lindsey Smith Taillie; Marissa G Hall; Luis Fernando Gómez; Isabella Higgins; Maxime Bercholz; Nandita Murukutla; Mercedes Mora-Plazas Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Natasha Kim de O da Fonseca; Roberta D Molle; Marianna de A Costa; Francine G Gonçalves; Alice C Silva; Ylana Rodrigues; Menna Price; Patrícia P Silveira; Gisele G Manfro Journal: Braz J Psychiatry Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 2.697