Background: Non-Hispanic blacks in the United States are less likely to not meet national dietary recommendations than non-Hispanic whites; however, most studies do not consider nativity of US blacks. Objective: With the use of the Alternative Healthy Eating Index-2010 (AHEI-2010) and the Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension (DASH) scores, this cross-sectional study compared diet quality between US-born (n = 3,911) and foreign-born (n = 408) non-Hispanic black adults aged 22-79 y, based on pooled nationally representative data (NHANES 2003-2012) as well as by length of US residency. Design: The association between nativity and diet quality was determined by using multivariable-adjusted linear regression for the continuous total diet quality scores and their components or multinomial (polytomous) logistic regression for categorical tertiles (low, medium, or high) of the total scores and their components. Results: Foreign-born blacks had significantly higher AHEI-2010 (β: 9.3; 95% CI: 7.5, 11.0) and DASH (β: 3.1; 95% CI: 2.5, 3.8) scores compared with US-born blacks and more favorable intakes for many of the score components. Among foreign-born blacks, diet quality did not significantly differ by length of residency. Foreign-born blacks were more likely to be in the high than in the low tertile for vegetables [excluding starchy vegetables; relative risk ratio (RRR): 1.68; 95% CI: 1.24, 2.29], fruit [excluding and including fruit juice-RRR: 2.42 (95% CI: 1.69, 3.47) and RRR: 2.95 (95% CI: 1.90, 4.59), respectively], percentage of whole grains (RRR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.64, 3.49), and omega-3 (ω-3) fatty acids (RRR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.38, 2.97). Conclusions: Foreign-born blacks have better diet quality than their US-born counterparts. In nutrition research and public health efforts, considering the place of birth among US blacks may improve the accuracy of characterizing dietary intakes and facilitate the development of targeted nutrition interventions to reduce diet-related diseases in the diverse black population in the United States.
Background: Non-Hispanic blacks in the United States are less likely to not meet national dietary recommendations than non-Hispanic whites; however, most studies do not consider nativity of US blacks. Objective: With the use of the Alternative Healthy Eating Index-2010 (AHEI-2010) and the Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension (DASH) scores, this cross-sectional study compared diet quality between US-born (n = 3,911) and foreign-born (n = 408) non-Hispanic black adults aged 22-79 y, based on pooled nationally representative data (NHANES 2003-2012) as well as by length of US residency. Design: The association between nativity and diet quality was determined by using multivariable-adjusted linear regression for the continuous total diet quality scores and their components or multinomial (polytomous) logistic regression for categorical tertiles (low, medium, or high) of the total scores and their components. Results: Foreign-born blacks had significantly higher AHEI-2010 (β: 9.3; 95% CI: 7.5, 11.0) and DASH (β: 3.1; 95% CI: 2.5, 3.8) scores compared with US-born blacks and more favorable intakes for many of the score components. Among foreign-born blacks, diet quality did not significantly differ by length of residency. Foreign-born blacks were more likely to be in the high than in the low tertile for vegetables [excluding starchy vegetables; relative risk ratio (RRR): 1.68; 95% CI: 1.24, 2.29], fruit [excluding and including fruit juice-RRR: 2.42 (95% CI: 1.69, 3.47) and RRR: 2.95 (95% CI: 1.90, 4.59), respectively], percentage of whole grains (RRR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.64, 3.49), and omega-3 (ω-3) fatty acids (RRR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.38, 2.97). Conclusions: Foreign-born blacks have better diet quality than their US-born counterparts. In nutrition research and public health efforts, considering the place of birth among US blacks may improve the accuracy of characterizing dietary intakes and facilitate the development of targeted nutrition interventions to reduce diet-related diseases in the diverse black population in the United States.
Authors: R M Krauss; R H Eckel; B Howard; L J Appel; S R Daniels; R J Deckelbaum; J W Erdman; P Kris-Etherton; I J Goldberg; T A Kotchen; A H Lichtenstein; W E Mitch; R Mullis; K Robinson; J Wylie-Rosett; S St Jeor; J Suttie; D L Tribble; T L Bazzarre Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-10-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alison G M Brown; Robert F Houser; Josiemer Mattei; Dariush Mozaffarian; Alice H Lichtenstein; Sara C Folta Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Stephanie E Chiuve; Teresa T Fung; Eric B Rimm; Frank B Hu; Marjorie L McCullough; Molin Wang; Meir J Stampfer; Walter C Willett Journal: J Nutr Date: 2012-04-18 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: May A Beydoun; Tiffany L Gary; Benjamin H Caballero; Robert S Lawrence; Lawrence J Cheskin; Youfa Wang Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Raphaëlle Varraso; Stephanie E Chiuve; Teresa T Fung; R Graham Barr; Frank B Hu; Walter C Willett; Carlos A Camargo Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-02-03
Authors: Sol P Juárez; Helena Honkaniemi; Nina-Katri Gustafsson; Mikael Rostila; Lisa Berg Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 5.100