Petra C Vinke1, Eva Corpeleijn2, Louise H Dekker3, David R Jacobs4, Gerjan Navis3, Daan Kromhout2. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. p.c.vinke@umcg.nl. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Nephrology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Many diet quality scores exist, but fully food-based scores based on contemporary evidence are scarce. Our aim was to develop a food-based diet score based on international literature and examine its discriminative capacity and socio-demographic determinants. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Between 2006 and 2013, dietary intake of 129,369 participants of the Lifelines Cohort (42% male, 45 ± 13 years (range 18-93)) was assessed with a 110-item food frequency questionnaire. Based on the 2015 Dutch Dietary Guidelines and underlying literature, nine food groups with positive (vegetables, fruit, whole grain products, legumes&nuts, fish, oils&soft margarines, unsweetened dairy, coffee and tea) and three food groups with negative health effects (red&processed meat, butter&hard margarines and sugar-sweetened beverages) were identified. Per food group, the intake in grams per 1000 kcal was categorized into quintiles, awarded 0 to 4 points (negative groups scored inversely) and summed. Food groups with neutral, unknown or inconclusive evidence are described but not included. RESULTS: The Lifelines Diet Score (LLDS) discriminated well between high and low consumers of included food groups. This is illustrated by e.g. a 2-fold higher vegetable intake in the highest, compared to the lowest LLDS quintile. Differences were 5.5-fold for fruit, 3.5-fold for fish, 3-fold for dairy and 8-fold for sugar-sweetened beverages. The LLDS was higher in females and positively associated with age and educational level. CONCLUSIONS: The LLDS is based on the latest international evidence for diet-disease relations at the food group level and has high capacity to discriminate people with widely different intakes. Together with the population-based quintile approach, this makes the LLDS a flexible, widely applicable tool for diet quality assessment.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Many diet quality scores exist, but fully food-based scores based on contemporary evidence are scarce. Our aim was to develop a food-based diet score based on international literature and examine its discriminative capacity and socio-demographic determinants. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Between 2006 and 2013, dietary intake of 129,369 participants of the Lifelines Cohort (42% male, 45 ± 13 years (range 18-93)) was assessed with a 110-item food frequency questionnaire. Based on the 2015 Dutch Dietary Guidelines and underlying literature, nine food groups with positive (vegetables, fruit, whole grain products, legumes&nuts, fish, oils&soft margarines, unsweetened dairy, coffee and tea) and three food groups with negative health effects (red&processed meat, butter&hard margarines and sugar-sweetened beverages) were identified. Per food group, the intake in grams per 1000 kcal was categorized into quintiles, awarded 0 to 4 points (negative groups scored inversely) and summed. Food groups with neutral, unknown or inconclusive evidence are described but not included. RESULTS: The Lifelines Diet Score (LLDS) discriminated well between high and low consumers of included food groups. This is illustrated by e.g. a 2-fold higher vegetable intake in the highest, compared to the lowest LLDS quintile. Differences were 5.5-fold for fruit, 3.5-fold for fish, 3-fold for dairy and 8-fold for sugar-sweetened beverages. The LLDS was higher in females and positively associated with age and educational level. CONCLUSIONS: The LLDS is based on the latest international evidence for diet-disease relations at the food group level and has high capacity to discriminate people with widely different intakes. Together with the population-based quintile approach, this makes the LLDS a flexible, widely applicable tool for diet quality assessment.
Authors: R Gacesa; A Kurilshikov; A Vich Vila; T Sinha; M A Y Klaassen; L A Bolte; S Andreu-Sánchez; L Chen; V Collij; S Hu; J A M Dekens; V C Lenters; J R Björk; J C Swarte; M A Swertz; B H Jansen; J Gelderloos-Arends; S Jankipersadsing; M Hofker; R C H Vermeulen; S Sanna; H J M Harmsen; C Wijmenga; J Fu; A Zhernakova; R K Weersma Journal: Nature Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Lianmin Chen; Daria V Zhernakova; Alexander Kurilshikov; Sergio Andreu-Sánchez; Daoming Wang; Hannah E Augustijn; Arnau Vich Vila; Rinse K Weersma; Marnix H Medema; Mihai G Netea; Folkert Kuipers; Cisca Wijmenga; Alexandra Zhernakova; Jingyuan Fu Journal: Nat Med Date: 2022-10-10 Impact factor: 87.241
Authors: H Marike Boezen; Rikstje Wiersma; Richard H Rijnks; Gianni Bocca; Esther Hartman; Eva Corpeleijn Journal: Int J Health Geogr Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 5.310
Authors: Francisco O Cortés-Ibañez; Sunil Belur Nagaraj; Ludo Cornelissen; Gerjan J Navis; Bert van der Vegt; Grigory Sidorenkov; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Amarens van der Vaart; Qingqing Cai; Ilja M Nolte; André P J van Beek; Gerjan Navis; Stephan J L Bakker; Peter R van Dijk; Martin H de Borst Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 8.949
Authors: Francisco O Cortés-Ibáñez; Daniel A Jaramillo-Calle; Petra C Vinke; Oyuntugs Byambasukh; Eva Corpeleijn; Anna Sijtsma; Christine Eulenburg; Judith M Vonk; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Thomas P van der Meer; Martijn van Faassen; André P van Beek; Harold Snieder; Ido P Kema; Bruce H R Wolffenbuttel; Jana V van Vliet-Ostaptchouk Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 4.379