| Literature DB >> 30764586 |
Carolyn Imelda Auma1, Rebecca Pradeilles2, Megan K Blake3, Michelle Holdsworth4.
Abstract
Uganda is undergoing dietary transition, with possible environmental sustainability and health implications, particularly for women. To explore evidence for dietary transitions and identify how environmentally sustainable women's dietary patterns are, principal component analysis was performed on dietary data collected using a 24 h recall during the Uganda Food Consumption Survey (n = 957). Four dietary patterns explained 23.6% of the variance. The "traditional, high-fat, medium environmental impact" pattern was characterized by high intakes of nuts/seeds, fats, oils and spreads, fish and boiled vegetables. High intakes of bread and buns, rice and pasta, tea and sugar characterized the "transitioning, processed, low environmental impact' pattern. The 'plant-based, low environmental impact" pattern was associated with high intakes of legumes, boiled roots/tubers, boiled traditional vegetables, fresh fruit and fried traditional cereals. High intakes of red/organ meats, chicken, and soups characterized the "animal-based high environmental impact" pattern. Urban residence was positively associated with "transitioning, processed, low environmental impact" (β = 1.19; 1.06, 1.32) and "animal-based high environmental impact" (β = 0.45; 0.28, 0.61) patterns; but negatively associated with the "plant-based low environmental impact" pattern (β= -0.49; -0.62, -0.37). A traditional, high-fat dietary pattern with medium environmental impact persists in both contexts. These findings provide some evidence that urban women's diets are transitioning.Entities:
Keywords: Uganda; dietary patterns; environmental sustainability; nutrition transition; rural; urban; women
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30764586 PMCID: PMC6412986 DOI: 10.3390/nu11020342
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Factor loadings of the 35 food categories on the four dietary patterns.
| Dietary Patterns | Traditional, High-Fat, Medium Environmental Impact | Transitioning, Processed, Low Environmental Impact | Plant-Based, Low Environmental Impact | Animal-Based, High Environmental Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Red meat | −0.01 | 0.18 | −0.05 |
|
| Organ meats | −0.07 | −0.07 | 0.02 |
|
| Chicken | −0.01 | −0.06 | 0.13 |
|
| Fish |
| 0.16 | −0.06 | 0.07 |
| Insects | 0.01 | 0.01 | −0.13 | −0.10 |
| Sugar | 0.14 |
| 0.13 | 0.04 |
| Bread and Buns | 0.11 |
| −0.15 | 0.14 |
| Chapatti | 0.05 | 0.12 | −0.14 | −0.03 |
| Eggs | 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.05 | 0.03 |
| Rice and pasta | −0.03 |
| −0.05 | 0.08 |
| Traditional fats, oils and spreads |
|
| −0.05 | −0.00 |
| Non-traditional fats, oils and spreads |
| 0.07 | 0.01 | −0.05 |
| Milk | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.05 |
| Alcoholic drinks | 0.03 | −0.07 | −0.04 | −0.01 |
| Porridge | −0.02 | −0.01 | −0.06 | 0.05 |
| Savoury Snacks | −0.03 | 0.03 | −0.02 | 0.17 |
| Sugary Drinks | −0.04 | −0.06 | −0.06 | 0.02 |
| Soups | 0.02 | 0.11 | −0.02 |
|
| Tea |
|
| 0.17 | 0.08 |
| Nuts and seeds |
| −0.13 | −0.05 | −0.02 |
| Groundnut sauce | −0.10 | 0.16 | −0.03 | −0.09 |
| Fast food | 0.05 | −0.05 | 0.04 | −0.11 |
| Fresh fruit | 0.09 | 0.13 |
| 0.01 |
| Traditional vegetables (boiled) |
|
| −0.18 | −0.11 |
| Traditional vegetables (fried) | 0.00 | −0.08 | −0.06 | −0.02 |
| Non-traditional vegetables (fried) | 0.08 | −0.03 | 0.08 | −0.01 |
| Non-traditional vegetables (boiled) |
| 0.02 |
| −0.07 |
| Roots and tubers (boiled) | −0.14 | −0.10 |
| −0.06 |
| Roots and tubers (fried) | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.01 | −0.01 |
| Katogo | −0.07 | 0.01 | 0.12 | −0.06 |
| Traditional cereals (boiled) |
|
|
| −0.05 |
| Traditional cereals (fried) | −0.05 | −0.16 |
| 0.02 |
| Legumes | −0.07 | 0.02 |
|
|
| Matooke | −0.13 | −0.06 | −0.05 | 0.163 |
| Sweets | 0.05 | 0.11 | −0.10 | −0.02 |
| Variance (%) | 7.65 | 5.97 | 5.37 | 4.57 |
| Total variance (%) | 23.56 |
High positive or high negative factor loadings on dietary patterns are highlighted in bold.
Bootstrap linear regression results for associations between retained dietary patterns and urban/rural residence among Ugandan women of reproductive Age.
| Dietary Pattern | β-Coefficient | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.10 | (−0.04, 0.22) | 0.189 |
|
| 1.19 | (1.06, 1.32) | 0.001 ** |
|
| −0.49 | (−0.62, −0.37) | 0.001 ** |
|
| 0.45 | (0.28, 0.61) | 0.001 ** |
p-values with ** are statistically significant (p < 0.01).