| Literature DB >> 31430906 |
Vanessa M B Andrade1, Mônica L P de Santana1, Kiyoshi F Fukutani2,3,4, Artur T L Queiroz2,3, Maria B Arriaga2,3, Maria Ester P Conceição-Machado1, Rita de Cássia R Silva1, Bruno B Andrade5,6,7,8,9.
Abstract
There is a significant increase in overweight and obesity in adolescents worldwide. Here, we performed a cross-sectional study to examine the potential association between food consumption profiles and overweight in a large number of adolescents from Brazil. Sampling by clusters and conglomerates was carried out in students of public schools in Salvador, Brazil, between June and December 2009 and 1496 adolescents were evaluated. Data on socio-epidemiological data, anthropometric status and food consumption were captured. Multivariate analyses, such as hierarchical clustering and correlation networks, were used to perform a detailed description of food consumption profiles. There were differences in age and anthropometric status related to sex. Four clusters of food groups were identified based on the intake profile in the study population. No disparities in food intake were observed in individuals stratified by sex or anthropometric status. Furthermore, network analysis revealed that overweight or obesity were hallmarked by a selectivity in the ingestion of food groups that resulted in the appearance of inverse correlations of consumption, which was not present in eutrophic adolescents. Thus, overweight and obesity are associated with preferential choices of ingestion of specific food groups, which result in the appearance of inverse correlations of consumption. Such knowledge may serve as basis for future targeted nutritional interventions in adolescents.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; anthropometric status; dietary intake; dietary patterns; food group; multidimensional statistical analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31430906 PMCID: PMC6723851 DOI: 10.3390/nu11081946
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Study flowchart.
Food groups according to similarity in nutritional composition, consumed by adolescents enrolled in the study.
| Food or Food Groups | Food Items from the Food Frequency Questionnaire |
|---|---|
| 1. Sugar and sweets | Sugar, chocolate powder, homemade sweets, industrialized sweets, stuffed biscuit, candies, chewing gum, lollipops, chocolate bar, gelatin, ice cream and popsicle (cream and/or chocolate). |
| 2. Sweetened beverages | Normal, diet or light soda, artificial juice, carbonated drinks, artificial refreshment, energy drink and liquid or powdered sweetener. |
| 3. Typical Brazilian dishes | Acarajé and abará a, vatapá b, caruru c, feijoada d, dobradinha e, feijão tropeiro f and coconut milk. |
| 4. Fast food | Fried potatoes, potato chips, pizza, lasagna, ketchup, ready-made soups, sandwich, industrialized salty snack, instant noodles, ready-to-eat sauce and pizza-ready sauce. |
| 5. Oils | Butter, margarine, vegetable oil, mayonnaise, olive oil, palm oil. |
| 6. Milk and dairy | Whole milk powder or liquid, skimmed milk powder or liquid, fermented milk, yogurt (whole, diet or light), chocolate ready, yellow cheese, white cheese, cream cheese, creamy curd (whole or light). |
| 7. Meat | Bovine (fried or cooked), chicken with or without skin (fried or cooked), cooked or fried fish, seafood, viscera, chicken egg (fried or cooked), dehydrated meat (Jerky beef). |
| 8. Processed meat products | Ham, mortadella, sausage, calabrese. |
| 9. Rice and cereals | Bread (white or whole), rice (white or whole), noodles (white or whole), cassava flour, farinaceous (oats, wheat germ), milk or nest meal, green corn or couscous of corn, popcorn salted), homemade cake, box cake, granola, biscuit (salted or sweet), pasta soup. |
| 10. Roots | Cassava, sweet potato, potato. |
| 11. Beans and legumes | Beans, peanuts, nuts and walnuts. |
| 12. Vegetables | Lettuce, cabbage, cabbage, pumpkin, carrot, tomato, chayote, gherkin, beet, okra, vegetable salad. |
| 13. Fruits | Pineapple, avocado, acerola, silver banana, ground banana, cashew, jackfruit, papaya, mango, apple, watermelon, melon, orange, tangerine, strawberry, fruit juice or fruit pulp, acai-berry. |
| 14. Coffee | Coffee and tea. |
a Dishes made of beans and shrimp, deep-fried in palm oil, the only difference is that abará is steamed, while acarajé is fried. b Creamy paste prepared with bread, shrimp, coconut milk, finely ground peanuts and palm oil. c Made from okra, onion, shrimp, palm oil and toasted nuts (peanut and/or cashew). d Stew of beans with beef and pork. e Dish made from a cow’s flat white stomach lining. f Cattleman’s Beans.
Distribution of the demographic, economic, biological, and behavioral characteristics total and according to the sex of the adolescents enrolled in the study.
| Characteristic | Total (1496) | Male (642) | Female (854) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 14.3 (13.2–15.5) | 15.6 (13.4–15.8) | 14.2 (13.2–15.2) | <0.001 |
|
| 0.634 | |||
| Good economic condition | 727 | 319 (51.5) | 408 (49.2) | |
| Poor economic condition | 721 | 300 (48.5) | 421 (50.8) | |
|
| 18.9 (17.2–21.0) | 18.7 (16.9–20.7) | 19.1 (17.4–21.2) | 0.006 |
|
| 0.005 | |||
| Underweight | 120 | 67 (10.4) | 53 (6.2) | |
| Eutrophy | 1155 | 471 (73.4) | 684 (80.1) | |
| Overweight | 132 | 59 (9.2) | 73 (8.6) | |
| Obesity | 89 | 45 (7.0) | 44 (5.1) | |
|
| <0.001 | |||
| Pre-pubertal | 126 | 122 (19.0) | 4 (0.5) | |
| Pubertal | 325 | 162 (25.2) | 163 (19.1) | |
| Post-pubertal | 1040 | 354 (55.1) | 686 (80.3) |
BMI: body mass index; IQR: interquartile range. * Difference of values between male and female were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Qualitative variables were represented by frequency and compared using the Pearson’s chi-square test. Missing data: Socioeconomic status = 48.
Figure 2Analysis of the consumption of dietary groups using hierarchical cluster. The total consumption in grams obtained for each food group was calculated. (A) Two-way hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward’s method, unsupervised, with 100X bootstrap), in which the dendrogram represent Euclidean distance, was used as an approach to identify similarity profile of the consumption of distinct food groups. Using this approach, it was possible to identify four clusters of food groups that exhibited similar patterns of consumption in the general population. Three main subgroups of participants baes on overall food consumption was observed. (B) Constellation plot of the hierarchical clusters shows similarities between subgroups of study participants stratified by overall food intake.
Figure 3Consumption of food groups in individuals according to gender and anthropometric status. Data represent median and interquartile range of total consumption of each food group in grams. Left panel: For each food group, data were compared between males and females using the Mann-Whitney U test. Right panel: Distribution of the data in the groups of individuals with different anthropometric states.
Factors associated with the distinct anthropometric status.
| Parameter | Total * | Underweight | Eutrophy | Overweight | Obesity | Adjusted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 14.3 (13.2–15.5) | 14.3 (13.4–15.2) | 14.4 (13.3–15.5) | 14.0 (12.8–15.4) | 14.0 (13.2–14.9) | 0.31 |
|
| ||||||
| Female | 851 (57.1) | 52 (43.7) | 682 (59.3) | 73 (55.3) | 44 (49.4) | 1.00 |
| Male | 640 (42.9) | 67 (56.3) | 469 (40.7) | 59 (44.7) | 45 (50.6) | |
|
| 1.66 | |||||
| Good economic condition | 724 (50.2) | 54 (47) | 549 (49.3) | 67 (51.9) | 54 (62.8) | |
| Poor economic condition | 719 (49.8) | 61 (53) | 564 (50.7) | 62 (48.1) | 32 (37.2) | |
|
| <0.01 | |||||
| Pre-pubertal | 125 (8.4) | 21 (17.6) | 86 (7.5) | 10 (7.6) | 8 (9) | |
| Pubertal | 325 (21.9) | 47 (39.5) | 237 (20.7) | 25 (19.1) | 16 (18) | |
| Post-pubertal | 1036 (69.7) | 51 (42.9) | 824 (71.8) | 96 (73.3) | 65 (73) | |
|
| ||||||
| Sugar and sweets | 243.3 (130.2–436.1) | 235.2 (125.5–398.4) | 247.9 (136.9–452.9) | 227.2 (110.5–341.7) | 190.5 (81.7–432.3) | 0.31 |
| Sweetened beverages | 480.4 (200.0–915.3) | 493.3 (240–820) | 480.4 (200–920) | 493.3 (213.3–920.1) | 480 (187.3–973.4) | 1.00 |
| Typical Brazilian dishes | 97.3 (49.3–239.8) | 95.9 (48–262.6) | 98.6 (50.6–240.9) | 95.9 (49.3–223.8) | 95.9 (39.6–189.4) | 1.00 |
| Fast food | 170.4 (80.3–352.7) | 134.3 (86–303.3) | 180 (81.6–363.5) | 158.8 (80.2–310.3) | 123.3 (66–307.3) | 0.42 |
| Oils | 29.3 (11.5–51.1) | 28.7 (9.3–44.5) | 29.7 (12.3–51.9) | 26.6 (9.2–44.7) | 24.7 (9.3–44) | 0.73 |
| Milk and dairy | 166.4 (70.9–337.6) | 132.8 (65.6–338.4) | 171.9 (72.2–344.3) | 154.3 (74.2–296.4) | 126.9 (57–304.4) | 0.99 |
| Meat | 122.7 (64.0–236.7) | 112 (60–253.3) | 127.3 (65.3–236.7) | 115.3 (56–234) | 86.7 (54.7–192) | 0.98 |
| Processed meat products | 11.0 (5.5–33.0) | 11 (5.5–33) | 11 (5.5–33) | 11 (2.7–30.2) | 5.5 (2.7–33) | 0.31 |
| Rice and cereals | 460.7 (261.8–730.6) | 412.7 (235.2–772.8) | 490.6 (280.9–765.4) | 437.4 (193.2–598.8) | 487.4 (244.4–531.6) | 0.08 |
| Roots | 24.7 (6.8–71.8) | 24.5 (6.8–77.9) | 27 (6.8–74.4) | 17.7 (6.8–49.1) | 24.5 (6.8–56.4) | 1.00 |
| Beans and legumes | 148.8 (78.0–286.0) | 148.8 (83.8–286) | 154.6 (78–286) | 153 (52–158.9) | 143 (47.8–177.8) | 0.09 |
| Vegetables | 67.3 (23.1–161.2) | 66.1 (26.6–159.7) | 69.2 (23.2–165.5) | 60.8 (11.6–127.3) | 64.2 (29.6–137.5) | 0.98 |
| Fruits | 465.7 (218.3–988.4) | 405.3 (189.9–825.6) | 479.1 (224.3–999.8) | 472.3 (248.2–894.8) | 407 (195.6–1111) | 1.00 |
| Coffee | 106.7 (13.3–293.3) | 106.7 (26.7–293.3) | 146.7 (13.3–293.3) | 80 (13.3–293.3) | 133.3 (13.3–293.3) | 1.00 |
* From 1496 adolescents, only 1491 had all data available to analyze the food group. ** p-values were adjusted for multiple measurements using the Holm-Bonferroni method. Differences of values in continuous variables (represented by median and interquartile range [IQR]) between food groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons post-test. Qualitative variables were represented by frequency and compared using the Pearson’s chi-square test.
Spearman correlation analysis between total consumption of each food group and BMI values.
| Food Group | All Individuals | Underweight | Eutrophy | Overweight | Obesity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rho Value | rho Value | rho Value | rho Value | rho Value | ||||||
| Sugar and sweets | −0.03 | 0.25 | 0.02 | 0.81 | 0.02 | 0.52 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.12 | 0.28 |
| Sweetened beverages | 0.03 | 0.28 | 0.06 | 0.48 | 0.03 | 0.29 | −0.08 | 0.37 | 0.02 | 0.88 |
| Typical Brazilian dishes | 0.01 | 0.65 | 0.03 | 0.75 | 0.03 | 0.34 | −0.03 | 0.72 | 0.11 | 0.31 |
| Fast food | 0.01 | 0.84 | 0.00 | 0.99 | 0.01 | 0.79 | 0.01 | 0.91 | 0.11 | 0.30 |
| Oils | 0.05 | 0.09 | −0.02 | 0.82 | −0.06 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.84 | 0.01 | 0.89 |
| Milk and dairy | −0.03 | 0.31 | 0.01 | 0.88 | −0.03 | 0.38 | −0.05 | 0.57 | 0.01 | 0.94 |
| Meat | −0.01 | 0.84 | −0.04 | 0.69 | −0.01 | 0.78 | 0.07 | 0.41 | 0.02 | 0.89 |
| Processed meat products | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.97 | 0.07 | 0.06 | −0.01 | 0.92 | 0.16 | 0.14 |
| Rice and cereals | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.52 | −0.05 | 0.12 | −0.09 | 0.31 | 0.07 | 0.50 |
| Roots | 0.02 | 0.41 | 0.11 | 0.22 | −0.01 | 0.62 | −0.07 | 0.41 | 0.14 | 0.19 |
| Beans and legumes | −0.02 | 0.49 | 0.10 | 0.27 | 0.00 | 0.88 | 0.03 | 0.72 | 0.14 | 0.20 |
| Vegetables | −0.04 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.73 | −0.05 | 0.08 | −0.04 | 0.67 | 0.10 | 0.38 |
| Fruits | 0.01 | 0.70 | 0.06 | 0.49 | 0.02 | 0.55 | −0.12 | 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.97 |
| Coffee | −0.04 | 0.17 | −0.07 | 0.43 | −0.03 | 0.39 | −0.08 | 0.38 | 0.06 | 0.57 |
Data represent Spearman rho as well as p-values of each correlation in each indicated study group.
Figure 4Network analysis of the correlations of consumption of food groups according to the anthropometric status. (A) Spearman correlation matrices were constructed for each subgroup of individuals stratified by anthropometric status. The matrices were submitted to 100X bootstrap. Only statistically significant correlations (p < 0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons), with rho (r) values >0.5 and that remained significant in at least 50% of the bootstraps were included in the network analyzes. (B) The network density, inferring significant number of correlations, was calculated on each bootstrap and the values were compared between the groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons post-test. The p values of the comparisons are shown. (C) Node analysis was performed comparing the number of correlations statistically significant for each food group in the different subgroups of individuals.