| Literature DB >> 32512706 |
Vanessa M B Andrade1,2, Mônica L P de Santana1, Kiyoshi F Fukutani2,3,4,5, Artur T L Queiroz2,3, Maria B Arriaga2,3,5, Nadjane F Damascena1,6, Rodrigo C Menezes2,3, Catarina D Fernandes2,3,7, Maria Ester P Conceição-Machado1, Rita de Cássia R Silva1, Bruno B Andrade2,3,4,5,7,8.
Abstract
Changes in food consumption, physical inactivity, and other lifestyle habits are potential causes of the obesity epidemic. Paradoxically, the media promotes idealization of a leaner body appearance. Under these circumstances, self-perception of weight by adolescents may be affected. Here, we performed a cross-sectional study, between June and December 2009, to evaluate the interaction between anthropometric status, perceived body weight, and food consumption profiles in 1496 adolescents from public schools in Salvador, Brazil. Data on socio-epidemiological information, anthropometric status, and dietary patterns were analyzed using multidimensional statistical approaches adapted from systems biology. There were dissimilarities between anthropometric status and perception of body weight related to sex. Four dietary patterns were identified based on the food intake profile in the study participants. The distinct dietary patterns were not influenced by divergence between measured and perceived weight. Moreover, network analysis revealed that overestimation of body weight was characterized by a selectivity in ingestion of food groups that resulted in appearance of inverse correlations of consumption. Thus, misperception of body weight is associated with inverse correlations of consumption of certain food groups. These findings may aid individualized nutritional interventions in adolescents who overestimate body weight.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; anthropometric status; dietary intake; dietary patterns; divergence between measured and perceived weight; food group; multidimensional statistical analysis; perception of body weight
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32512706 PMCID: PMC7352492 DOI: 10.3390/nu12061670
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Characteristics of the study participants.
| Characteristic | Total | Agreed | Underestimated | Overestimated | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 1496 | 1022 | 294 | 180 | |
| Age-years median (IQR) | 14.3 (13.2–15.5) | 14.3 (13.2–15.3) | 14.5 (13.2–15.6) | 14.3 (13.4–15.7) | 0.4383 |
| Sex | <0.001 | ||||
| Female | 854 (57.1) | 562 (55) | 153 (52) | 139 (77.2) | |
| Male | 642 (42.9) | 460 (45) | 141 (48) | 41 (22.8) | |
| Socioeconomic status * | 0.1347 | ||||
| Good economic condition | 727 (48.6) | 506 (49.5) | 129 (43.9) | 92 (51.1) | |
| Poor economic condition | 721 (48.2) | 479 (46.9) | 158 (53.7) | 84 (46.7) | |
| BMI-Kg/m2 median (IQR) | 18.9 (17.2–21.0) | 19.0 (17.2–20.8) | 18.4 (17.0–21.6) | 19.6 (17.1–21.3) | 0.7086 |
| Pubertal development * | 0.1828 | ||||
| Pre-pubertal | 126 (8.4) | 87 (8.5) | 31 (10.5) | 8 (4.4) | |
| Pubertal | 325 (21.7) | 228 (22.3) | 57 (19.4) | 40 (22.2) | |
| Post-pubertal | 1040 (69.6) | 704 (68.9) | 205 (69.7) | 131 (72.8) |
BMI: body mass index; IQR: interquartile range. Difference of age values between the study groups were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test. Qualitative variables were represented by frequency and compared using the Pearson’s chi-square test. * Missing data: Socioeconomic status (n = 48, 3.2%); Pubertal development (n = 5, 0.3%).
Consumption of food groups according to divergence between measured and perceived weight in grams.
| Food or Food Group | Total | Agreed | Underestimated | Overestimated | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sugar and sweets | 243.3 (130.2–436.1) | 242 (134.4–426.5) | 244.2 (122.6–485.2) | 245.7 (132.7–420.5) | 0.6203 |
| Sweetened beverages | 480.4 (200.0–915.3) | 480 (213.3–880) | 533.4 (193.3–960.1) | 466.7 (160.1–946.9) | 0.6436 |
| Processed meat products | 11.0 (5.5–33.0) | 10.99 (5.5–33) | 11 (5.5–33) | 11 (5.5–32.9) | 0.6126 |
| Fast food | 170.4 (80.3–352.7) | 165.4 (80.32–339.2) | 202.5 (83–419.8) | 157 (79.5–323.9) | 0.1092 |
| Typical Brazilian dishes | 97.3 (49.3–239.8) | 96.6 (50–238.3) | 112.6 (51.7–246.7) | 97.2 (38.3–225.3) | 0.2162 |
| Oils | 29.3 (11.5–51.1) | 29.3 (11.47–50.3) | 29.7 (13.9–55) | 25.7 (10.7–44.7) | 0.0995 |
| Milk and dairy | 166.4 (70.9–337.6) | 167.6 (73.7–335.9) | 175.7 (72.9–386.9) | 154.7 (52.7–313.1) | 0.2092 |
| Meat | 122.7 (64.0–236.7) | 117.7 (62.7–225.3) | 137.3 (69.3–271.3) | 129.3 (62–240) | 0.0711 |
| Rice and cereals | 460.7 (261.8–730.6) | 460.4 (262.2–729.6) | 488.8 (282.8–733.8) | 439.7 (248.2–753.8) | 0.7168 |
| Roots | 24.7 (6.8–71.8) | 24.7 (6.8–67) | 24.7 (3.5–91.2) | 27 (3.5–73.3) | 0.8940 |
| Beans and legumes | 148.8 (78.0–286.0) | 154.6 (78–286) | 148.8 (56.4–286) | 143 (57.8–286) | 0.0530 |
| Vegetables | 67.3 (23.1–161.2) | 66.1 (25.3–164.1) | 71.5 (16.1–167.7) | 61.5 (22–149.7) | 0.5295 |
| Fruits | 465.7 (218.3–988.4) | 457 (229.5–987.1) | 574.2 (205.6–1071) | 429.3 (183–848.6) | 0.0691 |
| Coffee and tea | 106.7 (13.3–293.3) | 146.7 (16.7–293.3) | 80 (13.3–293.3) | 80 (13.3–293.3) | 0.4200 |
Consumption of individual food groups in individuals according to divergence between measured and perceived weight. Data represent median and interquartile range of total consumption of each food group in grams. Distribution of the data in the groups of individuals was compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test.
Figure 1Frequency distribution of divergence between measured and perceived weight, stratified by anthropometric status and sex. (A) in all the study participants. (B) Male sex. (C) Female sex. (D) Frequency of different anthropometric status strata in study participants grouped according to divergence between measured and perceived weight. Data were compared using the Pearson’s chi–square test.
Figure 2Profiles of consumption of food groups using hierarchical clustering. The abundance of consumption of the indicated food groups in the diet was calculated for each individual as described in Methods. (A) Hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward’s unsupervised method), in which the dendrograms represent the Euclidean distance, was used as an approach to identify different dietary patterns. Using this approach, it was possible to identify four major consumption patterns. (B) Upper panel shows the average relative abundance consumption of each food group within each dietary pattern identified in the hierarchical cluster analysis. Lower panel shows frequencies individuals in each dietary pattern stratified by sex, anthropometric status and also by divergence between measured and perceived weight (DMPW). The average relative abundance of consumption of each food group was compared between the different dietary patterns using one-way ANOVA. Proportions of sex, anthropometric status, and divergence between measured and perceived weight were compared between the different dietary profiles using the Pearson’s chi-square test. All p-values are indicated.
Abundance of consumption of each food group in the diet in different dietary patterns.
| Food or Food Group | Dietary Patterns | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pattern 1 | Pattern 2 | Pattern 3 | Pattern 4 | ||
| Sugar and sweets | 22.9 ± 18.3 | 13.6 ± 9.8 | 18.1 ± 14.1 | 43.0 ± 39.5 | <0.001 |
| Sweetened beverages | 49.7 ± 41.2 | 30.4 ± 24.7 | 35.7 ± 28.2 | 137.4 ± 111.9 | <0.001 |
| Processed meat products | 16.0 ± 21.0 | 10.5 ± 19.7 | 12.3 ± 18.1 | 30.8 ± 32.0 | <0.001 |
| Fast food | 13.6 ± 13.3 | 10.2 ± 8.8 | 11.5 ± 13.4 | 35.8 ± 35.1 | <0.001 |
| Typical Brazilian dishes | 24.8 ± 24.6 | 19.9 ± 10.1 | 20.5 ± 21.2 | 63.7 ± 63.1 | <0.001 |
| Oils | 5.7 ± 5.1 | 2.2 ± 2.7 | 4.0 ± 3.3 | 7.2 ± 8.1 | <0.001 |
| Milk and dairy | 17.2 ± 17.5 | 8.4 ± 6.5 | 15.0 ± 15.0 | 41.9 ± 40.6 | <0.001 |
| Meat | 15.7 ± 14.0 | 9.7 ± 12.9 | 15.9 ± 20.1 | 29.8 ± 26.2 | <0.001 |
| Rice and cereals | 34.1 ± 18.3 | 14.8 ± 11.2 | 28.6 ± 16.8 | 53.2 ± 36.6 | <0.001 |
| Roots | 11.8 ± 18.3 | 6.6 ± 7.8 | 10.3 ± 16.5 | 27.1 ± 36.9 | <0.001 |
| Beans and legumes | 82.3 ± 59.1 | 17.4 ± 15.9 | 111.6 ± 71.9 | 104.8 ± 76.3 | <0.001 |
| Vegetables | 15.2 ± 17.8 | 8.4 ± 9.3 | 10.3 ± 10.9 | 29.0 ± 24.6 | <0.001 |
| Fruits | 30.5 ± 32.0 | 17.4 ± 17.7 | 21.8 ± 18.7 | 58.5 ± 48.5 | <0.001 |
| Coffee and tea | 156.2 ± 64.5 | 10.9 ± 11.2 | 32.8 ± 31.7 | 74.2 ± 91.2 | <0.001 |
Data represent mean and standard deviation of values calculated for abundance of consumption of each food or food group (unit = % consumption relative to total diet). The one-way ANOVA test was used to examine the differences in values of abundance of consumption of each indicated food group, relative to total diet, between the dietary patterns identified by the hierarchical cluster analysis presented in Figure 2. The parametric test was used because the distribution of values of abundance of consumption exhibited a Gaussian distribution assessed by the D’Agostino–Pearson test.
Figure 3Multinomial logistic regression to test independent associations with the distinct dietary patterns. Adjustment was performed for all variables presented in the figure. The dietary pattern 2 profile was used as reference to test associations between variables and patterns 1, 3, or 4. The statistical significance was estimated through a multinomial logistic regression model. The results were also weighted for study design effect (Deff). The variable dietary pattern displayed low degree of intra-conglomerate heterogeneity (Deff = 1.12). Thus, the study design had low impact on the variance of food pattern values in the study participants. Abbreviations: CI—confidence interval; DMPW—divergence between measured and perceived weight.
Figure 4Network analysis of food consumption reveals negative correlations in individuals who overestimated their weight. (A) Spearman correlation matrices were designed for each study subgroup. Each matrix was submitted to 100× bootstrap. Correlations with adjusted p-values < 0.05, with rho(r) values > ±0.5 and which persisted exhibiting such values significant in at least 50% of the bootstraps were included in this analysis. (B) The network density, denoting the number of correlations (see Methods for details), was compared between using the Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons post-test. (C) Node analysis illustrate the number of correlations for each food group in the distinct subcategories of DMPW.