| Literature DB >> 34107957 |
Justyna Horodyska1, Sandrine Pigat2, Jasmin Wonik1, Foteini Bompola1, David Cai3, Colin D Rehm4, Tanhia D Gonzalez3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although tubers play a significant role in Brazilian agriculture, very little is known about the intake of tubers among the Brazilian population. The objective of this study was to characterize the intake of tubers across Brazil. The types of tubers consumed were quantified, and the impact of geographic and sociodemographic factors was assessed.Entities:
Keywords: BNDS; Beet; Carrot; Cassava; Dietary survey; Intake; Mandioca; Potato; Sweet potato; Vegetable; Yam
Year: 2021 PMID: 34107957 PMCID: PMC8191048 DOI: 10.1186/s12937-021-00709-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr J ISSN: 1475-2891 Impact factor: 3.271
Intake of tubers in Brazil according to regional and sociodemographic characteristics
| Regions | Number of Tuber Consumers | Intake by Tuber Consumers (g/day) | Prevalence of tuber consumers (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Mean | SD | |||
| All Brazil | 18,901 | 78 | 101 | 102 | 54.7 |
| Female | 10,070 | 72 | 95b | 93 | 54.7 |
| Male | 8831 | 80 | 108a | 110 | 54.7 |
| 10–12 years | 1182 | 66 | 91b | 103 | 54.1 |
| 13–18 years | 2415 | 72 | 97b | 107 | 50.7 |
| 19–34 years | 6073 | 80 | 104b | 103 | 54.2 |
| 35–49 years | 4646 | 80 | 103b | 100 | 57.1 |
| 50–65 years | 3045 | 75 | 104b | 103 | 56.8 |
| 66+ years | 1540 | 80 | 100b | 93 | 52.2 |
| Rural | 4807 | 95 | 122a | 127 | 58.1 |
| Urban | 14,094 | 74 | 95b | 95 | 54 |
| Income - 1st quintilea | 3251 | 80 | 104a | 110 | 51.7 |
| Income - 2nd quintilea | 3537 | 80 | 107a | 112 | 51.1 |
| Income - 3rd quintilea | 3905 | 80 | 100a | 97 | 52.8 |
| Income - 4th quintilea | 4087 | 80 | 105a | 110 | 55.9 |
| Income - 5th quintilea | 4121 | 71 | 93a | 87 | 59 |
| North | 3404 | 80 | 107b | 115 | 73.1 |
| Rural | 1137 | 102 | 149a | 154 | 80.3 |
| Urban | 2267 | 71 | 93b | 87 | 70.4 |
| Northeast | 6872 | 70 | 99b | 107 | 54.6 |
| Rural | 1737 | 80 | 116a | 130 | 57.7 |
| Urban | 5135 | 66 | 95b | 95 | 53.4 |
| Southeast | 3889 | 80 | 103b | 93 | 51.4 |
| Rural | 754 | 95 | 115a | 100 | 48.2 |
| Urban | 3135 | 80 | 96b | 92 | 51.7 |
| South | 2332 | 88 | 112b | 105 | 55.8 |
| Rural | 602 | 102 | 132a | 112 | 60.5 |
| Urban | 1730 | 84 | 104b | 103 | 54.9 |
| Central-West | 2404 | 53 | 91b | 103 | 54.3 |
| Rural | 577 | 80 | 115a | 121 | 46.1 |
| Urban | 1827 | 51 | 85b | 101 | 55.4 |
Means were adjusted for age, gender, region, rural/urban area, and income. Means that do not share the same letter are significantly different (p < 0.05) to each other; SE: standard deviation; a Household monthly income (R$)
Intake of tuber types in rural and urban areas across Brazilian macroregions
| Region | Mandioca | Potato | Sweet Potato | Carrot | Yam | Beet | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % consuming | g/day among consumers | % consuming | g/day among consumers | % consuming | g/day among consumers | % consuming | g/day among consumers | % consuming | g/day among consumers | % consuming | g/day among consumers | |
| All Brazil | 59 | 77 | 43 | 95 | 3.8 | 156 | 11 | 30 | 3.5 | 84 | 4.6 | 50 |
| Rural | 76 | 110*** | 24 | 99*** | 6.2 | 191 | 5.6 | 34 | 3.3 | 90 | 2.4 | 57 |
| Urban | 55 | 67*** | 47 | 95*** | 3.3 | 141 | 12 | 29 | 3.5 | 83 | 5.1 | 49 |
| North£ | 94 | 101a | 14 | 79c | 0.5 | 119a | 3.7 | 24a | 0.6 | 102a | 1.1 | 62ab |
| Rural | 96 | 143a | 8 | 81a | 0.2 | 131a | 1 | 16a | 1.5 | 116a | 0.6 | 124a |
| Urban | 93 | 84b | 16 | 75b | 0.6 | 107a | 4.9 | 20a | 0.2 | 75a | 1.3 | 44b |
| Northeast£ | 83 | 78c | 16 | 72c | 8 | 172a | 3 | 24a | 7.8 | 82c | 1.3 | 92a |
| Rural | 88 | 96a | 7.5 | 62a | 9.4 | 206a | 1.3 | 27a | 4.2 | 84a | 0.3 | 104a |
| Urban | 81 | 73b | 19 | 74a | 7.5 | 159b | 3.6 | 22a | 9.2 | 82b | 1.7 | 81a |
| Southeast£ | 42 | 58d | 63 | 99a | 1.6 | 135b | 15 | 30a | 3 | 87bc | 5.9 | 40b |
| Rural | 54 | 78a | 55 | 105a | 3.4 | 121a | 9.1 | 40a | 5.5 | 84a | 4.2 | 46a |
| Urban | 41 | 52b | 64 | 98a | 1.4 | 122a | 15 | 30a | 2.8 | 84a | 6 | 42a |
| South£ | 34 | 88bc | 62 | 104a | 4.6 | 137b | 21 | 29a | 0.1 | 73c | 8.4 | 45b |
| Rural | 44 | 108a | 56 | 110a | 7.8 | 131a | 19 | 26a | 0 | 0 | 8.1 | 43a |
| Urban | 32 | 74b | 64 | 100a | 3.9 | 121a | 22 | 29a | 0.1 | 66 | 8.4 | 41a |
| Central-West£ | 68 | 75b | 35 | 76b | 2.9 | 99b | 13 | 28a | 0.9 | 87ab | 7.3 | 64b |
| Rural | 76 | 109a | 28 | 68a | 2.1 | 134a | 10 | 22a | 3.3 | 167a | 4.9 | 62a |
| Urban | 67 | 67b | 36 | 77a | 3 | 98a | 14 | 27a | 0.6 | 38b | 7.6 | 56a |
£Means were adjusted for age, gender and income. Significant difference (**P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001) between macroregions/urban and rural areas within macroregions; Means that do not share the same letter are significantly different (p < 0.05) to each other; % of prevalence amongst consumers
Fig. 1Percentage of tuber consumption per processing type across the five Brazilian macroregions
Nutrient intake of tuber consumers and non-tuber consumers across Brazil
| Nutrient (unit) | Mean Intakes (SE) | Δ Mean Intakes (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tuber Consumers | Non-Tuber Consumers | ||
| 1848 (0.003) | 1600 (0.003) | 248 (15.5)*** | |
| Protein (g/day) | 83.3 (0.003) | 75.5 (0.004) | 7.8 (10.3)*** |
| Protein (g/1000 kcal) | 45.4 (0.002) | 47.4 (0.002) | 2 (4.2)*** |
| Total Fat (g/day) | 57.5 (0.004) | 50.1 (0.004) | 7.4 (14.8)*** |
| Total Fat (g/1000 kcal) | 30.8 (0.002) | 30.9 (0.002) | 0.09 (0.3) |
| Carbohydrates (g/day) | 247 (0.003) | 209 (0.003) | 37.2 (17.7)*** |
| Carbohydrates (g/1000 kcal) | 134 (0.001) | 132 (0.001) | 2.3 (1.7)*** |
| Total Fiber (g/day) | 21.1 (0.004) | 18.4 (0.004) | 2.7 (14.6)*** |
| Total Fiber (g/1000 kcal) | 11.7 (0.003) | 11.8 (0.003) | 0.07 (0.6)*** |
| Calcium (mg/1000 kcal) | 277 (0.004) | 285 (0.004) | 8.3 (2.9)*** |
| Magnesium (mg/1000 kcal) | 139 (0.002) | 140 (0.003) | 0.7 (0.5) |
| Manganese (mg/1000 kcal) | 2.94 (0.030) | 3.06 (0.034) | 0.12 (3.8)** |
| Phosphorus (mg/1000 kcal) | 551 (0.002) | 563 (0.002) | 12.8 (2.3)*** |
| Iron (mg/1000 kcal) | 6.27 (0.002) | 6.68 (0.003) | 0.41 (6.1)*** |
| Sodium (g/1000 kcal) | 0.83 (0.005) | 0.89 (0.005) | 0.05 (6)*** |
| Potassium (mg/1000 kcal) | 1357 (0.002) | 1339 (0.002) | 17.9 (1.3)*** |
| Copper (mg/1000 kcal) | 0.75 (0.012) | 0.73 (0.013) | 0.01 (2) |
| Zinc (mg/1000 kcal) | 6.18 (0.003) | 6.56 (0.003) | 0.37 (5.7)*** |
| Selenium (μg/1000 kcal) | 50.7 (0.004) | 51.6 (0.005) | 0.88 (1.7)** |
| Retinol (μg/1000 kcal) | 224 (0.026) | 215 (0.029) | 8.3 (3.9) |
| Thiamin (vitamin B1) (mg/1000 kcal) | 0.64 (0.002) | 0.67 (0.002) | 0.03 (3.9)*** |
| Riboflavin (vitamin B2) (mg/1000 kcal) | 0.89 (0.003) | 0.97 (0.003) | 0.09 (9)*** |
| Niacin (vitamin B3) (mg/1000 kcal) | 8.31 (0.003) | 8.44 (0.004) | 0.13 (1.5) |
| Pyridoxine (vitamin B6) (mg/1000 kcal) | 0.84 (0.002) | 0.83 (0.003) | 0.01 (1.1)*** |
| Cobalamine (vitamin B12) (μg/1000 kcal) | 3.23 (0.015) | 3.14 (0.017) | 0.09 (2.7)** |
| Folate (dietary equivalent) (μg/1000 kcal) | 149 (0.004) | 162 (0.004) | 12.8 (7.9)*** |
| Vitamin D (calciferol) (μg/1000 kcal) | 1.91 (0.008) | 1.96 (0.009) | 0.05 (2.8)*** |
| Vitamin E (total Alpha-tocopherol) (mg/1000 kcal) | 2.28 (0.003) | 2.27 (0.003) | 0.01 (0.5) |
| Vitamin C (mg/1000 kcal) | 100 (0.027) | 109 (0.031) | 9 (8.3)** |
Means were adjusted for age, gender, region, rural/urban area, and income; **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001; SE: standard error; Absolute Δ (Difference) Mean Intakes = │Tuber Consumers – Non-Tuber Consumers│ (% Difference)