| Literature DB >> 34733501 |
Vânia Magalhães1,2, Milton Severo1,2, Daniela Correia1,2, Duarte Torres1,3, Renata Costa de Miranda4,5, Fernanda Rauber4,6, Renata Levy4,5, Sara Rodrigues1,3, Carla Lopes1,2.
Abstract
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are common worldwide and associated with poorer health outcomes. This work aimed to explore the UPF consumption associated factors and its main dietary sources, by sex, in Portugal. Participants from the National Food, Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (IAN-AF) 2015-2016, aged 3-84 years, were included (n 5005). Dietary intake was assessed through two 1-day food diaries/24 h recalls. UPFs were identified using the NOVA classification. Associations were evaluated through linear regression models. Median UPF consumption was 257 g/d (10⋅6 % of total quantity; 23⋅8 % of total energy). Adolescents were those with higher consumption (490 g/d). Compared to adults, younger ages were positively associated with UPF consumption (e.g. adolescents (-females: 192, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 135, 249; -males: 327, 95 % CI: 277, 377)). A lower educational level was associated with lower UPF consumption (-females: -63; 95 % CI: -91, -34; -males: -68; 95 % CI: -124, -12). Also, a lower UPF consumption was observed in married males/couples compared to singles (: -48, 95 % CI: -96, -1). Furthermore, female current/former smokers were associated with a higher UPF consumption v. never smokers (: 79, 95 % CI: 41, 118; : 42, 95 % CI: 8, 75, respectively). Main UPF sources were yoghurts, soft drinks and cold meats/sausages differing strongly by sex, age and education level. Yoghurts containing additives were the main contributors to the UPF consumption in children and adult females from all education (~20 %). Soft drinks were leaders in adolescents (females: 26⋅0 %; males: 31⋅6 %) and young male adults (24⋅4 %). Cold meats/sausages stood out among low-educated males (20⋅5 %). Males, younger age groups, higher education, children with less-educated parents, married/couple males and smoking females were positively associated with UPF consumption.Entities:
Keywords: National survey; Nova; Portugal; Ultra-processed foods
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34733501 PMCID: PMC8532074 DOI: 10.1017/jns.2021.61
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nutr Sci ISSN: 2048-6790
Ultra-processed foods usual consumption according to sociodemographic and behavioural characteristics (weighted for the distribution of the Portuguese population)
| Weighted % | Quantity of UPF (g) | Quantity of non-UPF (g) | % of UPF to total quantity (g / g) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median (P25–P75) | Median (P25–P75) | Median (P25–P75) | |||
| 5005 | 100 | 257 (141–426) | 2176 (1752–2645) | 10⋅6 (5⋅9–17⋅7) | |
| Sex | |||||
| Female | 2613 | 51⋅2 | 254 (151–393) | 1986 (1610–2392) | 11⋅4 (6⋅8–18⋅0) |
| Male | 2392 | 48⋅8 | 263 (133–462) | 2412 (1962–2903) | 9⋅9 (5⋅0–17⋅5) |
| Age group | |||||
| Children (3–9 years) | 521 | 5⋅9 | 414 (273–595) | 1439 (1129–1798) | 22⋅3 (15⋅5–30⋅8) |
| Adolescents (10–17 years) | 632 | 8⋅1 | 490 (337–684) | 1841 (1484–2247) | 21⋅6 (15⋅0–30⋅0) |
| Younger adults (18–44 years) | 1758 | 38⋅3 | 340 (217–503) | 2244 (1838–2701) | 13⋅4 (8⋅5–19⋅9) |
| Older adults (45–64 years) | 1344 | 29⋅7 | 195 (115–306) | 2313 (1904–2773) | 7⋅9 (4⋅7–12⋅3) |
| Elderly (65–84 years) | 750 | 17⋅9 | 120 (66–201) | 2171 (1776–2616) | 5⋅4 (3⋅0–8⋅9) |
| Education | |||||
| ≤6 years | 1497 | 29⋅7 | 209 (104–389) | 2075 (1668–2534) | 9⋅5 (4⋅7–17⋅9) |
| 7–12 years | 2201 | 45⋅8 | 284 (165–448) | 2221 (1794–2690) | 11⋅5 (6⋅7–18⋅4) |
| >12 years | 1291 | 24⋅5 | 284 (174–428) | 2202 (1791–2655) | 11⋅5 (7⋅0–17⋅5) |
| Region | |||||
| North | 838 | 35⋅4 | 242 (129–409) | 2137 (1728–2589) | 10⋅2 (5⋅5–17⋅3) |
| Centre | 886 | 21⋅8 | 249 (143–400) | 2191 (1769–2659) | 10⋅2 (5⋅9–16⋅7) |
| Lisbon Metropolitan Area | 701 | 26⋅8 | 296 (167–477) | 2209 (1778–2678) | 12⋅0 (6⋅9–19⋅3) |
| Alentejo | 575 | 6⋅6 | 268 (147–447) | 2319 (1808–2894) | 10⋅5 (5⋅7–17⋅8) |
| Algarve | 654 | 4⋅3 | 281 (161–445) | 2401 (1955–2882) | 10⋅4 (5⋅8–17⋅1) |
| Autonomous Region of Madeira | 683 | 2⋅7 | 237 (128–396) | 1962 (1604–2362) | 11⋅5 (6⋅3–19⋅1) |
| Autonomous Region of Azores | 668 | 2⋅5 | 300 (174–475) | 1893 (1493–2346) | 13⋅7 (8⋅0–21⋅6) |
| Urbanisation level | |||||
| Predominantly urban area | 3650 | 77⋅6 | 262 (144–431) | 2167 (1751–2625) | 10⋅8 (6⋅0–17⋅9) |
| Medially urban area | 863 | 13⋅8 | 245 (133–412) | 2182 (1719–2711) | 9⋅9 (5⋅3–17⋅1) |
| Predominantly rural area | 492 | 8⋅5 | 247 (134–414) | 2172 (1740–2648) | 10⋅2 (5⋅6–17⋅0) |
| Civil status | |||||
| Single, divorced or widowed | 1495 | 394 | 243 (137–398) | 2234 (1802–2717) | 9⋅9 (5⋅8–15⋅9) |
| Married, couples | 2354 | 606 | 225 (118–388) | 2283 (1880–2735) | 9⋅0 (4⋅9–15⋅1) |
| Household members | |||||
| 1–2 | 1639 | 39⋅9 | 266 (140–456) | 2181 (1740–2659) | 10⋅8 (5⋅8–18⋅2) |
| 3–4 | 2752 | 54⋅8 | 255 (135–425) | 2144 (1724–2613) | 10⋅5 (5⋅7–17⋅6) |
| ≥5 | 468 | 8⋅3 | 232 (124–393) | 2075 (1668–2534) | 9⋅8 (5⋅0–16⋅9) |
| Food insecurity | |||||
| No | 3448 | 89⋅9 | 236 (128–396) | 2277 (1868–2734) | 9⋅4 (5⋅3–15⋅5) |
| Yes | 397 | 10⋅1 | 204 (102–372) | 2283 (1880–2735) | 9⋅4 (4⋅8–16⋅6) |
| Physical activity level | |||||
| Inactive | 1693 | 43⋅2 | 242 (130–412) | 2142 (1759–2563) | 10⋅2 (5⋅6–17⋅0) |
| Minimally active | 1233 | 30⋅3 | 234 (130–387) | 2240 (1825–2695) | 9⋅6 (5⋅4–15⋅6) |
| Active | 1022 | 6⋅5 | 236 (124–405) | 2375 (1925–2887) | 9⋅0 (4⋅9–15⋅0) |
| Smoking status | |||||
| Never smoked | 1952 | 49⋅4 | 231 (123–391) | 2124 (1734–2555) | 9⋅8 (5⋅4–16⋅1) |
| Former smoker | 1157 | 30⋅1 | 236 (126–402) | 2393 (1948–2892) | 9⋅0 (4⋅8–15⋅3) |
| Current smoker | 831 | 20⋅5 | 274 (151–460) | 2257 (1836–2729) | 11⋅1 (6⋅4–18⋅2) |
UPF, ultra-processed foods.
Association between sociodemographic and behavioural characteristics and ultra-processed foods usual consumption (g), stratified by sex (weighted for the distribution of the Portuguese population), using linear regression models
| Females | Males | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude model | Model 1 | Model 2 | Crude model | Model 1 | Model 2 | |
| Age group | ||||||
| Children (3–9 years) | 195 (148, 242) | 179 (130, 228) | 140 (89, 191) | |||
| Adolescents (10–17 years) | 228 (174, 282) | 215 (156, 274) | 192 (135, 249) | |||
| Younger adults (18–44 years) | 119 (88, 149) | 103 (70, 137) | 100 (67, 133) | |||
| Older adults (45–64 years) | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Elderly (65–84 years) | −80 (−109, −51) | −64 (−93, −35) | −63 (−91, −34) | − | −41 (−82, 1) | − |
| Region | ||||||
| North | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Centre | −4 (−35, 28) | 4 (−28, 35) | 7 (−26, 40) | −22 (−72, 29) | −4 (−53, 45) | 0 (−51, 52) |
| Lisbon Metropolitan Area | 47 (7, 87) | 39 (−1, 80) | 39 (−3, 81) | |||
| Alentejo | 34 (−10, 77) | 46 (9, 83) | 50 (9, 90) | −1 (−65, 63) | 30 (−32, 91) | 41 (−23, 106) |
| Algarve | 34 (−4, 72) | 27 (−5, 60) | 36 (1, 70) | 21 (−26, 68) | 23 (−22, 68) | 32 (−17, 80) |
| Autonomous Region of Madeira | −14 (−44, 15) | −13 (−46, 20) | −23 (−59, 13) | 21 (−33, 75) | 5 (−36, 46) | −7 (−53, 39) |
| Autonomous Region of Azores | 62 (15, 110) | 50 (7, 93) | 40 (−3, 90) | 91 (−12, 171) | 82 (−3, 167) | |
| Education | ||||||
| ≤6 years | −136 (−166, −105) | −38 (−74, −2) | −51 (−86, −16) | − | − | − |
| 7–12 years | 11 (−18, 39) | 26 (−1, 54) | 21 (−6, 49) | 9 (−35, 53) | 12 (−27, 52) | 7 (−32, 46) |
| >12 years | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Urbanisation level | ||||||
| Predominantly urban area | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Medially urban area | −10 (−40, 19) | −12 (−46, 23) | −12 (−49, 24) | −17 (−71, 37) | −2 (−47, 44) | 1 (−65, 67) |
| Predominantly rural area | −16 (−63, 32) | −21 (−63, 20) | −21 (−61, 20) | −33 (−92, 26) | −2 (−64, 60) | 0 (−47, 48) |
| Civil status | ||||||
| Single, divorced or widowed | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Married, couples | −34 (−64, -3) | −14 (−42, 13) | −10 (−38, 17) | − | − | − |
| Household members | ||||||
| 1–2 | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| 3–4 | 94 (64, 124) | −7 (−37, 24) | −6 (−37, 25) | 15 (−26, 56) | 13 (−29, 54) | |
| ≥5 | 72 (22, 122) | −23 (−75, 28) | −25 (−79, 29) | 7 (−63, 78) | 7 (−63, 77) | |
| Food insecurity | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Yes | −36 (−74, 3) | −7 (−41, 27) | −11 (−43, 22) | −64 (−145, 16) | −32 (−100, 35) | −43 (−109, 23) |
| Physical activity level | ||||||
| Inactive | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Minimally active | −25 (−58, 8) | −26 (−57, 4) | −24 (−55, 6) | −13 (−59, 32) | −17 (−58, 23) | −11 (−52, 30) |
| Active | 0 (−40, 40) | 0 (−35, 35) | 5 (−31, 40) | 47 (−10, 104) | −5 (−57, 46) | 6 (−48, 60) |
| Smoking status | ||||||
| Never smoked | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Former smoker | 68 (35, 102) | 35 (2, 68) | 42 (8, 75) | − | 7 (−32, 46) | 12 (−27, 51) |
| Current smoker | 128 (82, 174) | 83 (45, 121) | 79 (41, 118) | −14 (−68, 40) | −12 (−61, 37) | −11 (−60, 39) |
Model 1, adjusted for age group and education, Model 2, adjusted for age group, education and non-ultra-processed foods consumption.
Bold denotes statistical significance (p-value <0.05).
Fig. 1.Top contributing food groups to the consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPF) (quantity of UPF from each food group (g) divided by the total quantity of UPF (g)), by age group, stratified by sex (weighted for the distribution of the Portuguese population).
Fig. 2.Top contributing food groups to the consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPF) (quantity of UPF from each food group (g) divided by the total quantity of UPF (g)), by education level, stratified by sex (weighted for the distribution of the Portuguese population).