Mean diet cost by quintiles of energy-adjusted nutrient intakes, adjusting for other covariates.¹

<p>Abbreviations: Q1, Quintile 1; Q2, Quintile 2; Q3, Quintile 3, Q4, Quintile 4; Q5, Quintile 5; CI, Confidence interval.</p>1<p>Adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity and total calorie intake. Presented at mean age of 56 years and mean calorie intake of 1800 Kcal/d for the sample.</p>2<p>Used as independent variables. Each nutrient (with the exception of fats and added sugar) was energy-adjusted using residual method and then converted into quintiles. For saturated fats, trans fats and added sugars, expressed as percent of total calories and then converted into quintiles.</p>3<p>Two sided <i>P</i> for trend test across quintiles of each independent variable.</p

Proportion of higher SES by quintiles of energy-adjusted diet cost, adjusting for covariates.¹

<p>Abbreviations: Q1, Quintile 1; Q2, Quintile 2; Q3, Quintile 3, Q4, Quintile 4; Q5, Quintile 5; CI, Confidence interval; <i>P</i>, p-value; β, Beta coefficient; SD, Standard Deviation.</p>1<p>Adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, household size and total calorie intake. Standardized at mean age of 56 years and mean calorie intake of 1800 kcal/d for the sample.</p>2<p>Two sided p-value for trend test across energy-adjusted quintiles of daily diet cost.</p>3<p>Higher SES (either income <5,000 K, or less than college education, or both as the reference category), Higher income (<50,000 as the reference category), Higher education (≤some college as the reference category).</p

Diet cost by quintiles of energy-adjusted nutrient intakes, among women: results from multivariable regression.

<p>Diet cost by quintiles of energy-adjusted nutrient intakes, among women: results from multivariable regression.</p

Characteristics of the study sample.

<p>sum may not add up to 100% due to missing values.</p

Diet cost by quintiles of energy-adjusted nutrient intakes, among men: results from multivariable regression.

<p>Diet cost by quintiles of energy-adjusted nutrient intakes, among men: results from multivariable regression.</p

Proportion of higher SES¹ by quintiles of energy-adjusted nutrient intakes², adjusting for other covariates.³

1<p>Higher SES used as the dependent variable. Indicate those with income ≥50,000 and at least college graduates.</p>2<p>Used as independent variables. Each nutrient (with the exception of fats and added sugar) was energy-adjusted using residual method and then converted into quintiles. For saturated fats, trans fats and added sugars, expressed as percent of total calories and then converted into quintiles.</p>3<p>Adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, household size and total calorie intake. Proportions presented for mean age of 56 years and calorie intake of 1800 kcal/d.</p>4<p>Two sided <i>P</i> for trend test across energy-adjusted quintiles of each nutrient intake.</p

Data_Sheet_1_Characterizing Ultra-Processed Foods by Energy Density, Nutrient Density, and Cost.PDF

Background: The NOVA food classification scheme divides foods into ultra-processed, processed, unprocessed, and culinary ingredients. Ultra-processed foods contribute >60% of energy to diets in the US.Objective: To characterize ultra-processed foods by energy density, nutrient density, and monetary cost.Methods: The 384 component foods of Fred Hutch (FHCRC) food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), were assigned to 4 NOVA categories and to 7 USDA MyPyramid food groups. Energy density was kcal/g. Nutrient density was measured using the Nutrient Rich Food index NRF9.3. Food prices were collected in local supermarkets from 2004 to 2016. Analyses examined time trends in food prices by NOVA category and by USDA food group.Results: The ultra-processed classification captured mostly grains (91%), fats and sweets (73%), dairy (71%), and beans, nuts and seeds (70%), but only 36% of meat, poultry and fish, 26% of vegetables, and 20% of fruit. Compared to unprocessed foods, ultra-processed foods had lower nutrient density (NRF9.3 per 100 kcal: 21.2 vs. 108.5),higher energy density (mean (SD): 2.2 vs. 1.10 in kcal/g), and lower per calorie cost (0.55 vs. 1.45 in $/100 kcal). Ultra-processed foods did not increase in price as much as unprocessed foods over the 12 year period.Conclusion: Ultra-processed foods tend to be energy-dense, low-cost, and nutrient-poor. Low energy cost could be one mechanism linking ultra-processed foods with negative health outcomes. Food-based Dietary Guidelines may need to address food processing in relation to economic aspects of food choice.</p

Additional file 1: Table S1. of Self-reported and measured weights and heights among adults in Seattle and King County

Comparisons between measured and self-reported height at baseline. (DOCX 16.5 kb

Additional file 4: Figure S1. of Self-reported and measured weights and heights among adults in Seattle and King County

Comparison of Height (cm) at Baseline (n=419). (TIF 2.49 mb

Additional file 3: Table S3. of Self-reported and measured weights and heights among adults in Seattle and King County

Comparisons between measured and self-reported BMI at baseline. (DOCX 16.4 kb