4.4 Article

Usual coffee intake in Brazil: results from the National Dietary Survey 2008-9

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 113, Issue 10, Pages 1615-1620

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114515000835

Keywords

Coffee; Usual intake; Brazilian population; Diet surveys; Beverages

Funding

  1. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico - National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) [302520/2008-2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Coffee is central to the economy of many developing countries, as well as to the world economy. However, despite the widespread consumption of coffee, there are very few available data showing the usual intake of this beverage. Surveying usual coffee intake is a way of monitoring one aspect of a population's usual dietary intake. Thus, the present study aimed to characterise the usual daily coffee intake in the Brazilian population. We used data from the National Dietary Survey collected in 2008-9 from a probabilistic sample of 34003 Brazilians aged 10 years and older. The National Cancer Institute method was applied to obtain the usual intake based on two nonconsecutive food diaries, and descriptive statistical analyses were performed by age and sex for Brazil and its regions. The estimated average usual daily coffee intake of the Brazilian population was 163 (se 2.8)ml. The comparison by sex showed that males had a 12% greater usual coffee intake than females. In addition, the highest intake was recorded among older males. Among the five regions surveyed, the North-East had the highest usual coffee intake (175ml). The most common method of brewing coffee was filtered/instant coffee (71%), and the main method of sweetening beverages was with sugar (87%). In Brazil, the mean usual coffee intake corresponds to 163ml, or 1.5 cups/d. Differences in usual coffee intake according to sex and age differed among the five Brazilian regions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available