4.3 Article

Changes in consumption of food away from home and intakes of energy and other nutrients among US working-age adults, 2005-2014

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
Volume 20, Issue 18, Pages 3238-3246

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980017002403

Keywords

Food away from home; US working-age adults; Great Recession; Diet quality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To document changes in consumption of food away from home (FAFH) and intakes of selected nutrients by working-age adults between 2005-06 and 2013-14, covering the most recent recessionary period and recovery. Design: Means were compared across survey rounds relative to 2005-06. Multivariate regression was used to account for changes in demographic characteristics over time. Setting: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2005-2014. Subjects: Working-age adults born in 1951-80 (n 12 129) and adolescents and young adults born in 1981-90 (n 5197) who reported day 1 dietary intake data. Results: Approximately 34 % of energy consumed by working-age adults came from FAFH (14 % from fast foods) in 2005-06. Levels of FAFH consumption were lowest in 2009-10, at 28 and 11 % of energy from FAFH and fast foods, respectively. Percentage of energy from fast foods was 1.9 percentage points higher in 2013-14. Percentage of energy from saturated fat and total mg of cholesterol consumed were lower in 2009-14, while intake of fibre was higher in 2011-14. At-home foods had less saturated fat and more fibre in 2009-14. The greater the percentage of energy from FAFH in the day, the greater the intakes of fat and cholesterol. Percentage of energy from FAFH was highest among those born in 1981-90 and lowest among those born in 1951-60. Conclusions: FAFH is a significant source of energy, fat and cholesterol among working-age adults. Menu labelling may lower FAFH's energy content and make it easier for consumers to choose more healthful items.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available