4.5 Article

Diet and eating habits in high and low socioeconomic groups

Journal

NUTRITION
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 559-566

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2004.09.018

Keywords

socioeconomic status; diet quality; dietary intake

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We measured the difference of dietary intake and eating habits across socioeconomic statuses (SESs) in Israel. Methods: Participants were randomly recruited from three high SES municipalities and three low SES municipalities in the Negev. Participants were interviewed at home with 24-h food questionnaires that included additional questions regarding health and eating habits. Nutrient and energy intakes were compared between groups, as were major. contributors to the energy and food groups. Results: One hundred sixteen participants from the high SES group and 206 from the low SES entered the study. Those in the low SES group were older, heavier, less educated, and less physically active. Dietary intake among the participants in the low SES group was significantly lower in protein, monounsaturated fat, and most vitamins and minerals (thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin C, calcium, magnesium, and iron). Conversely, vitamin E intake was higher in the low SES group. In the low SES group, the main contributors to energy intake were breads, oils, and sugars. Oils, fats, and citrus fruits were consumed more among subjects in the low SES group, whereas dairy products, grains, and legumes were consumed less by subjects in the high SES group. Conclusion: In a detailed survey conducted in two distinct populations, we found poorer diet quality in the low SES group. The root causes for such divergence need further study. As smoking declines in the modem world, nutrition will become the key risk factor in many diseases. Further research and educational and legislative initiatives are needed to curtail this risk. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available