4.6 Article

Fruit and vegetable intake and dietary variety in adult picky eaters

期刊

FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE
卷 54, 期 -, 页码 39-50

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.06.012

关键词

Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder; Picky eating; Dietary variety; Dietary intake; Fruit; Vegetables; Protein; Fish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Picky eating has been associated with altered nutrient intake and reduced consumption of fruits and vegetables in middle childhood. Findings from two studies reported here provide empirical support for the perception that adult picky eaters also have significantly different diets from their peers. Adult picky eaters were compared to their non-picky peers on dietary variety (Study 1), and self-reported daily intake of fruits, vegetables, protein, dairy, starches and grains, desserts, snack foods, and soda (Study 2). In Study 1, picky eaters reported eating less varied diets than peers; their variety was particularly low for vegetables, fruits, and fish. In Study 2, picky eaters reported fewer daily servings of fruits and vegetables, and were more likely to report diets that omitted fruits and vegetables and/or failed to meet the recommended 5 daily servings; these findings were more pronounced among picky eaters who reported experiencing symptoms of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder due to picky eating. Food neophobia and rigid, inflexible eating behavior, two characteristics of picky eating, were each negatively related to daily fruit and vegetable intake; eating inflexibilty was also associated with reduced dietary variety. Although as many as 35% of otherwise healthy adults identify themselves as picky eaters, very little research has explored dietary variety or daily fruit and vegetable intake in these individuals. This gap in the literature is striking given widespread public health concern with improving diet quality in an effort to fight rising rates of obesity and related morbidity. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据