4.3 Article

Racial/ethnic differences in dietary intake among a diverse sample of adolescents: An experimental study

期刊

PEDIATRIC OBESITY
卷 16, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijpo.12823

关键词

childhood obesity; eating behaviour; ethnic minorities; stress

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [UL1TR001414, F32MD014050, R01MH108155, R01DA040966, R01MD010757]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that African-American females consumed more energy following relaxation than following stress, while Hispanic/Latina females and non-Hispanic White females did not show significant differences in food intake between the two conditions. These findings provide direct observations of racial/ethnic differences in food intake in response to acute stress, which may contribute to obesity-related health disparities.
Background African-American (AA) and Hispanic/Latina (HL) females have higher obesity prevalence than do non-Hispanic Whites (NHW); this may be due to AA and HL consuming more energy-dense foods in response to stressors. Objectives This study examined racial/ethnic differences in dietary intake under controlled conditions (relaxation and stress) in a diverse sample of adolescent females. Methods Participants included 120 adolescent females (30% AA, 37% HL and 33% NHW) who participated in a laboratory food intake study. Using a randomized cross-over design, ad libitum food consumption was measured following control/relaxation and social-evaluative stress conditions. Food intake was indexed as consumed calories, added sugars and solid fats. Results The effect of laboratory conditions on food intake varied by race/ethnicity, such that AA consumed more energy following relaxation than following stress. For NHW and HL, food intake did not differ between conditions. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, these findings are the first to directly observe racial/ethnic differences in food intake in response to acute stress, which may contribute to obesity-related health disparities.

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

4.3
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