4.5 Article

Family resemblance in breakfast energy intake:: the Stanislas Family Study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 56, 期 10, 页码 1011-1019

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601440

关键词

family resemblance; breakfast; energy intake

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There seems to be a consensus that family influences on dietary habits are important. However, no data relative to breakfast have been published yet. Objective: To investigate whether and how breakfast energy intake aggregates within French families. Design: A total of 398 families of the Stanislas Family Study who filled in a 3 day food consumption diary were selected. Absolute and relative breakfast energy intakes (BEI in kcal/day and RBEI in percentage of daily intake, respectively) were both studied. Results: By using a variance component analysis, no genetic influence was shown in family aggregation of both BEI and RBEI. Intra-generation common environmental contribution to total phenotypic variance of BEI and RBEI was higher than inter-generation; both were increased with frequency of sharing breakfast. Furthermore frequency of sharing breakfast contributed to increase family resemblance in breakfast energy intake, particularly in offspring for BEI and RBEI, and in spouses for RBEI. Smoking habits, alcohol consumption, BMI or physical activity were related to family resemblance, but after adjustment on each factor degrees of resemblance were almost unchanged. Conclusion: General findings of this study were that family aggregation in breakfast absolute and relative energy intakes was significant within Stanislas families. Family resemblance depended on inter- and intra-generation components and was modified by the number of shared breakfasts. Our study confirmed that familial habits act on family resemblance in both absolute and relative breakfast energy intakes, so that family should be a favorite unit for health and diet promotion programs. Sponsorship: Kellogg's PA, France.

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

4.5
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