4.1 Article

Role of food prepared away from home in the American diet, 1977-78 versus 1994-96: Changes and consequences

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 140-150

出版社

B C DECKER INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60083-3

关键词

diet assessment; eating behavior; food consumption trends

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine changes, between 1977-78 and 199496, in the quantity and quality of food Americans consumed that was prepared at home versus away from home. Design: Data were obtained from nationwide surveys of food consumption conducted by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1977-78 and 1994-96. To maximize comparability we used day 1 dietary data, which both surveys collected via 24-hour recall. Subjects/Settings: Individuals 2 years of age and over were selected. USDA sampling weights were used to generate nationally representative estimates. Variables Measured: We categorized foods by preparation at home or at restaurants, fast-food establishments, schools/day care, and other non-home locations. We assessed percent calories from total fat and saturated fat, and the cholesterol, sodium, fiber, calcium, and iron densities of foods prepared at home versus those prepared away from home. Statistical Analyses: T tests were calculated using accepted procedures to adjust for survey design effects. Results: Between 1977-78 and 1994-96, consumption of food prepared away From home increased from 18% to 32% of total calories. Meals and snacks based on food prepared away from home contained more calories per eating occasion, and away food was higher in total fat and saturated fat on a per-calorie basis than at-home food. Away food contained less dietary fiber, calcium, and iron on a per-calorie basis. Among adults but not children, food prepared away from home was more sodium and cholesterol dense. Implications: When developing intervention messages and strategies, nutrition educators need to be aware of the increasing role of away food in Americans' diets.

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

4.1
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