Abstract
- Unhealthy Content Index Country
- Content Index State Failed Exchange 2010 No Dag
- Exchange Update Content Index
The recommendation to eat diverse types of foodstuffs is an internationally accepted recommendation for a healthy diet. The importance of dietary variety is based on several studies that have shown that diverse diets are accompanied by positive health outcomes. However, the definition and measurement of healthy food diversity are often criticized in the literature. Nutritional studies generally use count indices to quantify food diversity. As these measures have considerable disadvantages, several nutritionists have called for a precise definition and measurement of food diversity. This study aimed to develop a new healthy food diversity indicator. This index is based on a distribution measure mainly applied in economic and ecological studies. It considers 3 aspects important for healthy food diversity: number, distribution, and health value of consumed foods. We have validated the new index using energy-adjusted correlations with diet quality indicators. A comparison with selected traditional diversity indices revealed that the new indicator more appropriately reflected healthy food diversity.
Introduction
Eating a large diversity of foods is an internationally accepted recommendation for a healthy diet, because it is associated with positive health outcomes such as reduced incidence of cancer or mortality (1–5). For an assessment of the diversity of an individual's consumption, appropriate measures are necessary. In the nutritional literature, count measures are frequently applied, whereby the number of consumed food items and food groups is recorded (1,6–8). These indices have 2 crucial disadvantages. First, they do not distinguish whether the observed variety is the result of different healthy or unhealthy products (fruits and sweets, respectively). Previous studies dealt with this obstacle by merely counting desired foods while omitting undesired foods (e.g. 3,7–9). Because it is questionable to categorize foods such as sugared cereals, this method is normative.
Second, count measures do not account for the distribution of individual food quantities. An individual with equal shares of food products has a greater food diversity than an individual who consumes 90% of 1 product and 10% of the others. A food diversity index must reflect this. Altogether, a healthy food diversity index must consider 3 aspects simultaneously: number, distribution, and health value of a consumed food basket. All aspects are emphasized in newer recommendations for healthy eating. The German diversity guideline, for example, underlines: “Enjoy the great variety of food. There is no ‘healthy’, ‘unhealthy’ or even ‘forbidden’ food. It is the quantity, selection, and combination of food that matters” (10).
Particularly in economic studies, there is a growing application of distribution measures that consider number as well as distribution of different (food) products to quantify diversity (11,12). We wanted to determine whether these indices are suitable measures of healthy food diversity. This answers the demand of many nutritionists for a more precise definition of food diversity and to develop a suitable indicator (13,14,8,15).
Materials and Methods
Index construction.
There are several different methods to measure dietary diversity. For example, Kant et al. (1) constructed the Dietary Diversity Score. This index counts the number of food groups consumed daily: dairy, meat, grain, fruits, and vegetables. The maximum score is 5; 1 point is counted for each group consumed. Drewnowski et al. (6) developed the Dietary Variety Score, which is based on the cumulative number of 164 different foods consumed over a 15-d period. In the Diet Quality Index-International, Kim et al. (16) integrated a dietary variety component where variety is evaluated in 2 ways, i.e. the overall variety is recorded by the number of 5 different food groups consumed daily and the variety within protein sources is measured by the number of different protein sources. All variety indices focus on counting different food groups and subgroups; the distribution of consumed food quantities is not taken into account.
A measure to evaluate diversity in terms of number as well as distribution of different food items is the Berry-Index. This index was applied mainly in economic food diversity studies (11,12,17–19). Recently, the Berry-Index, which is also known as the Simpson-Index, has been applied in a nutritional study by Katanoda et al. (20) to measure dietary diversity and its annual changes in Japan. The Berry-Index (BI) is defined as:
(21), where si is the share of product i in the total amount of food consumed. The index is bounded between 0 and 1–1/n, whose limit value approximates 1 if the number of foods (n) increases. BI = 0 indicates that an individual consumes only 1 food product, BI = 1–1/n refers to a situation where the individual consumes equal shares of all products considered.From a nutritional perspective, the latter assumption is not desired. According to food guide recommendations, healthy foods should be consumed in higher shares than unhealthy ones. Hence, the highest index value has to be assigned to a situation where an individual consumes recommended food group shares. The basic idea of the new healthy food diversity indicator was to modify the Berry-Index so that the index rises if the distribution of foods moves in favor of healthier products. Therefore, we incorporated a component into the Berry-Index that is able to reflect the health value of consumed foods. In this analysis, we derived health values from actual food guidelines of the German Nutrition Society (DGE),3 but other food guidelines can also be used as a basis for the modification of the Berry-Index.
The visual representation of the DGE food guidelines are illustrated by a nutrition circle and a food pyramid. The nutrition circle (Fig. 1) illustrates the shares of food groups that should be consumed in terms of weight. These shares are calculated on the basis of the DGE reference values for nutrient intake. Exemplary diets are constructed with the aim that the reference values for nutrient intake are achieved on average over a 7-d period (22). In accordance with the sides of the food pyramid, these shares can be summed up in 3 groups: 73% plant foods, 25% animal foods, 2% fats and oils. [The pyramid also includes a 4th dimension that refers to beverages. Because we are primarily interested in caloric foods, we exclude all noncaloric beverages such as mineral water, coffee, and tea, whereas caloric beverages are assigned to other food groups. For example, 100% juices are assigned to fruits and vegetables, sugar-containing beverages (e.g. lemonades) are assigned to sweets, etc.]
Nutrition circle. Reproduced with permission from DGE. Copyright: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung e. V., Bonn.
Nutrition circle. Reproduced with permission from DGE. Copyright: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung e. V., Bonn.
The food pyramid illustrates the qualitative dimension within these 3 food groups by the hierarchy of foods. To take the plant food group as an example, most valuable (healthy) subgroups such as vegetables and fruits are placed at the bottom, less valuable (unhealthy) subgroups such as cakes and sweets at the top (Fig. 2).
Plant food group side of the food pyramid. Reproduced with permission from DGE. Copyright: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung e. V., Bonn.
Plant food group side of the food pyramid. Reproduced with permission from DGE. Copyright: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung e. V., Bonn.
We made use of these guidelines to create health values for foods. This explicit valuation of foods is our own interpretation of the DGE guidelines. The constructed health values are dependent on the position of foods in the pyramid as well as on the affiliation to a main food group (plant foods, animal foods, fats, and oils). The health value of the main food groups (Gb) was assessed according to the percentage consumption recommendation shown in the nutrition circle. For the assessment of food subgroups (Gw), the qualitative dimension of the pyramid sides had to be quantified. It was assumed that each side is divided into 5 different subgroups. Because the pyramid is an isosceles triangle, it was further supposed that the 5 subgroups have the same heights on all sides. With geometric calculations, the percentage of each subgroup within the upper group was calculated. Combination of the subgroup shares (Gw) with the main group shares (Gb) yield health factors (hf = Gw · Gb) for 15 different subgroups (Table 1).
Health factors for 15 food groups derived from the nutrition circle and the food pyramid of the DGE1
Food group | Share of food subgroup, % | Health factors |
---|---|---|
Plant foods (73%) | 0.73 × | |
Vegetables/fruits/leaf salads/juices2 | 36 | 0.36 = 0.2628 |
Wholemeal products/paddy | 28 | 0.28 = 0.2044 |
Potatoes | 20 | 0.20 = 0.1460 |
White-meal products/peeled rice | 12 | 0.12 = 0.0876 |
Snacks and sweets3 | 4 | 0.04 = 0.0292 |
Animal foods (25%) | 0.25 × | |
Fish/low-fat meat/low-fat meat products | 36 | 0.36 = 0.090 |
Low-fat milk/low-fat dairy products | 28 | 0.28 = 0.070 |
Milk/dairy products | 20 | 0.20 = 0.050 |
Meat products, sausages, eggs | 12 | 0.12 = 0.030 |
Bacon | 4 | 0.04 = 0.010 |
Fats and oils (2%) | 0.002 × | |
Oilseed rape/walnut oil | 36 | 0.36 = 0.0072 |
Wheat germ oil/soybean oil | 28 | 0.28 = 0.0056 |
Corn oil/sunflower oil | 20 | 0.20 = 0.0040 |
Margarines/butter | 12 | 0.12 = 0.0024 |
Lard/vegetable fat | 4 | 0.04 = 0.0008 |
Food group | Share of food subgroup, % | Health factors |
---|---|---|
Plant foods (73%) | 0.73 × | |
Vegetables/fruits/leaf salads/juices2 | 36 | 0.36 = 0.2628 |
Wholemeal products/paddy | 28 | 0.28 = 0.2044 |
Potatoes | 20 | 0.20 = 0.1460 |
White-meal products/peeled rice | 12 | 0.12 = 0.0876 |
Snacks and sweets3 | 4 | 0.04 = 0.0292 |
Animal foods (25%) | 0.25 × | |
Fish/low-fat meat/low-fat meat products | 36 | 0.36 = 0.090 |
Low-fat milk/low-fat dairy products | 28 | 0.28 = 0.070 |
Milk/dairy products | 20 | 0.20 = 0.050 |
Meat products, sausages, eggs | 12 | 0.12 = 0.030 |
Bacon | 4 | 0.04 = 0.010 |
Fats and oils (2%) | 0.002 × | |
Oilseed rape/walnut oil | 36 | 0.36 = 0.0072 |
Wheat germ oil/soybean oil | 28 | 0.28 = 0.0056 |
Corn oil/sunflower oil | 20 | 0.20 = 0.0040 |
Margarines/butter | 12 | 0.12 = 0.0024 |
Lard/vegetable fat | 4 | 0.04 = 0.0008 |
The health valuation of foods is our interpretation of the DGE guidelines.
100% juices.
Sugar/cakes/sweets/snacks/potato chips/fruit juice spritzer/light beverages nectars/fruit juice (30%)/lemonades/energy drinks.
Health factors for 15 food groups derived from the nutrition circle and the food pyramid of the DGE1
Food group | Share of food subgroup, % | Health factors |
---|---|---|
Plant foods (73%) | 0.73 × | |
Vegetables/fruits/leaf salads/juices2 | 36 | 0.36 = 0.2628 |
Wholemeal products/paddy | 28 | 0.28 = 0.2044 |
Potatoes | 20 | 0.20 = 0.1460 |
White-meal products/peeled rice | 12 | 0.12 = 0.0876 |
Snacks and sweets3 | 4 | 0.04 = 0.0292 |
Animal foods (25%) | 0.25 × | |
Fish/low-fat meat/low-fat meat products | 36 | 0.36 = 0.090 |
Low-fat milk/low-fat dairy products | 28 | 0.28 = 0.070 |
Milk/dairy products | 20 | 0.20 = 0.050 |
Meat products, sausages, eggs | 12 | 0.12 = 0.030 |
Bacon | 4 | 0.04 = 0.010 |
Fats and oils (2%) | 0.002 × | |
Oilseed rape/walnut oil | 36 | 0.36 = 0.0072 |
Wheat germ oil/soybean oil | 28 | 0.28 = 0.0056 |
Corn oil/sunflower oil | 20 | 0.20 = 0.0040 |
Margarines/butter | 12 | 0.12 = 0.0024 |
Lard/vegetable fat | 4 | 0.04 = 0.0008 |
Food group | Share of food subgroup, % | Health factors |
---|---|---|
Plant foods (73%) | 0.73 × | |
Vegetables/fruits/leaf salads/juices2 | 36 | 0.36 = 0.2628 |
Wholemeal products/paddy | 28 | 0.28 = 0.2044 |
Potatoes | 20 | 0.20 = 0.1460 |
White-meal products/peeled rice | 12 | 0.12 = 0.0876 |
Snacks and sweets3 | 4 | 0.04 = 0.0292 |
Animal foods (25%) | 0.25 × | |
Fish/low-fat meat/low-fat meat products | 36 | 0.36 = 0.090 |
Low-fat milk/low-fat dairy products | 28 | 0.28 = 0.070 |
Milk/dairy products | 20 | 0.20 = 0.050 |
Meat products, sausages, eggs | 12 | 0.12 = 0.030 |
Bacon | 4 | 0.04 = 0.010 |
Fats and oils (2%) | 0.002 × | |
Oilseed rape/walnut oil | 36 | 0.36 = 0.0072 |
Wheat germ oil/soybean oil | 28 | 0.28 = 0.0056 |
Corn oil/sunflower oil | 20 | 0.20 = 0.0040 |
Margarines/butter | 12 | 0.12 = 0.0024 |
Lard/vegetable fat | 4 | 0.04 = 0.0008 |
The health valuation of foods is our interpretation of the DGE guidelines.
100% juices.
Sugar/cakes/sweets/snacks/potato chips/fruit juice spritzer/light beverages nectars/fruit juice (30%)/lemonades/energy drinks.
Using these health factors, the health value of an individual's food basket was assessed by multiplying the quantitative shares of single foods in terms of weight (si) on total quantities with their corresponding health factor (hfi). The output is called health value
. The maximum health value that can be achieved is 0.26. Thus, division of hv by its maximum ensures that hv is bounded between 1 and nearly 0.The final construction of the healthy food diversity index was achieved by combining health value (hv) and diversity of the food basket
(BI{=}(1{-}{sum}s_{i}^{2}))
. The resulting Healthy Food Diversity (HFD)-Index is defined as . Multiplication of the Berry-Index with the health value ensures that neither a high hv nor a high BI alone yield a high HFD-Index. The HFD-Index, which is bounded between 0 and 1–1/n, has the following desired properties: 1) If the distribution between hf groups of the pyramid does not change, it increases with the growing number of food items; it increases the more equally the food items are distributed within the hf-groups; and 2) If distribution between hf groups of the pyramid does change in favor of healthy (unhealthy) food groups, it increases (decreases).Therefore, the HFD-Index is able to differentiate between healthy and unhealthy food diversity over all food groups based on real observable diets without omitting unhealthy foods.
Data and statistical analyses.
To verify if the developed HFD-Index was able to reflect a healthy diet, we conducted Pearson's correlation analyses, where individuals' HFD were correlated with nutrient supply and biochemical parameters. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 12.0. The significance level was set at 0.05 in all analyses.
The empirical analyses were based on data from the German Nutrition Survey (GeNuS) of 1998, which is representative for noninstitutional German adults (23). (GeNuS was part of the German National Health Interview and Examination Survey 1998. The survey was approved by the Federal Data Protection officials. Survey participants were informed in detail about the study goals, interview, and examination procedures as well as anonymous data record keeping and analyses. They were able to refuse any part of the examination program. Participants provided written informed consent prior to the interview and examination.) A number of 4030 participants were comprehensively interviewed concerning their diet of the preceding 4 wk by trained nutritionists using a validated computerized dietary history method (24). The participants reported 2678 different foods that were aggregated for this analysis into 133 different food categories (see Supplemental Table 1). In addition to food data, the GeNuS provides information for >30 micro- and macronutrients and for several blood serum parameters such as blood serum cholesterol and homocysteine.
The serum was frozen immediately and stored for analysis at −40°C. Time between blood sampling and analysis never exceeded 7 d, except for homocysteine. Blood lipids were analyzed on an automatic analyzer type MEGA (Merck Darmstadt). Total serum cholesterol was assayed using the enzymatic CHOD-PAP method (Merck Darmstadt). HDL cholesterol was determined with an immunoseparation-based homogenous assay from WAKO. Triacylglycerol was measured with the GPO-PAP method (Merck Darmstadt). Homocysteine was analyzed with a commercially available HPLC kit (Immundiagnostik Bensheim) by using a Shimadzu chromatography system with fluorescence detection within 1 y after storage at −40°C.
To measure the nutrient supply of the participants of the GeNuS, we used the nutrient adequacy ratio (NAR), which is defined as the ratio of a certain nutrient intake to its recommended dietary allowance (25). The NAR was truncated at 100%; hence, if a person reaches >100% of the recommendation, no further credit was given (13). In this analysis, NAR for 30 nutrients were used for validation of the HFD-Index. As the empirical database refers to German individuals, the guidelines of the DGE were used as a reference for nutrient intake (26). The mean values of the calculated NAR ranged from 99.99 for vitamin K to 0.84 for sodium (Table 2 for descriptive statistics of all variables used in the empirical analyses).
Descriptive statistics of considered variables used in correlation analyses among GeNuS 1998 particpants12
Mean | SD | Minimum | Maximum | |
---|---|---|---|---|
HFD-Index3 | 0.49 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.84 |
Berry-Index | 0.90 | 0.06 | 0.29 | 0.97 |
Count-Index | 50.72 | 7.34 | 12.00 | 74.00 |
Nutrients with risk of deficient supply | ||||
NAR vitamin A (retinol equivalents) | 98.06 | 7.49 | 27.76 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin D | 56.33 | 23.18 | 1.21 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin E | 82.54 | 18.31 | 10.17 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin K | 99.99 | 0.26 | 85.36 | 100.00 |
NAR thiamin | 98.48 | 6.38 | 20.47 | 100.00 |
NAR riboflavin | 96.54 | 9.11 | 16.73 | 100.00 |
NAR niacin equivalents | 99.78 | 2.60 | 29.78 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin B-6 | 98.15 | 7.03 | 25.89 | 100.00 |
NAR folate | 35.13 | 12.07 | 4.97 | 100.00 |
NAR pantothenic acid | 87.32 | 15.81 | 16.31 | 100.00 |
NAR biotin | 87.56 | 16.22 | 14.97 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin B-12 | 98.72 | 6.79 | 15.76 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin C | 94.35 | 13.84 | 8.43 | 100.00 |
NAR chloride | 99.97 | 0.97 | 51.71 | 100.00 |
NAR potassium | 98.97 | 5.27 | 30.01 | 100.00 |
NAR calcium | 80.87 | 20.23 | 11.83 | 100.00 |
NAR phosphorus | 99.84 | 2.29 | 25.54 | 100.00 |
NAR magnesium | 93.51 | 12.00 | 17.63 | 100.00 |
NAR iron | 97.03 | 8.33 | 26.09 | 100.00 |
NAR iodine | 44.13 | 17.99 | 6.74 | 100.00 |
NAR fluoride | 17.57 | 5.76 | 3.10 | 53.22 |
NAR zinc | 98.64 | 5.92 | 21.16 | 100.00 |
NAR copper | 99.32 | 4.34 | 35.81 | 100.00 |
NAR manganese | 96.88 | 9.14 | 16.19 | 100.00 |
NAR dietary fiber | 95.94 | 10.07 | 26.29 | 100.00 |
Nutrients with risk of excess supply | ||||
NAR fat | 42.99 | 32.06 | 0.00 | 99.94 |
NAR cholesterol | 40.94 | 32.20 | 0.00 | 99.99 |
NAR saturated/ unsaturated fatty acids | 3.20 | 9.82 | 0.00 | 90.16 |
NAR sugar | 38.45 | 31.77 | 0.00 | 99.98 |
NAR sodium | 0.84 | 6.89 | 0.00 | 99.58 |
Serum HDL-cholesterol, mmol/L | 1.49 | 0.46 | 0.42 | 4.62 |
Serum triacylglycerol, mmol/L | 1.67 | 1.19 | 0.23 | 10.30 |
Serum uric acid, μmol/L | 304.92 | 99.72 | 50.33 | 2616.90 |
Serum homocysteine, μmol/L | 10.15 | 4.15 | 0.88 | 72.37 |
Mean | SD | Minimum | Maximum | |
---|---|---|---|---|
HFD-Index3 | 0.49 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.84 |
Berry-Index | 0.90 | 0.06 | 0.29 | 0.97 |
Count-Index | 50.72 | 7.34 | 12.00 | 74.00 |
Nutrients with risk of deficient supply | ||||
NAR vitamin A (retinol equivalents) | 98.06 | 7.49 | 27.76 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin D | 56.33 | 23.18 | 1.21 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin E | 82.54 | 18.31 | 10.17 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin K | 99.99 | 0.26 | 85.36 | 100.00 |
NAR thiamin | 98.48 | 6.38 | 20.47 | 100.00 |
NAR riboflavin | 96.54 | 9.11 | 16.73 | 100.00 |
NAR niacin equivalents | 99.78 | 2.60 | 29.78 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin B-6 | 98.15 | 7.03 | 25.89 | 100.00 |
NAR folate | 35.13 | 12.07 | 4.97 | 100.00 |
NAR pantothenic acid | 87.32 | 15.81 | 16.31 | 100.00 |
NAR biotin | 87.56 | 16.22 | 14.97 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin B-12 | 98.72 | 6.79 | 15.76 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin C | 94.35 | 13.84 | 8.43 | 100.00 |
NAR chloride | 99.97 | 0.97 | 51.71 | 100.00 |
NAR potassium | 98.97 | 5.27 | 30.01 | 100.00 |
NAR calcium | 80.87 | 20.23 | 11.83 | 100.00 |
NAR phosphorus | 99.84 | 2.29 | 25.54 | 100.00 |
NAR magnesium | 93.51 | 12.00 | 17.63 | 100.00 |
NAR iron | 97.03 | 8.33 | 26.09 | 100.00 |
NAR iodine | 44.13 | 17.99 | 6.74 | 100.00 |
NAR fluoride | 17.57 | 5.76 | 3.10 | 53.22 |
NAR zinc | 98.64 | 5.92 | 21.16 | 100.00 |
NAR copper | 99.32 | 4.34 | 35.81 | 100.00 |
NAR manganese | 96.88 | 9.14 | 16.19 | 100.00 |
NAR dietary fiber | 95.94 | 10.07 | 26.29 | 100.00 |
Nutrients with risk of excess supply | ||||
NAR fat | 42.99 | 32.06 | 0.00 | 99.94 |
NAR cholesterol | 40.94 | 32.20 | 0.00 | 99.99 |
NAR saturated/ unsaturated fatty acids | 3.20 | 9.82 | 0.00 | 90.16 |
NAR sugar | 38.45 | 31.77 | 0.00 | 99.98 |
NAR sodium | 0.84 | 6.89 | 0.00 | 99.58 |
Serum HDL-cholesterol, mmol/L | 1.49 | 0.46 | 0.42 | 4.62 |
Serum triacylglycerol, mmol/L | 1.67 | 1.19 | 0.23 | 10.30 |
Serum uric acid, μmol/L | 304.92 | 99.72 | 50.33 | 2616.90 |
Serum homocysteine, μmol/L | 10.15 | 4.15 | 0.88 | 72.37 |
All values are based on n = 4030.
Dying Light: The Following - Enhanced Edition takes parkour-fueled zombie survival to a whole new level. Enjoy the definitive Dying Light experience with the. Computer gaming just got a whole lot more awesome now that the uber-exciting Dying Light PRE-OWNED (PlayStation 4) has come along. In this day and age,. Dying Light is a first person, action survival horror game set in a vast and dangerous open world. During the day, players traverse an expansive urban environment overrun by a vicious outbreak, scavenging the world for supplies and crafting weapons to defend against the growing. Dying light ps4 target.
All analyses were adjusted for sample weights.
Histogram and percentiles of the HFD-index are available in Supplemental Figure 1.
Descriptive statistics of considered variables used in correlation analyses among GeNuS 1998 particpants12
Mean | SD | Minimum | Maximum | |
---|---|---|---|---|
HFD-Index3 | 0.49 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.84 |
Berry-Index | 0.90 | 0.06 | 0.29 | 0.97 |
Count-Index | 50.72 | 7.34 | 12.00 | 74.00 |
Nutrients with risk of deficient supply | ||||
NAR vitamin A (retinol equivalents) | 98.06 | 7.49 | 27.76 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin D | 56.33 | 23.18 | 1.21 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin E | 82.54 | 18.31 | 10.17 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin K | 99.99 | 0.26 | 85.36 | 100.00 |
NAR thiamin | 98.48 | 6.38 | 20.47 | 100.00 |
NAR riboflavin | 96.54 | 9.11 | 16.73 | 100.00 |
NAR niacin equivalents | 99.78 | 2.60 | 29.78 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin B-6 | 98.15 | 7.03 | 25.89 | 100.00 |
NAR folate | 35.13 | 12.07 | 4.97 | 100.00 |
NAR pantothenic acid | 87.32 | 15.81 | 16.31 | 100.00 |
NAR biotin | 87.56 | 16.22 | 14.97 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin B-12 | 98.72 | 6.79 | 15.76 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin C | 94.35 | 13.84 | 8.43 | 100.00 |
NAR chloride | 99.97 | 0.97 | 51.71 | 100.00 |
NAR potassium | 98.97 | 5.27 | 30.01 | 100.00 |
NAR calcium | 80.87 | 20.23 | 11.83 | 100.00 |
NAR phosphorus | 99.84 | 2.29 | 25.54 | 100.00 |
NAR magnesium | 93.51 | 12.00 | 17.63 | 100.00 |
NAR iron | 97.03 | 8.33 | 26.09 | 100.00 |
NAR iodine | 44.13 | 17.99 | 6.74 | 100.00 |
NAR fluoride | 17.57 | 5.76 | 3.10 | 53.22 |
NAR zinc | 98.64 | 5.92 | 21.16 | 100.00 |
NAR copper | 99.32 | 4.34 | 35.81 | 100.00 |
NAR manganese | 96.88 | 9.14 | 16.19 | 100.00 |
NAR dietary fiber | 95.94 | 10.07 | 26.29 | 100.00 |
Nutrients with risk of excess supply | ||||
NAR fat | 42.99 | 32.06 | 0.00 | 99.94 |
NAR cholesterol | 40.94 | 32.20 | 0.00 | 99.99 |
NAR saturated/ unsaturated fatty acids | 3.20 | 9.82 | 0.00 | 90.16 |
NAR sugar | 38.45 | 31.77 | 0.00 | 99.98 |
NAR sodium | 0.84 | 6.89 | 0.00 | 99.58 |
Serum HDL-cholesterol, mmol/L | 1.49 | 0.46 | 0.42 | 4.62 |
Serum triacylglycerol, mmol/L | 1.67 | 1.19 | 0.23 | 10.30 |
Serum uric acid, μmol/L | 304.92 | 99.72 | 50.33 | 2616.90 |
Serum homocysteine, μmol/L | 10.15 | 4.15 | 0.88 | 72.37 |
Mean | SD | Minimum | Maximum | |
---|---|---|---|---|
HFD-Index3 | 0.49 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.84 |
Berry-Index | 0.90 | 0.06 | 0.29 | 0.97 |
Count-Index | 50.72 | 7.34 | 12.00 | 74.00 |
Nutrients with risk of deficient supply | ||||
NAR vitamin A (retinol equivalents) | 98.06 | 7.49 | 27.76 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin D | 56.33 | 23.18 | 1.21 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin E | 82.54 | 18.31 | 10.17 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin K | 99.99 | 0.26 | 85.36 | 100.00 |
NAR thiamin | 98.48 | 6.38 | 20.47 | 100.00 |
NAR riboflavin | 96.54 | 9.11 | 16.73 | 100.00 |
NAR niacin equivalents | 99.78 | 2.60 | 29.78 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin B-6 | 98.15 | 7.03 | 25.89 | 100.00 |
NAR folate | 35.13 | 12.07 | 4.97 | 100.00 |
NAR pantothenic acid | 87.32 | 15.81 | 16.31 | 100.00 |
NAR biotin | 87.56 | 16.22 | 14.97 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin B-12 | 98.72 | 6.79 | 15.76 | 100.00 |
NAR vitamin C | 94.35 | 13.84 | 8.43 | 100.00 |
NAR chloride | 99.97 | 0.97 | 51.71 | 100.00 |
NAR potassium | 98.97 | 5.27 | 30.01 | 100.00 |
NAR calcium | 80.87 | 20.23 | 11.83 | 100.00 |
NAR phosphorus | 99.84 | 2.29 | 25.54 | 100.00 |
NAR magnesium | 93.51 | 12.00 | 17.63 | 100.00 |
NAR iron | 97.03 | 8.33 | 26.09 | 100.00 |
NAR iodine | 44.13 | 17.99 | 6.74 | 100.00 |
NAR fluoride | 17.57 | 5.76 | 3.10 | 53.22 |
NAR zinc | 98.64 | 5.92 | 21.16 | 100.00 |
NAR copper | 99.32 | 4.34 | 35.81 | 100.00 |
NAR manganese | 96.88 | 9.14 | 16.19 | 100.00 |
NAR dietary fiber | 95.94 | 10.07 | 26.29 | 100.00 |
Nutrients with risk of excess supply | ||||
NAR fat | 42.99 | 32.06 | 0.00 | 99.94 |
NAR cholesterol | 40.94 | 32.20 | 0.00 | 99.99 |
NAR saturated/ unsaturated fatty acids | 3.20 | 9.82 | 0.00 | 90.16 |
NAR sugar | 38.45 | 31.77 | 0.00 | 99.98 |
NAR sodium | 0.84 | 6.89 | 0.00 | 99.58 |
Serum HDL-cholesterol, mmol/L | 1.49 | 0.46 | 0.42 | 4.62 |
Serum triacylglycerol, mmol/L | 1.67 | 1.19 | 0.23 | 10.30 |
Serum uric acid, μmol/L | 304.92 | 99.72 | 50.33 | 2616.90 |
Serum homocysteine, μmol/L | 10.15 | 4.15 | 0.88 | 72.37 |
All values are based on n = 4030.
All analyses were adjusted for sample weights.
Histogram and percentiles of the HFD-index are available in Supplemental Figure 1.
Results and Discussion
Correlations were conducted between nutrient supply (NAR) and HFD-Index (Table 3). For comparison reasons, correlation results of 2 other indices, the Count-Index as well as the Berry-Index, are listed. The Count-Index used in this analysis counted the number of 133 food items consumed in a 1-mo period. As both dietary variety and nutrient adequacy were strongly correlated with energy intake, energy-adjusted partial correlations are presented. Foote et al. (27) already illustrated the necessity of applying multivariate models that adjust for energy intake when analyzing the relation between dietary diversity and nutrient adequacy.
Partial energy-adjusted correlations between nutrient supply (NAR) and different food diversity indices among GeNuS 1998 participants123
HFD-Index4 | Berry-Index | Count-Index | |
---|---|---|---|
Nutrients with risk of deficient supply | |||
NAR vitamin A (retinol equivalents) | 0.157** | 0.098** | 0.193** |
NAR Vitamin D | 0.105** | 0.220** | 0.222** |
NAR vitamin E | 0.435** | 0.302** | 0.240** |
NAR vitamin K | 0.085** | 0.169** | 0.023** |
NAR thiamin | 0.128** | 0.154** | 0.231** |
NAR riboflavin | 0.070** | 0.160** | 0.247** |
NAR niacin equivalents | 0.067** | 0.139** | 0.158** |
NAR vitamin B-6 | 0.232** | 0.257** | 0.243** |
NAR folate | 0.644** | 0.267** | 0.113** |
NAR pantothenic acid | 0.313** | 0.299** | 0.285** |
NAR biotin | 0.259** | 0.292** | 0.257** |
NAR vitamin B-12 | −0.027 | 0.172** | 0.286** |
NAR vitamin C | 0.344** | 0.105** | 0.201** |
NAR chloride | 0.075** | 0.173** | 0.051* |
NAR potassium | 0.271** | 0.238** | 0.213** |
NAR calcium | 0.142** | 0.098** | 0.195** |
NAR phosphorus | 0.049** | 0.108** | 0.131** |
NAR magnesium | 0.331** | 0.242** | 0.248** |
NAR iron | 0.236** | 0.171** | 0.224** |
NAR iodine | 0.214** | 0.057* | 0.127** |
NAR fluoride | 0.392** | 0.191** | 0.105** |
NAR zinc | 0.117** | 0.204** | 0.233** |
NAR copper | 0.160** | 0.115** | 0.192** |
NAR dietary fiber | 0.484** | 0.291** | 0.051** |
Nutrients with risk of excess supply | |||
NAR fat | −0.008 | 0.038* | 0.079** |
NAR cholesterol | 0.138 | −0.006 | 0.068** |
NAR saturated/unsaturated fatty acids | 0.108** | −0.019 | −0.109** |
NAR sugar | 0.041* | 0.050* | 0.031* |
NAR sodium | −0.026 | 0.120** | −0.170** |
HFD-Index4 | Berry-Index | Count-Index | |
---|---|---|---|
Nutrients with risk of deficient supply | |||
NAR vitamin A (retinol equivalents) | 0.157** | 0.098** | 0.193** |
NAR Vitamin D | 0.105** | 0.220** | 0.222** |
NAR vitamin E | 0.435** | 0.302** | 0.240** |
NAR vitamin K | 0.085** | 0.169** | 0.023** |
NAR thiamin | 0.128** | 0.154** | 0.231** |
NAR riboflavin | 0.070** | 0.160** | 0.247** |
NAR niacin equivalents | 0.067** | 0.139** | 0.158** |
NAR vitamin B-6 | 0.232** | 0.257** | 0.243** |
NAR folate | 0.644** | 0.267** | 0.113** |
NAR pantothenic acid | 0.313** | 0.299** | 0.285** |
NAR biotin | 0.259** | 0.292** | 0.257** |
NAR vitamin B-12 | −0.027 | 0.172** | 0.286** |
NAR vitamin C | 0.344** | 0.105** | 0.201** |
NAR chloride | 0.075** | 0.173** | 0.051* |
NAR potassium | 0.271** | 0.238** | 0.213** |
NAR calcium | 0.142** | 0.098** | 0.195** |
NAR phosphorus | 0.049** | 0.108** | 0.131** |
NAR magnesium | 0.331** | 0.242** | 0.248** |
NAR iron | 0.236** | 0.171** | 0.224** |
NAR iodine | 0.214** | 0.057* | 0.127** |
NAR fluoride | 0.392** | 0.191** | 0.105** |
NAR zinc | 0.117** | 0.204** | 0.233** |
NAR copper | 0.160** | 0.115** | 0.192** |
NAR dietary fiber | 0.484** | 0.291** | 0.051** |
Nutrients with risk of excess supply | |||
NAR fat | −0.008 | 0.038* | 0.079** |
NAR cholesterol | 0.138 | −0.006 | 0.068** |
NAR saturated/unsaturated fatty acids | 0.108** | −0.019 | −0.109** |
NAR sugar | 0.041* | 0.050* | 0.031* |
NAR sodium | −0.026 | 0.120** | −0.170** |
** Significance level 1%, * significance level 5%.
Correlations based on n = 4030 sample size.
All analyses were adjusted for sample weights.
Scatter plots of energy-adjusted HFD-Index on selected energy-adjusted NAR are available in Supplemental Figure 2.
Partial energy-adjusted correlations between nutrient supply (NAR) and different food diversity indices among GeNuS 1998 participants123
HFD-Index4 | Berry-Index | Count-Index | |
---|---|---|---|
Nutrients with risk of deficient supply | |||
NAR vitamin A (retinol equivalents) | 0.157** | 0.098** | 0.193** |
NAR Vitamin D | 0.105** | 0.220** | 0.222** |
NAR vitamin E | 0.435** | 0.302** | 0.240** |
NAR vitamin K | 0.085** | 0.169** | 0.023** |
NAR thiamin | 0.128** | 0.154** | 0.231** |
NAR riboflavin | 0.070** | 0.160** | 0.247** |
NAR niacin equivalents | 0.067** | 0.139** | 0.158** |
NAR vitamin B-6 | 0.232** | 0.257** | 0.243** |
NAR folate | 0.644** | 0.267** | 0.113** |
NAR pantothenic acid | 0.313** | 0.299** | 0.285** |
NAR biotin | 0.259** | 0.292** | 0.257** |
NAR vitamin B-12 | −0.027 | 0.172** | 0.286** |
NAR vitamin C | 0.344** | 0.105** | 0.201** |
NAR chloride | 0.075** | 0.173** | 0.051* |
NAR potassium | 0.271** | 0.238** | 0.213** |
NAR calcium | 0.142** | 0.098** | 0.195** |
NAR phosphorus | 0.049** | 0.108** | 0.131** |
NAR magnesium | 0.331** | 0.242** | 0.248** |
NAR iron | 0.236** | 0.171** | 0.224** |
NAR iodine | 0.214** | 0.057* | 0.127** |
NAR fluoride | 0.392** | 0.191** | 0.105** |
NAR zinc | 0.117** | 0.204** | 0.233** |
NAR copper | 0.160** | 0.115** | 0.192** |
NAR dietary fiber | 0.484** | 0.291** | 0.051** |
Nutrients with risk of excess supply | |||
NAR fat | −0.008 | 0.038* | 0.079** |
NAR cholesterol | 0.138 | −0.006 | 0.068** |
NAR saturated/unsaturated fatty acids | 0.108** | −0.019 | −0.109** |
NAR sugar | 0.041* | 0.050* | 0.031* |
NAR sodium | −0.026 | 0.120** | −0.170** |
HFD-Index4 | Berry-Index | Count-Index | |
---|---|---|---|
Nutrients with risk of deficient supply | |||
NAR vitamin A (retinol equivalents) | 0.157** | 0.098** | 0.193** |
NAR Vitamin D | 0.105** | 0.220** | 0.222** |
NAR vitamin E | 0.435** | 0.302** | 0.240** |
NAR vitamin K | 0.085** | 0.169** | 0.023** |
NAR thiamin | 0.128** | 0.154** | 0.231** |
NAR riboflavin | 0.070** | 0.160** | 0.247** |
NAR niacin equivalents | 0.067** | 0.139** | 0.158** |
NAR vitamin B-6 | 0.232** | 0.257** | 0.243** |
NAR folate | 0.644** | 0.267** | 0.113** |
NAR pantothenic acid | 0.313** | 0.299** | 0.285** |
NAR biotin | 0.259** | 0.292** | 0.257** |
NAR vitamin B-12 | −0.027 | 0.172** | 0.286** |
NAR vitamin C | 0.344** | 0.105** | 0.201** |
NAR chloride | 0.075** | 0.173** | 0.051* |
NAR potassium | 0.271** | 0.238** | 0.213** |
NAR calcium | 0.142** | 0.098** | 0.195** |
NAR phosphorus | 0.049** | 0.108** | 0.131** |
NAR magnesium | 0.331** | 0.242** | 0.248** |
NAR iron | 0.236** | 0.171** | 0.224** |
NAR iodine | 0.214** | 0.057* | 0.127** |
NAR fluoride | 0.392** | 0.191** | 0.105** |
NAR zinc | 0.117** | 0.204** | 0.233** |
NAR copper | 0.160** | 0.115** | 0.192** |
NAR dietary fiber | 0.484** | 0.291** | 0.051** |
Nutrients with risk of excess supply | |||
NAR fat | −0.008 | 0.038* | 0.079** |
NAR cholesterol | 0.138 | −0.006 | 0.068** |
NAR saturated/unsaturated fatty acids | 0.108** | −0.019 | −0.109** |
NAR sugar | 0.041* | 0.050* | 0.031* |
NAR sodium | −0.026 | 0.120** | −0.170** |
** Significance level 1%, * significance level 5%.
Correlations based on n = 4030 sample size.
All analyses were adjusted for sample weights.
Scatter plots of energy-adjusted HFD-Index on selected energy-adjusted NAR are available in Supplemental Figure 2.
All nutrients at risk of deficient supply, except for vitamin B-12, showed significant and positive correlations with the HFD-Index. The highest correlation was observed for folate (Table 3). The coefficient of 0.644 revealed that a high variety regarding number and distribution in combination with a healthy food choice yielded a good folate supply. Folate can be found in small amounts in numerous foods. Apparently, the HFD-Index was more strongly correlated with nutrients consumed from various food sources than with nutrients consumed from a rather limited number of foods. Beyond folate, high correlation coefficients were found for dietary fiber (0.484), vitamin E (0.435), fluoride (0.392), vitamin C (0.344), and magnesium (0.331). For most of these nutrients, the average intake in Germany is relatively low (28).
In the case of vitamin B-12, the correlation coefficient for the HFD-Index was not significant (P = 0.11), i.e. higher healthy food diversity was not associated with vitamin B-12 supply. This finding can be explained by the positioning of foods in the German food pyramid. The main suppliers of vitamin B-12 are meat and dairy products. Because of their comparatively high fat and cholesterol concentrations, these food items received a low valuation in the German pyramid. Therefore, a diet rich in meat and dairy products resulted in a lower HFD-Index. Hence, the HFD-Index was not able to reflect nutrients mainly occurring in animal-based food products. Also, thiamin, riboflavin, and niacin mainly occur in animal-based foods and thus had low correlation with the HFD-Index. It can be expected that taking American food guidelines (MyPyramid) as a basis for HFD-Index would yield better results (e.g. vitamin B-12 supply), because these guidelines give more weight to fat-reduced dairy products.
A comparison of the HFD-Index with the Berry-Index and Count-Index for selected nutrients with notable risk of deficient supply (Fig. 3) revealed that nearly all of them were more strongly correlated with the HFD-Index than with other food diversity indices. Only the supply of nutrients mainly occurring in animal-based foods (thiamin, riboflavin, and calcium) was better reflected in the Berry-Index and Count-Index. Again, this reflects the low valuation of animal-based foods in the German food guidelines and hence in the HFD-Index.
Deviations of correlation units of the Berry-Index and the Count-Index from the HFD-Index for selected nutrients with notable risk of deficient supply. Deviations are calculated on the basis of partial energy-adjusted correlations of nutrient supply (NAR) with different food diversity indices among GeNuS 1998 participants (Table 4). All shown correlation coefficients were significantly different from 0 at the 5% level. Correlations based on n = 4030 sample size. All analyses were adjusted for sample weights.
Deviations of correlation units of the Berry-Index and the Count-Index from the HFD-Index for selected nutrients with notable risk of deficient supply. Deviations are calculated on the basis of partial energy-adjusted correlations of nutrient supply (NAR) with different food diversity indices among GeNuS 1998 participants (Table 4). All shown correlation coefficients were significantly different from 0 at the 5% level. Correlations based on n = 4030 sample size. All analyses were adjusted for sample weights.
A complete picture of diet quality also requires consideration of nutrients at risk of excess supply. A significant positive correlation was found between the HFD-Index and NAR of the ratio of saturated to unsaturated fatty acids (Table 3). This indicates that greater healthy food diversity was associated with a reduced ratio of saturated to unsaturated fatty acids. In contrast, the Berry-Index and Count-Index were not positively correlated with NAR of saturated fatty acids. Reduced sugar consumption was positively correlated with all diversity indices. Despite significance, the correlation coefficients were close to 0.
To gain further insight into the HFD-Index and its ability to indicate a high diet quality, correlations between variety and some serum biochemical variables were calculated (Table 4). The HFD-Index showed for all considered biochemical parameters plausible and significant signs. A higher HFD-Index was associated with an increased serum HDL cholesterol concentration, which indicates good protection against vascular fat sediments (29). In the case of serum triacylglycerol, uric acid, and homocysteine, significant negative correlations with HFD-Index were found. This is plausible, because increased values of these serum parameters indicate an unfavorable diet. For instance, a high serum homocysteine value is associated with a low supply of folic acid, thiamin, and riboflavin. These vitamins protect against cardiovascular as well as neuropsychological diseases (30). The other variety indices, the Berry-Index and the Count-Index (Table 4), also had expected signs, but correlation coefficients were predominantly smaller and they were not always significant.
Correlations between serum biochemical variables and different food diversity indices among GeNuS 1998 participants123
HFD-Index | Berry-Index | Count-Index | |
---|---|---|---|
Serum HDL-cholesterol, mmol/L | 0.169** | 0.082** | 0.026 |
Serum triacylglycerol, mmol/L | −0.076** | −0.025 | −0.046* |
Serum uric acid, μmol/L | −0.098* | −0.026 | −0.028 |
Serum homocysteine, μmol/L | −0.065** | −0.034* | −0.105** |
HFD-Index | Berry-Index | Count-Index | |
---|---|---|---|
Serum HDL-cholesterol, mmol/L | 0.169** | 0.082** | 0.026 |
Serum triacylglycerol, mmol/L | −0.076** | −0.025 | −0.046* |
Serum uric acid, μmol/L | −0.098* | −0.026 | −0.028 |
Serum homocysteine, μmol/L | −0.065** | −0.034* | −0.105** |
** Significance level 1%, * significance level 5%.
Correlations based on n = 4030 sample size.
All analyses were adjusted for sample weights.
Correlations between serum biochemical variables and different food diversity indices among GeNuS 1998 participants123
HFD-Index | Berry-Index | Count-Index | |
---|---|---|---|
Serum HDL-cholesterol, mmol/L | 0.169** | 0.082** | 0.026 |
Serum triacylglycerol, mmol/L | −0.076** | −0.025 | −0.046* |
Serum uric acid, μmol/L | −0.098* | −0.026 | −0.028 |
Serum homocysteine, μmol/L | −0.065** | −0.034* | −0.105** |
HFD-Index | Berry-Index | Count-Index | |
---|---|---|---|
Serum HDL-cholesterol, mmol/L | 0.169** | 0.082** | 0.026 |
Serum triacylglycerol, mmol/L | −0.076** | −0.025 | −0.046* |
Serum uric acid, μmol/L | −0.098* | −0.026 | −0.028 |
Serum homocysteine, μmol/L | −0.065** | −0.034* | −0.105** |
** Significance level 1%, * significance level 5%.
Correlations based on n = 4030 sample size.
All analyses were adjusted for sample weights.
Altogether, the HFD-Index showed for both the supply with nutrients and serum biochemical variables predominantly better correlation results and hence was more suitable for measuring healthy food diversity compared with the Count- and Berry-Index. The inclusion of both diversity and health recommendation aspects seems to be an important advantage of the HFD-Index. However, the development of a healthy food diversity indicator is dependent on nutritional guidelines for optimal food distribution. The unequal assessment of animal-based foods in different guidelines (e.g. American vs. German) reveals the demand for future research on the valuation of foods.
The call for improved healthy food diversity indicators stated in previous studies (15,8,14,13) provided the impetus to develop a new index that considered 3 important aspects of a varied diet simultaneously: number, distribution, and health value of foods. The health value was derived from the recently published German food pyramid. The incorporation of this value into an existing diversity indicator, the Berry-Index, was implemented. The correlation results showed that this new HFD-Index was able to reflect a healthy diet. Nutrient supply variables as well as serum biochemical parameters were significantly correlated with the HFD-Index and the signs were as expected. The comparison with previous indices, the Count-Index and the Berry-Index, showed that the HFD-Index was the most suitable indicator to measure healthy food diversity. Particularly, nutrients with notable risk of deficient supply such as folate, fluoride, dietary fiber, vitamin E, and iodine were better reflected in the new HFD-Index than in traditional variety indices. The highest correlation was detected for folate, which can be found in small amounts in numerous foods. Nutrients mainly (exclusively) occurring in animal foods were not adequately reflected in the HFD-Index. This was explained by the low valuation of animal foods in the German food guidelines.
Taking other food guidelines as a basis for the HFD-Index for analyzing the association between healthy food diversity and nutrient supply is a promising area of future research. The HFD-Index seems to be a suitable foundation to review the performance of different food guidelines in terms of achieving nutrient intake recommendations.
Literature Cited
AK
, A
, TB
, RG
, G
.Dietary diversity and subsequent mortality in the First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey epidemiologic follow-up study
. 1993
;:434
–.E
, B
, E
, S
, C
.Diet diversity and the risk of colorectal cancer in northern Italy
. 1996
;:433
–.C
, SE
, C
Unhealthy Content Index Country
,E
, A
. Int J Cancer.
;72
:–7
.KB
, A
.A prospective study of healthy foods and mortality in women
. 2002
;:847
–.MCJF
, H
, EJM
, MT
, FJ
, D
.Quantity and variety of fruit and vegetable consumption and cancer risk
. 2004
;:142
–.A
, AS
, A
, BJ
.The Dietary Variety Score: assessing diet quality in healthy young and older adults
. 1997
;:266
–.AK
, G
, A
, RG
, M
.Dietary diversity in the US population, NHANES II, 1976–1980
. 1991
;:1526
–.SM
, H
, H
, J
.The effects of variety in food choices on dietary quality
. 1987
;:897
–.DR
, JD
, BR
, III
, KS
.A food Variety Index for Toddlers (VIT): development and application
. 1997
;:1382
–.10 guidelines of the German Nutrition Society (DGE) for a wholesome diet [monograph on the Internet]. German Nutrition Society;
[cited 2005 Oct 14]. Available from: http://www.dge.de/pdf/10_dietaryguidelines.pdf.H
, JM
.Obstacles to overcome in promoting dietary variety: the case of vegetables
. 2005
;:21
–.S
, C
.Consumer demand for food diversity: evidence for Germany
. 2003
;:99
–.MT
.Operationalizing dietary diversity: a review of measurement issues and research priorities
. 2003
;:S3911
–.AW
.Dietary diversity, child nutrition and health in contemporary African communities
. 2003
;:61
–.E
, MZ
, CF Jr
. J Am Diet Assoc.
;85
:–6
.S
, PS
, AM
, BM
.The Diet Quality Index-International (DQI-I) provides an effective tool for cross-national comparisons of diet quality as illustrated by China and the United States
. 2003
;:3476
–.HCM
, JBEM
.Consumers' variety seeking tendency with respect to foods: measurement and managerial implications
. 1992
;:181
–.J
.The demand for varied diet with econometric models for count data
. 1987
;:687
–.GP
, C
. J Am Stat Assoc.
;77
:–61
.K
, H-S
, Y
.New Quantitative index for Dietary Diversity (QUANTIDD) and its annual changes in the Japanese
. 2006
;:283
–.CH
. J Law Econ.
;14
:–83
.P
, H
, M
, H
.Grafische Umsetzung von Ernährungsrichtlinien: traditionelle und neue Ansätze
. 2005
;:128
–.GBM
, R
.Food and nutrient intake in East and West Germany, eight years after the reunification: the German Nutrition Survey 1998
. 2004
;:1000
–.G
, M
, M
.Validity of DISHES 98, a computerised dietary history interview: energy and macronutrient intake
. 2001
;:409
–.JP
, MD
.Program evaluation: food stamps and commodity distribution in rural areas of central Pennsylvania
. 1972
;:1
–.German Nutrition Society, Austrian Nutrition Society, Swiss Society for Nutrition Research, Swiss Nutrition Association
Frankfurt
: ; 2000
.JA
, SP
, LR
, PP
, A
.Dietary variety increases the probability of nutrient adequacy among adults
. 2004
;:1779
–.M
, GBM
, R
.Folate supply and folate status of young women in Germany
. 2001
;:55
–.PW
.High-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein and coronary artery disease
. 1990
;:A7
–.O
, W
, P
, B
, J
, J
, M
.DACH-LIGA homocysteine (German, Austrian and Swiss Homocysteine Society): consensus paper on the rational clinical use of homocysteine, folic acid and b-vitamins in cardiovascular and thrombotic diseases: guidelines and recommendations
. 2003
;:1392
–.Content Index State Failed Exchange 2010 No Dag
Abbreviations
- German Nutrition Society
- German Nutrition Survey
- healthy food diversity
- nutrient adequacy ratio
Footnotes
Supported by the German Science Foundation (DFG).
Supplementary data
- pdf file
- pdf file
Maple syrup is a popular natural sweetener that is claimed to be healthier and more nutritious than sugar.
However, it’s important to look at the science behind some of these assertions.
This article explains whether maple syrup is healthy or unhealthy.
Maple syrup is made from the circulating fluid, or sap, of sugar maple trees.
It has been consumed for many centuries in North America. Over 80% of the world's supply is now produced in the province of Quebec in eastern Canada.
There are two main steps to maple syrup production:
Exchange Update Content Index
- A hole is drilled in a maple tree so that its sap pours into a container.
- The sap is boiled until most of the water evaporates, leaving a thick, sugary syrup, which is then filtered to remove impurities.
The final product can be used to sweeten many dishes.
Summary Maple syrup is made by tapping sugar maple trees, then boiling the sap to produce a thick syrup. Most maple syrup is produced in eastern Canada.
There are several different grades of maple syrup characterized by color, though classification can vary between countries.
In the US, maple syrup is classified as either Grade A or B, where Grade A is further categorized into three groups — Light Amber, Medium Amber and Dark Amber — and Grade B is the darkest available syrup (1).
The darker syrups are made from sap extracted later in the harvest season. These have a stronger maple flavor and are usually used for baking, whereas the lighter ones are drizzled directly atop foods like pancakes.
When buying maple syrup, make sure to read food labels carefully. This way, you’ll get real maple syrup — not just maple-flavored syrup, which can be loaded with refined sugar or high-fructose corn syrup.
Summary There are several different grades of maple syrup based on color. Grade B is darkest and boasts the strongest maple flavor.
What sets maple syrup apart from refined sugar is its minerals and antioxidants.
Around 1/3 cup (80 ml) of pure maple syrup contains (2):
- Calcium: 7% of the RDI
- Potassium: 6% of the RDI
- Iron: 7% of the RDI
- Zinc: 28% of the RDI
- Manganese: 165% of the RDI
Though maple syrup provides a decent amount of some minerals, especially manganese and zinc, keep in mind that it also packs plenty of sugar.
Maple syrup is about 2/3 sucrose, or table sugar — 1/3 cup (80 ml) supplies around 60 grams of sugar.
Consumed in excess, sugar may be a leading cause of some of the world's biggest health problems, including obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease (3, 4 , 5 ).
The fact that maple syrup contains some minerals is a very poor reason to eat it, given its high sugar content. Most people already eat copious amounts of sugar.
The best way to get these minerals is to eat whole foods. If you eat a balanced diet, then your chance of lacking any of these nutrients is very low.
In addition, the high sugar content may affect your blood sugar levels — though maple syrup may be a better option than regular sugar in that regard.
The glycemic index of maple syrup is around 54. In comparison, table sugar has a glycemic index of around 65 (6).
This implies that maple syrup raises blood sugar slower than regular sugar.
Summary Maple syrup contains a small amount of minerals, such as manganese and zinc. However, it is very high in sugar.
Oxidative damage, which is caused by free radicals, is believed to be among the mechanisms behind aging and many diseases.
Antioxidants can neutralize free radicals and reduce oxidative damage, potentially lowering your risk of some diseases.
Studies indicate that maple syrup is a decent source of antioxidants. One study found 24 different antioxidants in maple syrup (7).
Darker syrups like Grade B supply more of these beneficial antioxidants than lighter ones (8 ).
However, the total antioxidant content is still low compared to the large amounts of sugar.
One study estimated that replacing all the refined sugar in the average diet with alternative sweeteners like maple syrup would increase your total antioxidant intake as much as eating a single serving of nuts or berries (9).
If you need to lose weight or improve your metabolic health, you would be better off skipping sweeteners altogether instead of going for maple syrup.
Summary Though there are a number of antioxidants in maple syrup, they don’t offset its high dose of sugar.
Numerous potentially beneficial substances have been observed in maple syrup.
Some of these compounds are not present in the maple tree, forming instead when the sap is boiled to form syrup.
One of these is quebecol, named after the maple-producing province of Quebec.
The active compounds in maple syrup have been shown to help reduce the growth of cancer cells and may slow down the breakdown of carbohydrates in your digestive tract (10, 11, 12, 13, 14).
However, human studies to confirm these health effects found in test-tube studies are lacking.
Moreover, keep in mind that most maple syrup studies — which are often accompanied by misleading headlines — are sponsored by maple syrup producers.
Summary Maple syrup boasts other compounds that may benefit health — but most studies are misleading and sponsored by the maple syrup industry.
Even though maple syrup does contain some nutrients and antioxidants, it is also very high in sugar.
Calorie for calorie, maple syrup is a very poor source of nutrients compared to whole foods like vegetables, fruits and unprocessed animal foods.
Replacing refined sugar with pure, quality maple syrup is likely to yield a net health benefit, but adding it to your diet will just make things worse.
Maple syrup is a less bad version of sugar, much like coconut sugar. It cannot objectively be labeled healthy.
If you consume it, it’s best to do so in moderation — as with all sweeteners.