Ultra-processed food consumption and excess weight among US adults
Juul F, Martinez-Steele E, Parekh N, Monteiro CA, Chang VW
The British journal of nutrition · 294 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Cross-sectional study (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
- Intake measured by
- Food diaries or recalls
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2018-05-05 · Br J Nutr · vol. 120 · issue 1 · pp. 90–100
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Cited
- 488 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 41.6× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 38 works
- Access
- Free to read
- Research areas
- Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet · Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Keywords
- Waist, Medicine, Obesity, Abdominal obesity, Anthropometry, Odds ratio, Body mass index, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Logistic regression, Cross-sectional study, Overweight, Odds, Demography, Environmental health, Internal medicine, Population
- MeSH
- humans, obesity, body weight, anthropometry, body mass index, diet, nutrition surveys, prevalence, multivariate analysis, cross-sectional studies, feeding behavior, energy intake, adult, middle aged, united states, female, overweight, young adult, obesity, abdominal, fast foods
5 authors
From US, BR
- Filippa JuulNew York University
- Eurídice Martínez SteeleUniversidade de São Paulo
- Niyati ParekhNew York University
- Carlos Augusto MonteiroUniversidade de São Paulo
- Virginia W. Chang · correspondingNew York University
Abstract
Ultra-processed foods provide 58 % of energy intake and 89 % of added sugars in the American diet. Nevertheless, the association between ultra-processed foods and excess weight has not been investigated in a US sample. The present investigation therefore aims to examine the association between ultra-processed foods and excess weight in a nationally representative sample of US adults. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of anthropometric and dietary data from 15 977 adults (20-64 years) participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2014. Dietary data were collected by 24-h recall. Height, weight and waist circumference (WC) were measured. Foods were classified as ultra-processed/non-ultra-processed according to the NOVA classification. Multivariable linear and logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between ultra-processed food consumption (% energy) and BMI, WC and odds of BMI≥25 kg/m2, BMI≥30 kg/m2 and abdominal obesity (men: WC≥102 cm, women: WC≥88 cm). Prevalence of BMI≥25 kg/m2, BMI≥30 kg/m2 and abdominal obesity was 69·2, 36·1 and 53·0 %, respectively. Consuming ≥74·2 v. ≤36·5 % of total energy from ultra-processed foods was associated with 1·61 units higher BMI (95 % CI 1·11, 2·10), 4·07 cm greater WC (95 % CI 2·94, 5·19) and 48, 53 and 62 % higher odds of BMI≥25 kg/m2, BMI≥30 kg/m2 and abdominal obesity, respectively (OR 1·48; 95 % CI 1·25, 1·76; OR 1·53; 95 % CI 1·29, 1·81; OR 1·62; 95 % CI 1·39, 1·89, respectively; P for trend<0·001 for all). A significant interaction between being female and ultra-processed food consumption was found for BMI (F 4,79=4·89, P=0·002), WC (F 4,79=3·71, P=0·008) and BMI≥25 kg/m2 (F 4,79=5·35, P<0·001). As the first study in a US population, our findings support that higher consumption of ultra-processed food is associated with excess weight, and that the association is more pronounced among women.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.