Plant- and animal-protein diets in relation to sociodemographic drivers, quality, and cost: findings from the Seattle Obesity Study.
animal-protein diets
attitudes
diet cost
diet quality
plant-protein diets
protein consumption
sociodemographic drivers
Journal
The American journal of clinical nutrition
ISSN: 1938-3207
Titre abrégé: Am J Clin Nutr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376027
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2019
01 08 2019
Historique:
received:
07
01
2019
accepted:
28
03
2019
pubmed:
7
6
2019
medline:
4
3
2020
entrez:
8
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Promoting plant-based proteins is at the forefront of many initiatives in public health nutrition. The aim of this study was to characterize the sociodemographic drivers of plant-based protein diet consumption, and to study these in relation to diet quality and cost. The Seattle Obesity Study series (SOS I and II) yielded the study sample (n = 1636). Sociodemographic data were obtained by survey self-report. Diet quality and cost came from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Food-Frequency Questionnaire linked to retail food prices. The Healthy Eating Index 2010 (HEI-2010) and mean adequacy ratio (MAR) served as measures of diet quality. Linear regressions with robust standard errors examined associations. Total proteins contributed 16.8% of daily dietary energy. The breakdown by animal and plant proteins was 10.9% and 5.9%, respectively. The sociodemographic factors associated with plant-protein consumption were a positive attitude towards healthy eating and higher education but not income. Plant-protein diets were characterized by severalfold increases in nuts and seeds, soy and legumes, but much less meat, poultry, dairy, solid fats, and added sugars. Higher quartiles of plant-based diets were associated with significantly higher HEI-2010 (β: 13.0 from quartile 1 to quartile 4; 95% CI: 11.8, 14.3) and higher MAR (β: 6.0; 95% CI: 3.5, 8.5) with minimal impact on diet costs (β: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.67). In contrast, higher quartiles of animal-protein diets were associated with higher diet costs (β: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.36) but lower HEI-2010 (β: -3.2; 95% CI: -4.5, -1.9). Each additional 3% of energy from plant proteins was associated with an 8.4-unit increase in HEI-2010 (95% CI: 7.6, 9.1) and with a 4.1-unit increase in MAR (95% CI: 2.7, 5.5) with a minimal increase in diet cost (β: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.50). Plant-based protein diets may be a cost-effective way to improve diet quality at all levels of income. Future research needs to evaluate the quality of plant-based protein in relation to amino acids and health.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Promoting plant-based proteins is at the forefront of many initiatives in public health nutrition.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to characterize the sociodemographic drivers of plant-based protein diet consumption, and to study these in relation to diet quality and cost.
METHODS
The Seattle Obesity Study series (SOS I and II) yielded the study sample (n = 1636). Sociodemographic data were obtained by survey self-report. Diet quality and cost came from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Food-Frequency Questionnaire linked to retail food prices. The Healthy Eating Index 2010 (HEI-2010) and mean adequacy ratio (MAR) served as measures of diet quality. Linear regressions with robust standard errors examined associations.
RESULTS
Total proteins contributed 16.8% of daily dietary energy. The breakdown by animal and plant proteins was 10.9% and 5.9%, respectively. The sociodemographic factors associated with plant-protein consumption were a positive attitude towards healthy eating and higher education but not income. Plant-protein diets were characterized by severalfold increases in nuts and seeds, soy and legumes, but much less meat, poultry, dairy, solid fats, and added sugars. Higher quartiles of plant-based diets were associated with significantly higher HEI-2010 (β: 13.0 from quartile 1 to quartile 4; 95% CI: 11.8, 14.3) and higher MAR (β: 6.0; 95% CI: 3.5, 8.5) with minimal impact on diet costs (β: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.67). In contrast, higher quartiles of animal-protein diets were associated with higher diet costs (β: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.36) but lower HEI-2010 (β: -3.2; 95% CI: -4.5, -1.9). Each additional 3% of energy from plant proteins was associated with an 8.4-unit increase in HEI-2010 (95% CI: 7.6, 9.1) and with a 4.1-unit increase in MAR (95% CI: 2.7, 5.5) with a minimal increase in diet cost (β: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.50).
CONCLUSION
Plant-based protein diets may be a cost-effective way to improve diet quality at all levels of income. Future research needs to evaluate the quality of plant-based protein in relation to amino acids and health.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31172179
pii: S0002-9165(22)01192-3
doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqz064
pmc: PMC6669134
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dietary Proteins
0
Plant Proteins
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
451-460Subventions
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : R01 DK076608
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © American Society for Nutrition 2019.
Références
J Am Diet Assoc. 1999 Jul;99(7):813-20
pubmed: 10405679
J Am Diet Assoc. 1976 Feb;68(2):143-7
pubmed: 1245715
Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Jan 1;159(1):83-93
pubmed: 14693663
J Nutr. 2005 Apr;135(4):900-4
pubmed: 15795456
Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jul 5;143(1):1-9
pubmed: 15998749
JAMA. 2005 Nov 16;294(19):2455-64
pubmed: 16287956
Arch Intern Med. 2006 Jan 9;166(1):79-87
pubmed: 16401814
JAMA. 2006 Feb 8;295(6):629-42
pubmed: 16467232
Annu Rev Nutr. 2007;27:293-310
pubmed: 17666010
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Sep;86(3):690-6
pubmed: 17823434
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 May;87(5):1554S-1557S
pubmed: 18469286
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Mar 23;169(6):562-71
pubmed: 19307518
J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 May;109(5):814-22
pubmed: 19394467
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009 Nov;63 Suppl 4:S16-36
pubmed: 19888272
Circulation. 2010 Aug 31;122(9):876-83
pubmed: 20713902
Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Nov;92(5):1181-8
pubmed: 20720258
Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Nov;92(5):1197-203
pubmed: 20810972
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2011 Sep;65(9):1059-66
pubmed: 21559042
Nutr J. 2011 Sep 25;10:97
pubmed: 21943312
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Apr 9;172(7):555-63
pubmed: 22412075
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012 Jul;66(7):780-8
pubmed: 22510792
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37533
pubmed: 22662168
Am J Public Health. 2012 Aug;102(8):e74-80
pubmed: 22698052
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2013 Jan;67(1):91-5
pubmed: 23169473
Curr Diab Rep. 2013 Apr;13(2):298-306
pubmed: 23354681
J Hum Hypertens. 2013 Sep;27(9):564-71
pubmed: 23514841
BMJ Open. 2013 Dec 05;3(12):e004277
pubmed: 24309174
Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 Jul;100(1):256-69
pubmed: 24847854
Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 Jul;100(1):278-88
pubmed: 24898241
Nutr J. 2015 Jan 21;14:10
pubmed: 25609179
Prev Med. 2015 Apr;73:70-5
pubmed: 25625693
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2015 Mar;23(3):671-6
pubmed: 25684713
Nutr Rev. 2015 Oct;73(10):643-60
pubmed: 26307238
Nutrients. 2015 Aug 21;7(8):7058-69
pubmed: 26308049
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Oct 6;66(14):1590-1614
pubmed: 26429085
Br J Nutr. 2016 Jan 28;115(2):212-25
pubmed: 26548503
Prev Med. 2016 Feb;83:46-55
pubmed: 26657348
BMC Obes. 2016 Feb 18;3:11
pubmed: 26918195
Am J Epidemiol. 2016 Apr 15;183(8):715-28
pubmed: 27022032
Am J Clin Nutr. 2016 Sep;104(3):743-9
pubmed: 27465374
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Oct 1;176(10):1453-1463
pubmed: 27479196
BMC Public Health. 2016 Nov 10;16(1):1153
pubmed: 27832766
BMJ. 2017 May 9;357:j1957
pubmed: 28487287
Nutrients. 2017 Sep 15;9(9):null
pubmed: 28926931
Am J Clin Nutr. 2018 Aug 1;108(2):405-413
pubmed: 29931213
Curr Dev Nutr. 2017 Nov 06;1(12):null
pubmed: 29955690
Science. 2018 Jul 20;361(6399):
pubmed: 30026199
Nutr Rev. 2019 Mar 1;77(3):144-160
pubmed: 30624697
Lancet. 2019 Feb 2;393(10170):447-492
pubmed: 30660336
N Engl J Med. 1995 Aug 3;333(5):276-82
pubmed: 7596371