Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T13:55:02.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Energy-dense diets are associated with lower diet costs: a community study of French adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Nicole Darmon ,
André Briend  and
Adam Drewnowski
Nicole Darmon
Affiliation:
Unité INSERM 557, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, ISTNA, 2 rue Conté, F-75003 , Paris, France
André Briend
Affiliation:
Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, F-75010, Paris, France
Adam Drewnowski*
Affiliation:
Nutritional Sciences Program, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98115, USA Correspondence address: 305 Raitt Hall, Box 353410, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

High consumption of energy-dense foods has been linked to high energy intakes and excess weight gain. This study tested the hypothesis that high energy density of the total diet is associated with lower diet costs.

Design:

Dietary intakes of 837 French adults, aged 18–76 years, were assessed using a dietary history method. Dietary energy density (MJ kg−1) was calculated by dividing total energy by the edible weight of foods consumed. Daily diet cost (€day−1) was estimated using mean national food prices for 57 food items. The relationship between dietary energy density and diet cost at each level of energy intake was examined in a regression model, adjusted for gender and age.

Results:

The more energy-dense refined grains, sweets and fats provided energy at a lower cost than did lean meats, vegetables and fruit. Within each quintile of energy intake, diets of lower energy density (MJ kg−1) were associated with higher diet costs (€day−1).

Conclusion:

In this observational study, energy-dense diets cost less whereas energy-dilute diets cost more, adjusting for energy intakes. The finding that energy-dilute diets are associated with higher diet costs has implications for dietary guidelines and current strategies for dietary change.

Keywords

Energy densityEnergy intakeFood priceDiet costDietary guidanceAdultsObesityEconomics
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 2004 , pp. 21 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © CAB International 2004

References

1Cox, DN, Mela, DJ. Determination of energy density of freely selected diets: methodological issues and implications. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 2000; 24 49–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Stubbs, J, Ferres, S, Horgan, G. Energy density of foods: effects on energy intake. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2000; 40: 481–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Poppitt, SD, Prentice, AM. Energy density and its role in the control of food intake: evidence from metabolic and community studies. Appetite 1996; 26: 153–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Marti-Henneberg, C, Capdevila, F, Arija, V, Perez, S, Cuco, G, Vizmanos, B, et al. Energy density of the diet, food volume and energy intake by age and sex in a healthy population. European Journal of Clinical Nutriton 1999; 53: 421–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Cuco, G, Arija, V, Marti-Henneberg, C, Fernandez-Ballart, J. Food and nutritional profile of high energy density consumers in an adult Mediterranean population. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2001; 55: 192–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Rolls, BJ, Bell, EA. Dietary approaches to the treatment of obesity. Medical Clinics of North America 2000; 84: 401–18, vi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7World Health Organization (WHO), Diet, Nutrition and The Prevention of Excess Weight Gain and Obesity. Report of a Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation. WHO Technical Report Series No. 916. Geneva: WHO, April 2003.Google Scholar
8Kant, AK. Consumption of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods by adult Americans: nutritional and health implications. The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2000; 72: 929–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Drewnowski, A. The role of energy density. Lipids 2003; 38: 109–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Jacobson, MF, Brownell, KD. Small taxes on soft drinks and snack foods to promote health. American Journal of Public Health 2000; 90: 854–7.Google ScholarPubMed
11Nestle, M. The politics of food choice. In: Nestle, M, ed. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health, 1st ed. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press Ltd, 2002; 358–74.Google Scholar
12Marshall, T. Exploring a fiscal food policy: the case of diet and ischaemic heart disease. British Medical Journal 2000; 320: 301–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Drewnowski, A. Energy density, palatability, and satiety: implications for weight control. Nutrition Reviews 1998; 56: 347–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Drewnowski, A, Darmon, N, Briend, A. Replacing fats and sweets with vegetables and fruit–a question of cost. American Journal of Public Health 2004, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Cade, J, Upmeier, H, Calvert, C, Greenwood, D. Costs of a healthy diet: analysis from the UK Women's Cohort Study. Public Health Nutrition 1999; 2: 505–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Stender, S, Skovby, F, Haraldsdottir, J, Andresen, GR, Michaelsen, KF, Nielsen, BS, et al. Cholesterol-lowering diets may increase the food costs for Danish children. A cross-sectional study of food costs for Danish children with and without familial hypercholesterolaemia. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1993; 47: 776–86.Google ScholarPubMed
17Darmon, N, Ferguson, EL, Briend, A. A cost constraint alone has adverse effects on food selection and nutrient density: an analysis of human diets by linear programming. Journal of Nutrition 2002; 132: 3764–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Raynor, HA, Kilanowski, CK, Esterlis, I, Epstein, LH. A cost-analysis of adopting a healthful diet in a family-based obesity treatment program. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2002; 102: 645–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Burney, J, Haughton, B. EFNEP: a nutrition education program that demonstrates cost–benefit. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2002; 102: 39–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Mitchell, DC, Shannon, BM, McKenzie, J, Smiciklas-Wright, H, Miller, BM, Tershakovec, AM. Lower fat diets for children did not increase food costs. Journal of Nutrition Education 2000; 32: 100–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Meade, B, Rosen, S. Income and diet differences greatly affect food spending around the globe. Food Review 1996; (Sept–Dec): 39–44.Google Scholar
22Popkin, BM, Haines, PS. Factors affecting food selection: the role of economics. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1981; 79: 419–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Cabanac, M. Palatability vs. money: experimental study of a conflict of motivations. Appetite 1995; 25: 43–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Preziosi, P, Galan, P, Granveau, C, Deheeger, M, Papoz, L, Hercberg, S. Dietary intake of a representative sample of the population of Val-de-Marne. Revue d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique 1991; 39: 221–61.Google ScholarPubMed
25Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques. Indice des prix à la consommation. Bulletin Mensuel de Statistique 2000; 12: 90–2.Google Scholar
26Drewnowski, A, Rock, CL, Henderson, SA, Shore, AB, Fischler, C, Galan, P, et al. Serum beta-carotene and vitamin C as biomarkers of vegetable and fruit intakes in a community-based sample of French adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1997; 65: 1796–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Cubeau, J, Pequignot, G. The quantitative alimentary questionnaire technique used by the I.N.S.E.R.M. nutrition department [in French]. Revue d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique 1980; 28: 367–72.Google ScholarPubMed
28Gibson, SA. Associations between energy density and macronutrient composition in the diets of pre-school children: sugars vs. starch. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 2000; 24: 633–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Black, AE. Physical activity levels from a meta-analysis of doubly labeled water studies for validating energy intake as measured by dietary assessment. Nutrition Reviews 1996; 54: 170–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Willett, WC, ed. Nutritional Epidemiology, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Black, AE. Critical evaluation of energy intake using the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake:basal metabolic rate. A practical guide to its calculation, use and limitations. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 2000; 24: 1119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Grunwald, GK, Seagle, HM, Peters, JC, Hill, JO. Quantifying and separating the effects of macronutrient composition and non-macronutrients on energy density. British Journal of Nutrition 2001; 86: 265–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33Drewnowski, A. Fat and sugar: an economic analysis. Journal of Nutrition 2003; 133: 838S–40S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34Groupe de Travail Réuni par le Haut Comité de la Santé Publique. Consommation alimentaire et état nutritionnel de la population vivant en France. In: ENSP, , ed. Pour une Politique Nutritionnelle de Santé Publique en France. Enjeux et Propositions. Rennes: Collection Avis et Rapports, 2000; 189–95.Google Scholar
35Clément, L, Destandaux, S, Eneau, D. Le budget des ménages en 1995. INSEE Résultats–Consommation Mode de Vie 1997; 90: 21–37.Google Scholar
36Smith, AM, Baghurst, KI. Public health implications of dietary differences between social status and occupational category groups. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1992; 46: 409–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Lantz, PM, House, JS, Lepkowski, JM, Williams, DR, Mero, RP, Chen, J. Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality: results from a nationally representative prospective study of US adults. Journal of the American Medical Association 1998; 279: 1703–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Brunner, EJ, Marmot, MG, Nanchahal, K, Shipley, MJ, Stansfeld, SA, Juneja, M, et al. Social inequality in coronary risk: central obesity and the metabolic syndrome. Evidence from the Whitehall II study. Diabetologia 1997; 40: 1341–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Molarius, A, Seidell, JC, Sans, S, Tuomilehto, J, Kuulasmaa, K. Educational level, relative body weight, and changes in their association over 10 years: an international perspective from the WHO MONICA Project. American Journal of Public Health 2000; 90: 1260–8.Google ScholarPubMed
40Evans, JM, Newton, RW, Ruta, DA, MacDonald, TM, Morris, AD. Socio-economic status, obesity and prevalence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetic Medicine 2000; 17: 478–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41Tang, M, Chen, Y, Krewski, D. Gender-related differences in the association between socioeconomic status and self-reported diabetes. International Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 32: 381–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Senauer, E, Asp, E, Kinsey, J. Food economics: insightful and not so arcane. In: Senauer, E, Asp, E, Kinsey, J, eds. Food Trends and the Changing Consumer, 3rd ed. St Paul, MN: Eagan Press, 1998; 133–53.Google Scholar
43James, WP, Nelson, M, Ralph, A, Leather, S. Socioeconomic determinants of health. The contribution of nutrition to inequalities in health. British Medical Journal 1997; 314: 1545–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44Lennernas, M, Fjellstrom, C, Becker, W, Giachetti, I, Schmitt, A, Remaut de Winter, AM, et al. Influences on food choice perceived to be important by nationally-representative samples of adults in the European Union. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1997; 51: S8–15.Google ScholarPubMed
45Glanz, K, Basil, M, Maibach, E, Goldberg, J, Snyder, D. Why Americans eat what they do: taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns as influences on food consumption. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1998; 98: 1118–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46Kearney, JM, McElhone, S. Perceived barriers in trying to eat healthier – results of a pan-EU consumer attitudinal survey. British Journal of Nutrition 1999; 81: S133–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47Lloyd, HM, Paisley, CM, Mela, DJ. Barriers to the adoption of reduced-fat diets in a UK population. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1995; 95: 316–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Dibsdall, LA, Lambert, N, Bobbin, RF, Frewer, LJ. Low-income consumers' attitudes and behaviour towards access, availability and motivation to eat fruit and vegetables. Public Health Nutrition 2003; 6: 159–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49Hann, CS, Rock, CL, King, I, Drewnowski, A. Validation of the Healthy Eating Index with use of plasma biomarkers in a clinical sample of women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2001; 74: 479–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50Michaud, C, Baudier, F, Loundou, A, Le Bihan, G, Janvrin, MP, Rotily, M. Food habits, consumption, and knowledge of a low-income French population [in French]. Santé Publique 1998; 10: 333–47.Google ScholarPubMed
51Hulshof, KF, Lowik, MR, Kok, FJ, Wedel, M, Brants, HA, Hermus, RJ, et al. Diet and other life-style factors in high and low socio-economic groups (Dutch Nutrition Surveillance System). European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1991; 45: 441–50.Google ScholarPubMed
52Krebs-Smith, SM, Kantor, LS. Choose a variety of fruits and vegetables daily: understanding the complexities. Journal of Nutrition 2001; 131: 487S–501S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53Roos, G, Johansson, L, Kasmel, A, Klumbiené, J, Prattala, R. Disparities in vegetable and fruit consumption: European cases from the north to the south. Public Health Nutrition 2000; 4: 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54Lino, M, and staff at the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. The Thrifty Food Plan, 1999: revisions of the market baskets. Family Economics and Nutrition Review 2001; 13: 50–63.Google Scholar
55Lobstein, T. Food policies: a threat to health?. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 2002; 61: 579–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56Ludwig, DS. The glycemic index: physiological mechanisms relating to obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Journal of the American Medical Association 2002; 287: 2414–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57Patterson, RE, Satia, JA, Kristal, AR, Neuhouser, ML, Drewnowski, A. Is there a consumer backlash against the diet and health message?. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2001; 101: 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58Kennedy, E, Ling, M. Nutrition education for low-income groups–is there a role?. In: Köhler, BM, Feichtinger, E, Barlösius, E, Dowler, E, eds. Poverty and Food in Welfare Societies. Berlin: Sigma edition, 1997; 349–62.Google Scholar
59Frazao, E. America's Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences. USDA/ERS Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 750. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, 1999.Google Scholar
60Young, LR, Nestle, M. The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the US obesity epidemic. American Journal of Public Health 2002; 92: 246–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar