Question 3
The top five sources of intake were consistent among income levels but were consumed in different orders of prevalence for each of the three income ratios shown in Table 2. The sources included pizza, soda, grain desserts, pastas, and yeast breads. Do you think the different intake amount of the top food sources related to income level is relevant information for making changes in energy intake among children and adolescents in the United States? If so, why?
posted by Amy M @ 4:57 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
Yes and No. This is a challenging question because all of the income brackets contained the same top 5 sources of intake and the only difference was the order of prevalence for each. Income may have a great deal to do with this, but there may also be other factors contributing to the differences among income levels such as parents education level, time spent at home (time to cook/make food), parent's food choices and preferences etc. I think income level is a relevant factor to look at when it comes to food/beverage intake for children and adolescents, but that is only one part of the puzzle.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree, Melanie. For all of the discussions we have had stating that income level impacts fruit and vegetable consumption and healthy eating in children, this research strongly disputes that argument. Time is a huge factor for parents, and with the amount of extracurricular activities that children and adolescents are involved in these days, convenience foods might just be an easier option.
Sarah I definitely agree with you because I think the lack of knowledge in the area of nutrition is sometimes overly emphasized as the main issue contributing to poor fruit and veggie consumption. I think some parents/children may have some knowledge about healthier options, but do not have the time or know how to make healthier food items quickly and thus choose the easier, less nutritious option.
I don’t believe the different intake amounts necessarily matter when making changes in the energy intake among children and adolescents in the United States. Seeing as the five sources were consistent among income levels, there shouldn’t be a difference in the way this age group is targeted during nutrition interventions. These food sources should be addressed when educating the public. Possibly giving parents alternate food choices that are similar to these items or healthy ways to prepare these five sources would be a good start when educating this population or the parents of this population.
I completely agree with Melanie and Sarah. This research does contradict all of the research stating that fruit and veggie consumption in children is influenced by income level. Convenience foods are an easy, quick and cheap option for many. The challenging task is making the healthy choice, the easy choice for children and adolescents.
The difference in order of prevalence is not as much of a concern as the consistency of these top five sources. So, as interesting as these findings are, I do not think that the order in which the amounts are consumed, should play a big role when making changes in energy intake among US children and adolescents. These foods in general should be targeted in children throughout all income levels. There is an obvious lack of consumption of healthy foods within all income levels.
I don’t think that the top food sources by income level are that relevant. Especially since the top five sources of intake are the same, but the rates vary slightly. Most school districts are made up of children that come from households with varying amounts of income, but at school they will all be exposed to the same foods, unless the children bring their own food from home. As I said in response to an earlier question, I think these foods are consumed because they are affordable and readily available. No matter what income level you have, parents don’t always have the time and energy needed to prepare healthy meals. More than that, when children aren’t exposed to those healthy foods, the parents are going to have a much harder time getting their children to eat them because more than likely they going to want sugary and fatty items over fruits and vegetables.
I agree with all of you. The other research we read did explain that fruit and vegetable intake did not vary much by economic status. I think that point only strengthens this argument. The only way kids are going to eat healthier is if they have much greater exposure to healthier foods and if they decide that they want to eat the healthier items.
I don’t think that the particular order of these 5 sources of intake would be necessary to suggest changes to energy intake among children and adolescents. Like others have said, I think these foods are being chosen purely out of accessibility and convenience. Nutrition education could be similar for all of these participants because there is an obvious lack of healthy choices. Income level would most likely play a part when it comes to implementing a healthier lifestyle, but I don’t think the order of the 5 sources is really relevant.
I think that identifying the top five food sources is definitely relevant for making changes in children's energy intake but the order of prevalence has no real affect. Like Melanie said, the top five sources were all the same so whether or not one group likes pizza more than pasta doesn't make too much of a difference in implementing healthier change in these items. As long as we know where to start, then the rest of the information isn't as relevant. Knowing that these are the top five sources can help us make healthier changes like pushing more whole grains, lower sugar desserts, healthier items on pizza and pasta such as added vegetables and finally the new talk of taxing soda to decrease consumption. I am not entirely sure if I agree with placing higher taxes on soda but I'm sure the thought process came after reviewing over a study similar to this one which is why these studies are very important.
I don't believe that the order of intake prevalence really matters when it comes to developing a plan to help make changes in intake among children. The point is that children from all SES are choosing these foods over their healthier counterparts so we need to determine some reasons for these choices and work against those to help change the habits of these age groups.
Sarah G:
You bring up a good point that these results disagree with other studies that show that SES affects fruit and vegetable consumption. I agree that time is most likely one of the biggest reasons why intake of these convenience foods is high for all SES groups.
Although it is interesting information, the difference in calories from each of these sources is very small. Instead of focusing so much on the few calories difference that kids from different family income brackets or races receive from pizza, I think we should be really be considering where all children are getting this pizza from (school, home, friends' homes, restaurants), how often, and why (preference, availability, cost, etc). At this point in the game, I find no reason to divide these kids up by background since they all have these top 5 sources of intake in common - instead, health professionals and families should be focusing on education about these foods and trying to make "the healthy choice the easy choice."
Melanie and Sarah, I think you are on to something - we as a country focus so much on differences according to demographics that sometimes we fail to step back and look at the big picture. All of these kids have something in common: poor ratios of nutrient dense vs calorie dense food choices.
You all have some excellent comments and thoughts. After reading this article, I re-read the exact purpose for what these researchers were reporting and remember, they are looking at the top foods that contribute 'energy' or Calories to a kids daily intake. I think it's important that we remember how many calories are in 3 servings of vegetables......even 2 servings of fruit is less than these top five food items. So what I'm trying to get at is maybe (and yes, I know just maybe) these kids are consuming 3 servings of veggies and 2 servings of fruit, but because the researchers were studying the caloric (and fat/sugar) amount in foods, not the types or servings of food---we need to look at the limitations of this study.
I do agree that it is interesting that the top 5 foods didn't change with SES.
Post a Comment
<< Home