The National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) is a cross-sectional survey designed to gather data representative of the UK population on food consumption, nutrient intakes and nutritional status. The objectives of the present paper were to identify and describe food consumption and nutrient intakes in the UK from the first year of the NDNS rolling programme and compare these with the 2000-01 NDNS of adults aged 19 -64 years and the 1997 NDNS of young people aged 4 -18 years. Differences in median daily food consumption and nutrient intakes between the surveys were compared by sex and age group (4-10 years, 11-18 years and 19-64 years). There were no changes in energy, total fat or carbohydrate intakes between the surveys. Children aged 4 -10 years had significantly lower consumption of soft drinks (not low calorie), crisps and savoury snacks and chocolate confectionery in 2008 -09 than in 1997 (all P,0·0001). The percentage contribution of non-milk extrinsic sugars to food energy was also significantly lower than in 1997 in children aged 4-10 years (P,0·0001), contributing 13·7 -14·6 % in 2008-09 compared with 16·8 % in 1997. These changes were not as marked in older children and there were no changes in these foods and nutrients in adults. There was still a substantial proportion (46 %) of girls aged 11-18 years and women aged 19-64 years (21 %) with mean daily Fe intakes below the lower reference nutrient intake. Since previous surveys there have been some positive changes in intakes especially in younger children. However, further attention is required in other groups, in particular adolescent girls.

BackgroundInterventions to increase cooking skills (CS) and food skills (FS) as a route to improving overall diet are popular within public health. This study tested a comprehensive model of diet quality by assessing the influence of socio-demographic, knowledge- and psychological-related variables alongside perceived CS and FS abilities. The correspondence of two measures of diet quality further validated the Eating Choices Index (ECI) for use in quantitative research.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted in a quota-controlled nationally representative sample of 1049 adults aged 20–60 years drawn from the Island of Ireland. Surveys were administered in participants’ homes via computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) assessing a range of socio-demographic, knowledge- and psychological-related variables alongside perceived CS and FS abilities. Regression models were used to model factors influencing diet quality. Correspondence between 2 measures of diet quality was assessed using chi-square and Pearson correlations.ResultsECI score was significantly negatively correlated with DINE Fat intake (r = -0.24, p < 0.001), and ECI score was significantly positively correlated with DINE Fibre intake (r = 0.38, p < 0.001), demonstrating a high agreement. Findings indicated that males, younger respondents and those with no/few educational qualifications scored significantly lower on both CS and FS abilities. The relative influence of socio-demographic, knowledge, psychological variables and CS and FS abilities on dietary outcomes varied, with regression models explaining 10–20 % of diet quality variance. CS ability exerted the strongest relationship with saturated fat intake (β = -0.296, p < 0.001) and was a significant predictor of fibre intake (β = -0.113, p < 0.05), although not for healthy food choices (ECI) (β = 0.04, p > 0.05).ConclusionGreater CS and FS abilities may not lead directly to healthier dietary choices given the myriad of other factors implicated; however, CS appear to have differential influences on aspects of the diet, most notably in relation to lowering saturated fat intake. Findings suggest that CS and FS should not be singular targets of interventions designed to improve diet; but targeting specific sub-groups of the population e.g. males, younger adults, those with limited education might be more fruitful. A greater understanding of the interaction of factors influencing cooking and food practices within the home is needed.

BackgroundEvidence suggests that short sleep duration may be a newly identified modifiable risk factor for obesity, yet there is a paucity of studies to investigate this.ObjectiveWe assessed the feasibility of a personalized sleep extension protocol in adults aged 18–64 y who are habitually short sleepers (5 to <7 h), with sleep primarily measured by wrist actigraphy. In addition, we collected pilot data to assess the effects of extended sleep on dietary intake and quality measured by 7-d food diaries, resting and total energy expenditure, physical activity, and markers of cardiometabolic health.DesignForty-two normal-weight healthy participants who were habitually short sleepers completed this free-living, 4-wk, parallel-design randomized controlled trial. The sleep extension group (n = 21) received a behavioral consultation session targeting sleep hygiene. The control group (n = 21) maintained habitual short sleep.ResultsRates of participation, attrition, and compliance were 100%, 6.5%, and 85.7%, respectively. The sleep extension group significantly increased time in bed [0:55 hours:minutes (h:mm); 95% CI: 0:37, 1:12 h:mm], sleep period (0:47 h:mm; 95% CI: 0:29, 1:05 h:mm), and sleep duration (0:21 h:mm; 95% CI: 0:06, 0:36 h:mm) compared with the control group. Sleep extension led to reduced intake of free sugars (–9.6 g; 95% CI: –16.0, –3.1 g) compared with control (0.7 g; 95% CI: –5.7, 7.2 g) (P = 0.042). A sensitivity analysis in plausible reporters showed that the sleep extension group reduced intakes of fat (percentage), carbohydrates (grams), and free sugars (grams) in comparison to the control group. There were no significant differences between groups in markers of energy balance or cardiometabolic health.ConclusionsWe showed the feasibility of extending sleep in adult short sleepers. Sleep extension led to reduced free sugar intakes and may be a viable strategy to facilitate limiting excessive consumption of free sugars in an obesity-promoting environment. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02787577.