Previous research suggests that snacking has become a major part of modern eating behaviours and the amount that individuals do snack will continue in the future (1) . There is a multitude of reasons why individuals snack (2) . The benefits of fruit for human health are widely documented (3) , and they seem to be a viable alternative for a snack choice; however, it is not the case. Fruit may not be perceived as much of a snack as certain 'junk foods', possibly because it doesn't meet some of the general public's snack criteria (4) .The present exploratory study involved a diet-diary questionnaire being distributed to 200 (seventy-six male, 124 female) participants in a variety of different settings and organisations. Participants were instructed to complete the diet diary when they were just about to consume a snack food, in their own time, and then return it to the experimenter (data of which were collected for both weekend and weekday). This procedure required participants to state the snack that was about to be consumed, along with the main reason for this choice and if the snack was not a fruit then the reason why it was not a fruit. Some demographic variables were measured on the diet diary: age; occupation; diet status; deprivation score of residence, based on postcode.The three most common snack foods consumed in the sample were: a savoury snack (crisps, breadsticks etc. -22 %); a biscuit (19.5 %); confectionery (sweets and chocolate -17 %). Pleasure was the most frequently given main reason for snack choice (14%), followed by hunger (11 %) and availability and convenience (10%). Of those who did not have fruit as their snack (173 individuals), pleasure was the most frequently given reason (22.4 %), followed by availability (20.1%) and convenience (7.3%). There was a significant difference in the main reason for snack choice between those who did and those who did not have fruit as their snack (c 2 30.61, P = 0.045). Convenience was mentioned the most often by men as their main reason for snack choice (14.4% of men), while pleasure was the reason mentioned most often for females (15.3% of females). Convenience was also the main reason that was mentioned the most often by those between 26 and 40 years of age (14.6% of this group). There was no difference in snack choice across all levels of social deprivation. In logistic regression analyses looking at each predictor variable individually, diet (W 5.95, df 1, P = 0.025) and day (W 4.85, df 1, P = 0.028) were significant predictors of fruit consumption as a snack.The gender difference may be reflective of gender roles in Western society, with men probably being less familiar with the preparation of food than females. For those aged 26-40 years it is likely that they will mostly be working full time and will probably base their need for convenience of a snack around their busy lifestyle. Since there was no difference in snack choice across all levels of social deprivation, it can be assumed that cost is not a major factor in snack choices in the developed wor...

Previous research suggests that perceived convenience, value for money, and perishability are important predictors of intakes of proteinrich foods in older adults (1) . Eggs are a nutrient dense, high quality source of protein (2) , and compared to other protein rich foods, are easy to cook, of long shelf life, and low cost; and so may be of help in increasing protein intakes. To develop strategies to increase egg and protein intake (3) , however, a thorough understanding of the barriers and facilitators to egg intakes in older adults is key.Reasons for eating or not eating eggs in adults aged 55 years and older were identified in a focus group study (4) and then used in a structured questionnaire assessing: frequency of habitual egg intake, frequency of habitual intake of other protein-rich foods, agreement or disagreement with 76 statements on the reasons for eating/not eating eggs, and various demographic and lifestyle factors. The questionnaire was sent out to a National sample of 1065 adults. Responses from 205 participants (96 female, aged 55-80+ years, from across the UK) were included in analyses. A Principal Component Analysis on the 76 statements on egg intake generated 21 components, which were then analysed for their relative importance in predicting habitual egg consumption using a multiple linear regression model.The results revealed that these 21 components, alongside all other variables assessed, significantly predicted egg consumption in the target sample (R = 0·510, R 2 = 0·260, adjusted R 2 = 0·166, F(23,181) = 2·765, p < 0·001). Higher egg intakes were independently associated with greater reports of liking, tastiness and adding variety to the diet (Beta = 0·261, p = 0·012); less firm adherence to stereotypes about the type of person who eats eggs (Beta = −0·159, p = 0·046); greater difficulty stopping eating eggs once started (Beta = 0·216, p = 0·004); and lower concerns over food safety (Beta = −0·145, p = 0·044). Of the demographic and lifestyle factors, higher egg intakes were also associated with a higher Body Mass Index (Beta = 0·160, p = 0·022).These findings suggest that specific reasons for eating/not eating eggs are associated with higher egg intakes. Some of these reasons have previously been found to be associated in older adults with intakes of other protein-rich foods (1,2,5) or other foods (6) , although some outcomes are unique to this study. These findings suggest that strategies for interventions to increase egg consumption in the older population should focus on liking, tastiness and adding variety to the diet; reducing stereotypes; and increasing perceptions of the moreish nature of some egg recipes/dishes. Reducing concerns over food safety may also increase egg intakes, but this would need to be handled carefully, such that it is the concerns that are reduced as opposed to food safety itself.

No abstract

Protein-specific under-nutrition is considered to affect 10-20% of UK older adults (1) , with potential detriments to health and wellbeing (1,2) . This under-nutrition is considered to result, at least in part, from low protein intakes (1,3) . Strategies for increasing protein intakes include the use of protein supplements, the development of usual foods through protein fortification or improvements in appeal or use, and the improvement of usual dining experiences (3,4) . Our studies demonstrate increased protein intakes in older adults following the addition of sauce to a lunch meal (5,6) . While effects were demonstrated in the one meal however, any benefits may be easily reduced by compensation or adjustment at the next meal. This study investigated the impact of the addition of sauce to an older persons' lunch meal on intake at that and at the following meal.Using a repeated measures design, 56 community-dwelling older adults consumed a lunch meal with sauce and a lunch meal without sauce on two separate occasions, and intake at lunch and at the following evening meal were measured. Lunch meals in both conditions (chicken, sweetcorn, carrots, mashed potatoes) were identical, excepting the addition of sauce in the sauce condition. Evening meals were a buffet meal (bread, cheese, ham, salad, crisps, condiments, cakes, biscuits, fruit). Participants were free to consume as much or as little as they wished from all meals, and amount consumed was determined by weighing.Analyses were conducted for fifty participants using only the foods consumed in the core lunch meal (i.e. not including the gravy). At the lunch meal, significantly more protein was consumed with sauce compared to without sauce (means: 35 ± 15 g vs. 31 ± 15 g, (t(49) = 2·20, p = 0·03). Effect sizes however are small, no effects were found in any of the other measures of the meal (largest energy: (t(49) = 1·62, p = 0·11), and effects were not sustained when intake at the next meal was included in analyses (means: 59 ± 19 g vs 56 ± 20 g, t(49) = 1·69, p = 0·10).These findings suggest that the addition of sauce to an older persons' lunch meal can increase protein intakes at that meal, but that this effect is not large enough to be sustained to include intakes at the next meal. The increased intakes at the lunch meal replicate those of previous studies (5,6) , and have previously been attributed to improvements in taste (6) . These effects however were compensated for by intake at the next meal. These findings suggest that improvements in taste only impact on intakes at the time of the improved taste. Secondly, these findings suggest that for sustained increased protein intakes, either improvements in taste need to be made at more than one meal, or that other strategies may be more beneficial (4) . Investigations into alternative strategies to increase protein intakes in older adults are required.

Research has shown that a diet rich in fruit and vegetables (FV) may provide protection against certain chronic illnesses including cardiovascular diseases (1) . Based on such evidence, the World Health Organisation set a minimum daily target of 400 g FV (the equivalent of five 80 g portions), which has been termed the '5-a-day' public health message in the UK. Despite this, evidence shows that people in Northern Ireland still have an insufficient intake of FV (2) . A number of studies have proposed that knowledge is an important factor affecting FV intake and adherence to nutritional guidelines (3) . However, to date there is minimal research on the level of knowledge consumers have on FV portion sizes, which could be an important determinant in adherence to the '5-a-day' message. Hence, the objective of the current study was to assess the knowledge of FV portion sizes in a sample of low FV consumers (O2 portions/day).The study sample was comprised of 30 low FV consumers who were recruited to take part in a FV dietary intervention. Participants completed a questionnaire at baseline which assessed knowledge of four key areas: awareness of FV guidelines; identification of foods which are classified as a fruit or vegetable according to the '5-a-day' message; portion sizes of commonly consumed FV; and total portions provided by a combination of FV (to reflect normal dietary patterns). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse questionnaire responses. Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficients and Mann-Whitney U Tests were used to examine associations between knowledge scores and demographic variables, as well as to establish if BMI correlated with under or over-estimation of portion size.Results from the questionnaire identified knowledge gaps in two of the four areas assessed (see table below). All participants (n = 30) claimed to be aware of FV guidelines and scored well when asked to identify foods that are classified as FV. Respondents did not score as well when asked to estimate how many portions examples of FV counted as according to the '5-a-day' message, individually or for FV combinations. Neither total, nor subscale, knowledge scores were significantly associated with habitual FV intake (all p > 0.05). Furthermore, knowledge scores were not associated with other demographic variables including age, years of education, gender or BMI (all p > 0.05). In 73% of cases, individuals' perception of how many portions different amounts of FV equated to was greater than in the '5-a-day' guidelines. There was no significant relationship between over/under estimating portions and BMI (p = 0.40), but females were more likely to overestimate portions (p = 0.02). As correlations were weak, it was unnecessary to perform a multivariate test of effects. Awareness of FV guidelines was not included in FV portion size knowledge score.In conclusion, this study suggests that whilst consumers are aware of FV guidelines, they lack knowledge on FV portion size. The results indicate that consumers might underestimate the amount of F...