The transition to nutritional independence makes new college students vulnerable to alterations in eating patterns, which can increase the risk of cardiometabolic disorders. The aim of the study was to examine the potential benefits of almond vs. cracker snacking in improving glucoregulatory and cardiometabolic profiles in new college students. A randomized controlled, parallel-arm, 8-week intervention of 73 college students (BMI: 18–41 kg/m2) with no cardiometabolic disorders was conducted. Participants were randomized into either an almond snack group (56.7 g/day; 364 kcal; n = 38) or Graham cracker control group (77.5 g/day; 338 kcal/d; n = 35). Chronic, static changes were assessed from fasting serum/plasma samples at baseline, and after 4 and 8 weeks. Acute, dynamic effects were assessed during a 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 8 weeks. Almond snacking resulted in a smaller decline in HDL cholesterol over 8 weeks (13.5% vs. 24.5%, p < 0.05), 13% lower 2-h glucose area under the curve (AUC), 34% lower insulin resistance index (IRI) and 82% higher Matsuda index (p < 0.05) during the OGTT, despite similar body mass gains over 8 weeks compared with the cracker group. In general, both almond and cracker snacking reduced fasting glucose, and LDL cholesterol. Conclusions: Incorporating a morning snack in the dietary regimen of predominantly breakfast-skipping, first-year college students had some beneficial effects on glucoregulatory and cardiometabolic health. Almond consumption has the potential to benefit postprandial glucoregulation in this cohort. These responses may be influenced by cardiometabolic risk factor status.
First-year college students are at particular risk of dietary maladaptation during their transition to adulthood. A college environment that facilitates consistent access to nutritious food is critical to ensuring dietary adequacy among students. The objective of the study was to examine perceptions of the campus food environment and its influence on the eating choices of first-year students attending a minority-serving university located in a food desert. Focus group interviews with twenty-one first-year students were conducted from November 2016 to January 2017. Students participated in 1 of 5 focus groups. Most interviewees identified as being of Hispanic/Latino or Asian/Pacific Islander origin. A grounded theory approach was applied for inductive identification of relevant concepts and deductive interpretation of patterns and relationships among themes. Themes related to the perceived food environment included adequacy (i.e., variety and quality), acceptability (i.e., familiarity and preferences), affordability, and accessibility (i.e., convenience and accommodation). Subjective norms and processes of decisional balance and agency were themes characterizing interpersonal and personal factors affecting students’ eating choices. The perceived environment appeared to closely interact with subjective norms to inform internal processes of decision-making and agency around the eating choices of first-year students attending a minority-serving university campus located in a food desert.
To describe and evaluate the process of implementation of a social marketing food access intervention for food desert communities in rural California. Case study approach used mixed-methods data from nationwide market comparisons, environmental assessment, and community informants. Lessons learned demonstrate room for improvement in the implementation of such strategies and underscore the importance of community involvement in decision-making; the strategic importance of operational decisions relating to intervention design, site and product selection, and distribution models; and a reconsideration of the problem of “access” in rural areas.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.