2017
DOI: 10.3390/nu9050442
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparing the Nutritional Impact of Dietary Strategies to Reduce Discretionary Choice Intake in the Australian Adult Population: A Simulation Modelling Study

Abstract: Dietary strategies to reduce discretionary choice intake are commonly utilized in practice, but evidence on their relative efficacy is lacking. The aim was to compare the potential impact on nutritional intake of three strategies to reducing discretionary choices intake in the Australian adult (19–90 years) population. Dietary simulation modelling using data from the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey 2011–2012 was conducted (n = 9341; one 24 h dietary recall). Strategies modelled were: moderation… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Dietary strategies, such as reducing the frequency of consumption of discretionary choices or via substitution to choices within the five food groups, are warranted [ 32 ]. Recent modelling in adults has shown substitution to be useful [ 33 ], perhaps signaling a revisit of a swap-it type campaign drawing on the stronger evidence base now available [ 34 ]. The multi-strategy approach of the Australian Healthy Food Partnership [ 35 ] is important, with the moderation of portion size, substitution for healthy foods, and to a lesser degree reformulation of discretionary choices are all important strategies to leverage.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Dietary strategies, such as reducing the frequency of consumption of discretionary choices or via substitution to choices within the five food groups, are warranted [ 32 ]. Recent modelling in adults has shown substitution to be useful [ 33 ], perhaps signaling a revisit of a swap-it type campaign drawing on the stronger evidence base now available [ 34 ]. The multi-strategy approach of the Australian Healthy Food Partnership [ 35 ] is important, with the moderation of portion size, substitution for healthy foods, and to a lesser degree reformulation of discretionary choices are all important strategies to leverage.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The multi-strategy approach of the Australian Healthy Food Partnership [ 35 ] is important, with the moderation of portion size, substitution for healthy foods, and to a lesser degree reformulation of discretionary choices are all important strategies to leverage. Reformulation may have a role to play in reducing added sugars, sodium, and saturated fat intakes, but has limits in its food science technology to manipulate energy density [ 33 ]. Interventions spanning the socio-ecological model, for example, the food supply, food availability, and importantly, social norms, will be needed to address these key targets [ 36 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, in the USA, a high intake of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods was associated with a low intake of core foods [ 28 ]. A modeling study in Australian adults found that removing discretionary foods from the diet would decrease total fibre intake, and that the substitution of discretionary with core foods would increase total fibre intake [ 29 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, research suggests that energy compensation following dietary interventions is incomplete (Stubbs et al 1998), particularly when the intervention involves reducing sugary sweetened beverage intake (Reid et al 2007) although considerable uncertainty remains regarding the degree to which energy compensation occurs. In order to consider what impact decreases in energy intake might have on diet-related emissions, we also conducted a sensitivity analysis whereby energy losses within each scenario were only partly compensated for [75%; based on the upper limit of energy compensation tested by Grieger et al (2017)].…”
Section: Scenario Name (Code) Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%