Association of Single Serving Frozen Meals with Energy Intakes at Meals and for the Entire Day in U.S. Adults: NHANES 2001–2012
Victor L Fulgoni,Sanjiv Agarwal,Kristin J Riemers
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.30.1_supplement.1154.16
2016-04-01
The FASEB Journal
Abstract:The efficacy of portion‐controlled single serving meals for weight reduction has been demonstrated repeatedly. Most studies have focused on meals specifically designed for weight reduction, which consumers might identify as “diet meals.” We hypothesize that the energy reduction benefit of single serving meals extends beyond meals targeting weight loss to include most single serving frozen meals (SSFM) consumed by U.S. adults. To explore this hypothesis, the association of SSFM consumption with energy intake was examined in adults (19+ yrs; n=29,684) using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2001–2012. SSFM consumers were defined as those consuming any SSFM (n=409) during the first dietary recall. Additionally, a subgroup (SSFM75) was defined as those consuming SSFM at <75th percentile for calories, <443 kcal (n=294). This subgroup represents SSFM that would be most useful for energy reduction through meal replacement by excluding those meals specifically developed for those with hearty appetites seeking large portion size. Non‐consumers were defined as those not consuming any SSFM, and a subset of non‐consumers were defined as those who consumed dinner at home (DAH), to reduce confounding by restaurant meals. Regression analyses were performed and adjusted means ± standard errors were determined with covariates: age, gender, ethnicity, poverty income ratio, physical activity level, smoking status, and alcohol intake using sample weights and assigning P<0.05 as significant. SSFM consumers and the SSFM75 subgroup were more likely to be older, female, non‐Hispanic White, and less likely to be Mexican American. Dinner was the most popular meal time occasion for SSFM consumption (about 60% intake). SSFM consumers consumed similar daily calories (−41 kcal/d, P=0.3471) and the SSFM75 consumed 161 kcal/d less (P=0.0013) than non‐consumers. When compared to non‐consumers‐DAH, these relationships remained (SSFM consumers −42 kcal, P=0.3410 and SSFM75 −162 kcal, P=0.0014). When meal occasions were examined, the lunch meal energy intake of SSFM consumers showed no difference (−17 kcal, P=0.5614), but lunch energy was significantly lower for SSFM75 (−105 kcal, P=0.0028) compared to non‐consumers. Moreover, dinner energy for both SSFM and SSFM75 consumers was lower than that of non‐consumers (−102 kcal, P=0.0011 and −198 kcal, P<0.0001, respectively). The results suggest that SSFM, especially those that contain less than 450 calories, are associated with reduced daily energy intake. The impact of SSFM may be greatest when replacing the dinner meal. Commercially available SSFM offer an underutilized resource to help consumers lower their energy intake to achieve and maintain healthy weight. Support or Funding Information Support provided by ConAgra Foods.
cell biology,biochemistry & molecular biology,biology