Open Access

Association between home food preparation skills and behaviour, and consumption of ultra-processed foods: Cross-sectional analysis of the UK National Diet and nutrition survey (2008–2009)

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity201714:68

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0524-9

Received: 1 December 2016

Accepted: 11 May 2017

Published: 23 May 2017

Abstract

Background

‘Ultra-processed foods’ (UPF) have been industrially processed and tend to be higher in saturated fat, sodium and sugar than other foods. There is some evidence that consumption of UPF is associated with overweight, obesity and related diseases. In developed countries more than half of dietary energy is attributed to UPF. One reason for reliance on UPF may be poor home food preparation skills or infrequent use of these. This relationship has been previously proposed but not tested. We examined the relationship between home food preparation skills and behaviour and consumption of UPF.

Methods

We used data from adults in the UK National Diet & Nutrition Survey 2008–09. Home food preparation skills and behaviours of adults (n = 509) were assessed using questions on confidence using eight cooking techniques, confidence cooking 10 foods, ability to prepare a cake or biscuits without help, and whether or not participants prepared a main meal five or more days per week. Individuals’ UPF consumption was determined from four-day estimated diet diaries. Associations were adjusted for age, gender, occupational social class and household composition.

Results

In fully adjusted models, individuals who were confident with all 10 foods (adjusted beta (95% CI) = −3.76 (−6.02 to −1.50)), able to bake cakes or biscuits without help (−3.87 (−6.62 to −1.12)), and cooked a main meal at least five days a week (−2.84 (−5.43 to −0.24)) consumed a lower percentage of dietary energy from UPF.

Conclusions

In UK adults better home food preparation skills and more frequent use of these skills tended to be cross-sectionally associated with lower UPF consumption. Greater encouragement of these skills may help reduce reliance on UPF.

Keywords

Cooking Diet Nutrition Processed foods

Background

‘Ultra-processed foods’ (UPF) are foods that have been industrially processed. [1] These foods tend to be higher in saturated fat, sodium and sugar than other foods. [26] Diets high in UPF tend to be lower in fruit and vegetables and fibre; and higher in sodium, saturated fat and sugar compared to diets lower in UPF. [2, 5, 7] Some, but not all, [2, 8] studies have reported positive associations between consumption of UPF and risk of overweight, obesity and markers of metabolic syndrome. [914].

Consumption of UPF varies internationally. In developed countries more than half of dietary energy has been attributed to UPF. [2, 3, 5, 6, 15, 16] Consumption is currently lower in less developed countries (where these foods are relatively less affordable [17]). [9, 18] Trends towards increasing consumption over time in less developed countries [10, 16, 19, 20] indicate that reliance on UPF may be a hallmark of the ‘nutrition transition’. [21].

The term ‘UPF’ was first coined as part of a classification system that assigns all foods to one of three groups based on the degree of industrial processing involved: minimally processed foods, processed ingredients and UPF (see Table 1). [1] Like UPF, processed ingredients also tend to be high in fat, salt and sugar; but diets high in processed ingredients do not. [2, 5] This may be because diets high in processed ingredients also tend to be high in minimally processed foods [5, 22] – which have the ‘healthiest’ nutritional profile of all three groups. [26] It has been argued that processed ingredients and minimally processed foods are key components of food prepared at home, and that high consumption of UPF indicates low consumption of food prepared at home.
Table 1

Food classification based on the extent and purpose of industrial processing; from [1]

Groups

Definitions

Examples

Group 1: Unprocessed or minimally processed foods

No processing or mostly physical processes used to make single whole foods more durable, accessible, convenient, palatable or safe

Fresh, chilled, frozen, vacuum-packed fruits, vegetables, fungi, roots and tubers; grains (cereals) in general; fresh, frozen and dried beans and other pulses (legumes); dried fruits and 100% unsweetened fruit juices; unsalted nuts and seeds; fresh, dried, chilled, frozen meats, poultry and fish; fresh and pasteurized milk, fermented milk such as plain yoghurt; eggs; teas, coffee, herb infusions, tap water, bottled spring water

Group 2: Processed ingredients

Extraction and purification of components of single whole foods, resulting in producing ingredients used in the preparation and cooking of dishes and meals made up from Group 1 foods in homes or traditional restaurants, or else in the formulation by manufacturers of Group 3 foods

Vegetable oils, margarine, butter, milk cream lard; sugar, sweeteners in general; salt; starches, flours, and “raw” pastas and noodles (made from flour with the addition only of water); and food industry ingredients usually not sold to consumers as such, including high fructose corn syrup, lactose, milk and soy proteins, gums, and preservatives and cosmetic additives

Group 3: Ultra-processed food products

Processing of a mix of Group 2 ingredients and Group 1 foodstuffs in order to create durable, accessible, convenient, and palatable ready-to-eat or to-heat food products liable to be consumed as snacks or desserts or to replace home-prepared dishes

Breads, biscuits (cookies), cakes and pastries; ice cream; jams (preserves); fruits canned in syrup; chocolates, confectionery (candies), cereal bars, breakfast cereals with added sugar; chips, crisps; sauces; savoury and sweet snack products; cheeses; sugared fruit and milk drinks and sugared and “no-cal” cola, and other soft drinks; frozen pasta and pizza dishes; pre-prepared meat, poultry, fish, vegetable and other “recipe” dishes; processed meat including chicken nuggets, hot dogs, sausages, burgers, fish sticks; canned or dehydrated soups, stews and pot noodle, salted, pickled, smoked or cured meat and fish; vegetables bottled or canned in brine, fish canned in oil; infant formulas, follow-on milks, baby food

Thus proposed reasons for increasing reliance on UPF include erosion of home food preparation skills and infrequent use of these skills. [23, 24] Adults in developed countries are spending less time on home food preparation, [25, 26] but there is little clear evidence for erosion of skills. For example, 89% of adults in the UK report being able to cook a main dish from basic ingredients. [27].

There is growing evidence that greater consumption of food prepared at home is associated with healthier diets. [28] However, as far as we are aware, no previous study has explored the relationship of home food preparation skills and behaviour with consumption of UPF in particular. We examined this relationship in UK adults. We hypothesised that those with better home food preparations skills and those who prepared food at home more frequently would consume a diet less reliant on UPF.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) 2008–09. [29] This study is reported according to the STROBE-nut checklist. [30].

Data source

NDNS is an annual, cross-sectional survey collecting detailed dietary data and information on a range of other personal and household characteristics and food behaviours. In 2008–09 a series of questions on home food preparation skills and behaviours were included.

Household selection for NDNS takes place using multi-stage probability sampling. Firstly, a random sample of small geographical areas are selected to allow more efficient, geographically focused, data collection. Private addresses are then randomly selected within these areas from the Postcode Address File (a list of all addresses in the UK). If more than one household lives at a particular address, one is randomly selected for inclusion. Up to one adult (aged 19 years or older) and one child (aged 1.5–18 years) from each household is then randomly selected to take part. Households are first contacted by letter a few days before an interviewer visits. Data collection involves an in-person interview covering personal and household characteristics. In 2008–09 information on cooking skills and behaviours was also collected during this interview.

Following the interview an estimated four-day food diary with portion sizes based on common household measurements is then completed. [29] Dietary supplements were not included in our analyses. Those who completed three or four of the food diary days were thanked with shopping vouchers with a value of £30 (approx. €41.20, US$46.60). Data collection takes place throughout the year and diary days are selected to ensure balanced representation of all days of the week.

In 2008–09, NDNS reported that 89% (raw n not available) of households eligible for inclusion agreed to take part. Usable food diaries (three or four completed days) were collected from at least one person in 64% of eligible households. Overall 55% of those selected to take part completed usable diaries. [29].

Inclusion criteria

All individuals aged at least 19 years at the time of participation, who completed three or four days of the food diary, and did not report any health problems limiting or preventing them from cooking were included in the analyses. Those younger than 19 years were excluded as they were not asked the questions on home food preparation skills and behaviour.

Variables of interest

Home food preparation skills and behaviour

Home food preparation skills and behaviour were measured using four variables: confidence with eight cooking techniques, confidence with cooking 10 foods, ability to prepare different dishes without help, and frequency of cooking main meals (see Table 2). The provenance of these questions is unclear and we are not aware of any published data on reliability and validity. However, the same or similar questions have been used in previously. [27, 31] As around half of participants reported confidence with all eight techniques or all 10 foods, these variables were dichotomised into confidence or not with all eight techniques or all 10 foods. As 89% of respondents answered “Yes, with no help at all” to the first three types of dish, participants were dichotomised into those who were and were not able to bake a cake or biscuits with no help at all. To maintain comparability with previous data [27, 31] we dichotomised answers concerning frequency of preparing a main meal into most days (five days of the week or more) and less often.
Table 2

Questions used to measure home food preparation skills and behaviours

Measure of home food preparation skills and behaviours

Questions

Response options

Confidence in using eight cooking techniques

Which, if any, of the following cooking techniques do you feel confident about using?

Boiling, steaming or poaching, frying, stir frying, grilling, oven-baking or roasting, stewing, braising, or casseroling, microwaving

Confidence in cooking ten foods

Which, if any, of the following foods do you feel confident about cooking?

Red meat, chicken, white fish (cod, haddock, plaice), oily fish (herring mackerel, salmon), pulses (such as split peas and lentils), dry pasta, rice (savoury), potatoes (not chips), green vegetables (cabbage, spinach, broccoli), root vegetables (carrots, parsnips)

Ability to prepare four different types of dish

Would you be able to make the following foods and dishes from beginning to end: convenience foods and ready meals (e.g. frozen pizza, pre-packaged curry & rice), a complete meal from ready-made ingredients (e.g. ready-made sauces and pasta to make spaghetti Bolognese), a main dish from basic ingredients (raw potatoes, raw meat, onions etc.), possibly following a recipe (e.g. shepherd’s pie, curry), a cake or biscuits from basic ingredients (flour, milk, eggs, etc.), possibly following a recipe

No, not at all, Yes, with a lot of help, Yes, with a little help, Yes, with no help at all

Frequency of preparing main meals

How often do you prepare a main meal for yourself or others?

Never, only for special occasions, less than once a week, one or two days a week, some days (3–4 a week), most days (5–6 a week), every day

Consumption of ultra-processed foods

Percentage of total energy intake obtained from UPF was calculated as previously. [2] In brief, firstly all foods in the NDNS nutrient databank were coded according to their degree of processing using the classification described in Table 1. [1] These codes were then merged with individual food diary data to determine the percentage of dietary energy each individual consumed from UPFs.

Other co-variates

Co-variates included were gender, age, occupational social group, and household composition (measured in terms of whether or not other adults or children were present in the household). Occupational social group was measured using the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC) of the highest household earner. The full eight-level classification was collapsed into three groups for analysis: routine and manual, intermediate, or managerial and professional occupations. [32] Where no member of the household was currently employed classification was made based on the last main jobs of household members. These co-variates were chosen as there is evidence that they are associated with home food preparation skills and behaviour, [27, 33] and UPF consumption. [2, 15].

Analysis

We used linear regression to explore associations between home food preparation skills and behaviour (‘exposure’ variables) and percentage of dietary energy from UPF (‘outcome’ variable). Separate models were run for each measure of home food preparation skills and behaviour (confidence with techniques, confidence with foods, ability to bake a cake or biscuits without help, and frequency of cooking). In all cases both unadjusted and fully adjusted (adjusted for sex, age, occupational social group, other adults in house, and children in household) models were run. As described above, all measures of home food preparation skills and behaviour were highly skewed and so were dichotomised in analyses. Throughout, age was entered as a continuous variable, occupational social class as an ordinal variable, and other adults and children in the household as binary variables.

Results

A total of 548 adults aged 19 years or older completed three or four days of the NDNS food diary in 2008–09. Of these, 39 (7.1%) reported health problems limiting or preventing them from cooking. This left 509 meeting the inclusion criteria and included in the analysis. There were no other missing data.

The characteristics of individuals included in the analysis are shown in Table 3. There were more female than male individuals, individuals were relatively evenly distributed across the age spectrum, and were least likely to be in the intermediate occupational social group. Around two-thirds of individuals lived with other adults and one-third lived with children. Around half of individuals were confident with all eight techniques or all 10 foods, nearly three-quarters were able to bake cakes or biscuits without help, and more than two-thirds cooked a main meal for themselves or others on five or more days per week. Mean (SD) percentage of dietary energy obtained by individuals from UPF was 51.3% (13.1).
Table 3

Characteristics of individuals included in the analyses

Variable

Level

n (%); (N = 509)

Sex

Male

221 (43.4)

Female

288 (56.6)

Age group (years)

19–29

84 (16.5)

30–39

102 (20.0)

40–49

84 (16.5)

50–59

100 (19.7)

60–69

76 (14.9)

70+

63 (12.4)

NS-SEC

Professional & managerial

204 (40.1)

Intermediate

101 (19.8)

Routine & manual

204 (40.1)

Household composition

Participant lives with other adults

346 (68.0)

Participant lives with children

184 (36.2)

Home food preparation skills and behaviour

Confident with all 8 techniques

273 (53.6)

Confident will all 10 foods

261 (51.3)

Able to bake cake/biscuits without help

364 (72.5)

Cook main meal 5+ times per week

347 (68.2)

NS-SEC National Statistics Socio-economic Classification

Unadjusted associations between individuals’ home food preparation skills and behaviours and their consumption of UPF are shown in Table 4; adjusted models are shown in Table 5. In adjusted models being confident with all 10 foods, being able to bake cakes or biscuits without help, and cooking a main meal at least five days a week were statistically associated with consuming a lower percentage of dietary energy from UPF. Confidence with all 8 cooking techniques was not associated with consumption of UPF. The only other significant correlate of percentage of dietary energy obtained from UPF was age – older individuals consumed a lower percentage of dietary energy from UPF.
Table 4

Unadjusted associations between individuals’ home food preparation skills and behaviours and percentage of dietary energy from ultra-processed foods (n = 509)*

Cooking variable

Unadjusted regression coefficient (95% confidence intervals)

Confident with all 8 techniques (vs not)

−1.86 (−4.14 to 0.42)

Confident with all 10 foods (vs not)

−4.29 (−6.55 to −2.04)

Able to bake cake/biscuits without help (vs unable)

−2.49 (−5.05 to 0.07)

Cook main meal 5+ time per week (vs less often)

−2.70 (−5.14 to −0.26)

*Each row represents a separate model

Table 5

Adjusted associations between individuals’ home food preparation skills and behaviours and percentage of dietary energy from ultra-processed foods (n = 509)*

Variable

Adjusted regression coefficient (95% confidence intervals)

Confident with all 8 techniques

Confident with all 10 foods

Can bake cake or biscuits without help

Cook main meal 5+ time per week

Home food preparation skill or behaviour

−1.56 (−3.87 to 0.75)

−3.76 (−6.02 to −1.50)

−3.87 (−6.62 to −1.12)

−2.84 (−5.43 to −0.24)

Sex

1.31 (−0.99 to 3.62)

1.51 (−0.77 to 3.79)

2.71 (0.20 to 5.22)

2.09 (−0.36 to 4.53)

Age

−0.16 (−0.24 to −0.09)

−0.16 (−0.23 to −0.09)

−0.17 (−0.24 to −0.09)

−0.16 (−0.23 to −0.09)

Other adults in household

0.45 (−2.07 to 2.97)

0.50 (−1.99 to 3.00)

0.46 (−2.05 to 2.97)

0.18 (02.35 to 2.70)

Children in household

0.54 (−2.18 to 3.26)

0.25 (−2.43 to 2.92)

0.64 (−2.05 to 3.33)

0.31 (−2.39 to 3.00)

NS-SEC (intermediate vs managerial & professional)

−1.05 (−4.11 to 2.02)

−1.20 (−4.24 to 1.84)

−1.25 (−4.30 to 1.80)

−0.83 (−3.89 to 2.23)

NS-SEC (routine & manual vs managerial & professional)

1.52 (−1.02 to 4.07)

1.06 (−1.46 to 3.59)

1.63 (−0.87 to 4.13)

1.85 (−0.63 to 4.35)

NS-SEC National Statistics Socio-economic Classification

*Each column represents a separate model with adjustment for all variables listed

Discussion

Summary of results

This is the first exploration of the association between home food preparation skills and behaviour, and consumption of UPF that we are aware of. In partial support of our hypothesis we found that some markers of individuals’ own home food preparation skills and behaviour were significantly associated with UPF consumption. Where associations were found, greater home food preparation skills or frequency was associated with lower consumption of UPF.

Interpretation of results

Where significant associations were present, we found that those who were more confident or prepared food more frequently consumed around 3–4 fewer percentage points of energy from UPF than others. With a mean daily energy intake in the sample of 7894 kJ (1887 kcal) (data not shown), this difference represents around 237–316 fewer kJ (57-75 kcal) from UPFs per day; or around 40–50% of a 330 ml can of regular Coca-cola. This difference is not insubstantial and reflects previous findings of relationships between both better home cooking skills and greater frequency of consuming home cooked food, and dietary quality. [28, 34].

Our results were not entirely consistent. Confidence with all eight techniques was not associated with consumption of UPF. Perhaps somewhat un-intuitively, it is possible that confidence with all eight techniques is the measure that is least related to practical use of home food preparation skills. For instance confidence with preparing a range of foods, being able to bake a cake or biscuits, and preparing a main meal frequently might all be expected to reflect individuals’ applied use of home food preparation skills. In contrast, confidence with all eight techniques may reflect more theoretical knowledge. Previous authors have highlighted the limitations of existing conceptualisations and measures of home cooking skills and behaviours. [35] Further work is required to develop valid and reliable measures of clear concepts. [36, 37].

The only other consistent correlate of individuals’ UPF consumption that we found was age. In all cases there was an inverse association with older individuals tending to consume a lower percentage of energy from UPF. Similar patterns have been previously described in relation to UPF consumption in particular, [2] and ‘healthier’ diets in general. [29] Further work will be required to determine if this a true age effect or a cohort effect.

Implications of results for research, policy and practice

Our finding that some, but not all, measures of home food preparation skills and behaviours are associated with UPF consumption reiterate the complexity of home food preparation. [35] Our analyses also highlight the poor current conceptualisation of what home food preparation skills and behaviours are, [35] what aspects of them matter for diet and health, [28] and the absence of valid and reliable measures of these skills and behaviours. [36, 37] Despite using the most comprehensive food and diet dataset currently available in the UK, these issues all limit the interpretations we can make. Researchers need to make progress on conceptualisation and operationalisation of home food preparation skills and behaviour, and how these may influence dietary quality and health as a matter of urgency.

Further research is also needed to confirm our results in longitudinal settings and so increase confidence that the associations reported here are causal. If this is confirmed our results suggest that providing individuals with practical home food preparation skills and encouraging them to use these on most days of the week may be one method to decrease consumption of UPFs.

Limitations of methods

Our study is cross-sectional and the associations reported should not be interpreted as causative. Further longitudinal research is necessary to determine the direction of any causation between home food preparation skills and behaviour and consumption of UPF.

Although NDNS invites a population-representative sample, the achieved sample is not necessarily representative due to selective non-response. [29] However, the sample included in our analysis represents the full diversity of the UK population in terms of age, gender and socio-economic characteristics meaning the associations we found are likely to be generalizable to the UK. Given international differences in food preparation and consumption behaviours [38, 39] our findings may not be more widely generalizable.

The data we used was entirely self-reported and may be subject to social desirability bias. Whilst food diaries are recognised to be one of the most comprehensive methods of assessing dietary intake, [40] selective under-reporting of some foods (particularly less healthy foods) occurs. [41, 42] The extent and nature of this may vary between population sub-groups. [41, 42] There may also be social pressures to over-report home food preparation skills and behaviour. Variations in interpretation of the questions used to assess home food preparation skills and behaviour may have introduced further error or bias. The provenance of the questions on home food preparation skills and behaviour is unclear and we are not aware of any published assessments of validity or reliability. There are few established, agreed and validated measures of cooking skills. [37] This is partly related to the poor conceptualisation of home cooking. [35] It is difficult to predict what the influence of these potential biases may have been on the results reported. Given how difficult it is to assess selective under-reporting, we did not correct for it.

The data used are now 7–8 years old and may not reflect the current situation in the UK. However, they are the most recent and comprehensive data from the UK we are aware of on this topic.

Conclusion

In UK adults, better home food preparation skills and more frequent use of these skills tended to be cross-sectionally associated with lower UPF consumption. Further work is required to conceptualise and operationalise home food preparation skills and behaviours. Greater encouragement of these skills may help reduce reliance on UPF.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participants

Ethical approval for NDNS in 2008–09 was provided by Oxfordshire A Research Ethics Committee. All participants provided written, informed consent to participate. Additional ethical approval for this analysis was not required.

Funding

This work was undertaken by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. The funders played no role in the design, conduct or interpretation of this research, or the decision to publish.

Availability of data and materials

Anonymised data and data collection materials were obtained from the UK Data Archive and is available to other eligible researchers directly from the Archive (https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6533-6).

Authors’ contributions

JA conceived the idea for this work. MCLL and JA developed the methods. MCLL conducted the analysis. MCLL and JA interpreted the data, drafted the manuscript and critically revised it. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centre for Diet & Activity Research, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge
(2)
Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong

References

  1. Monteiro CA, Levy RB, Claro RM, Castro IR, Cannon G. A new classification of foods based on the extent and purpose of their processing. Cad Saude Publica. 2010;26(11):2039–49.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams J, White M. Characterisation of UK diets according to degree of food processing and associations with socio-demographics and obesity: cross-sectional analysis of UK national diet and nutrition survey (2008-12). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:160.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Martínez Steele E, Baraldi LG, MLdC L, Moubarac J-C, Mozaffarian D, Monteiro CA. Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the US diet: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2016:6(3).Google Scholar
  4. Luiten CM, Steenhuis IHM, Eyles H, Ni Mhurchu C, Waterlander WE. Ultra-processed foods have the worst nutrient profile, yet they are the most available packaged products in a sample of New Zealand supermarkets. Public Health Nutr. 2016;19(3):530–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Moubarac J-C, Martins APB, Claro RM, Levy RB, Cannon G, Monteiro CA. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and likely impact on human health. Evidence from Canada. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(12):2240–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Poti JM, Mendez MA, Ng SW, Popkin BM: Is the degree of food processing and convenience linked with the nutritional quality of foods purchased by US households? Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101(6):1251–62.Google Scholar
  7. Bielemann RM, Motta JV, Minten GC, Horta BL, Gigante DP. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and their impact on the diet of young adults. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:28.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Sparrenberger K, Friedrich RR, Schiffner MD, Schuch I, Wagner MB. Ultra-processed food consumption in children from a basic health unit. J Pediatr. 2015;91(6):535–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. MLdC L, Baraldi LG, Steele EM, APB M, Canella DS, Moubarac J-C, Levy RB, Cannon G, Afshin A, Imamura F, et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and obesity in Brazilian adolescents and adults. Prev Med. 2015;81:9–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Juul F, Hemmingsson E. Trends in consumption of ultra-processed foods and obesity in Sweden between 1960 and 2010. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(17):3096–107.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Rauber F, Campagnolo PDB, Hoffman DJ, Vitolo MR. Consumption of ultra-processed food products and its effects on children's lipid profiles: a longitudinal study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;25(1):116–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Mendonça RdD, Pimenta AM, Gea A, de la Fuente-Arrillaga C, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Lopes ACS, Bes-Rastrollo M: Ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of overweight and obesity: the University of Navarra Follow-Up (SUN) cohort study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;104(5):1433–40.Google Scholar
  13. Tavares LF, Fonseca SC, Garcia Rosa ML, Yokoo EM. Relationship between ultra-processed foods and metabolic syndrome in adolescents from a Brazilian family doctor program. Public Health Nutr. 2012;15(01):82–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Canella DS, Levy RB, Martins APB, Claro RM, Moubarac J-C, Baraldi LG, Cannon G, Monteiro CA. Ultra-processed food products and obesity in Brazilian households (2008–2009). PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e92752.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Poti J, Mendez M, Ng SW, Popkin B: Ultra-processed and Ready-to-eat Food and Beverage Purchases Differ by Race, Education, and Income in a Longitudinal US Study. The FASEB Journal. 2015;29(1 Supplement). http://www.fasebj.org/content/29/1_Supplement/251.2.
  16. Poti J, Mendez M, Ng SW, Popkin B: Are Food Processing and Convenience Linked with the Nutritional Quality of Foods Purchased by US Households? The FASEB Journal. 2015;29(1 Supplement). http://www.fasebj.org/content/29/1_Supplement/587.9.short?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=FASEB_J_TrendMD_0.
  17. Moubarac JC, Claro RM, Baraldi LG, Levy RB, Martins AP, Cannon G, Monteiro CA. International differences in cost and consumption of ready-to-consume food and drink products: United Kingdom and Brazil, 2008-2009. Glob Public Health. 2013;8(7):845–56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Louzada MLdC, Martins APB, Canella DS, Baraldi LG, Levy RB, Claro RM, Moubarac J-C, Cannon G, Monteiro CA: Impact of ultra-processed foods on micronutrient content in the Brazilian diet. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:45. Google Scholar
  19. Moubarac J-C, Batal M, Martins APB, Claro R, Levy RB, Cannon G, Monteiro C. Processed and ultra-processed food products: consumption Trends in Canada from 1938 to 2011. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2014;75(1):15–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Martins APB, Levy RB, Claro RM, Moubarac JC, Monteiro CA. Increased contribution of ultra-processed food products in the Brazilian diet (1987-2009). Rev Saude Publica. 2013;47:656–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hawkes C. Uneven dietary development: linking the policies and processes of globalization with the nutrition transition, obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. Glob Health. 2006;2:4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Monteiro CA, Levy RB, Claro RM, de Castro IRR, Cannon G. Increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods and likely impact on human health: evidence from Brazil. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14(01):5–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Moubarac JC, Martins AP, Martins CA, Garzillo J, Canella DS, Baraldi LG, Barciotte M, Louzada ML, et al. Dietary guidelines to nourish humanity and the planet in the twenty-first century. A blueprint from Brazil. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(13):2311–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Moubarac J-C, Martins APB, Martins CA, Garzillo J, Canella DS, Baraldi LG, Barciotte M, MLdC L, et al. Dietary guidelines to nourish humanity and the planet in the twenty-first century. A blueprint from Brazil. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(13):2311–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith LP, Ng SW, Popkin BM. Trends in US home food preparation and consumption: analysis of national nutrition surveys and time use studies from 1965-1966 to 2007-2008. Nutr J. 2013;12:45.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Zick CD, Stevens RB. Trends in Americans' food-related time use: 1975-2006. Public Health Nutr. 2010;13(7):1064–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Adams J, Goffe L, Adamson AJ, Halligan J, O'Brien N, Purves R, Stead M, Stocken D, White M. Prevalence and socio-demographic correlates of cooking skills in UK adults: cross-sectional analysis of data from the UK National Diet and nutrition survey. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12(1):99.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Mills S, Brown H, Wrieden W, White M, Adams J. Health and social determinants and outcomes of home cooking: a systematic review of observational studies. Appetite. 2016;111:116–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Bates B, Lennox A. In: Swan G, editor. National Diet and nutrition survey: headline results from year 1 of the rolling Programme (2008/2009). London: Foods Standards Agency and Department of Health; 2010.Google Scholar
  30. Lachat C, Hawwash D, Ocké MC, Berg C, Forsum E, Hörnell A, Larsson C, Sonestedt E, Wirfält E, Åkesson A, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in Epidemiology—nutritional Epidemiology (STROBE-nut): an extension of the STROBE statement. PLoS Med. 2016;13(6):e1002036.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Caraher M, Dixon P, Lang T, Carr-Hill R. The state of cooking in England: the relationship of cooking skills to food choice. Br Food J. 1999;101(8):590–609.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Rose D, Pevalin D, O’Reilly K. The National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification: origins, development and use. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005.Google Scholar
  33. Adams J, White M. Prevalence and socio-demographic correlates of time spent cooking by adults in the 2005 UK time use survey. Cross-sectional analysis. Appetite. 2015;92:185–91.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Zong G, Eisenberg DM, Hu FB, Sun Q. Consumption of meals prepared at home and risk of type 2 diabetes: an analysis of two prospective cohort studies. PLoS Med. 2016;13(7):e1002052.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Short F. Domestic cooking skills - what are they? Journal of the HEIA. 2003;10(3):14–22.Google Scholar
  36. Barton KL, Wrieden WL, Anderson AS. Validity and reliability of a short questionnaire for assessing the impact of cooking skills interventions. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2011;24(6):588–95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. McGowan L, Caraher M, Raats M, Lavelle F, Hollywood L, McDowell D, Spence M, McCloat A, Mooney E, Dean M. Domestic cooking and food skills: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2015:00.Google Scholar
  38. Gatley A, Caraher M, Lang T. A qualitative, cross cultural examination of attitudes and behaviour in relation to cooking habits in France and Britain. Appetite. 2014;75:71–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Pettinger C, Holdsworth M, Gerber M. Meal patterns and cooking practices in southern France and Central England. Public Health Nutr. 2006;9(08):1020–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wrieden W, Barton K, Armstrong J, McNeill G. A review of food consumption and nutrient intakes from national surveys in Scotland: comparison to the Scottish dietary targets. Scotland: Food Standards Agency; 2006.Google Scholar
  41. Scagliusi F, Polacow V, Artioli G, Benatti F, Lancha A. Selective underreporting of energy intake i nwomen: magnitude, determinants, and effect of training. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(10):1306–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Burrows TL, Martin RJ, Collins CE. A systematic review of the validity of dietary assessment methods in children when compared with the method of doubly labeled water. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(10):1501–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement