Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objectives

Non-Hispanic black (NHB) men have higher rates of chronic disease than men in other racial/ethnic groups. Poor diet quality is one risk factor for chronic disease, but research on the diet quality and nutrient intake of NHB men is sparse. The objective of this study was to describe and compare the diet quality and nutrient intake of NHB and non-Hispanic white (NHW) men in the United States.

Methods

We analyzed cross-sectional data on 5050 men (31.3% NHB, 68.7% NHW) who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 2007-2012. To assess diet quality, we calculated Healthy Eating Index (HEI)–2010 scores from each participant’s 24-hour recall data. We used logistic regression models to determine if NHB men had lower odds of meeting dietary recommendations for nutrient intake than NHW men. We used linear regression models to identify significant differences in HEI-2010 scores between NHB and NHW men.

Results

After adjusting for sociodemographic measures, NHB and NHW men had similar diet quality (P = .59). Compared with NHW men, NHB men had lower odds of meeting recommendations for dietary fiber and cholesterol intake and higher odds of meeting recommendations for saturated fat and sodium intake.

Conclusion

Differences between NHB and NHW men in the intake of certain nutrients may be related to chronic disease disparities. Future research should consider racial/ethnic differences in dietary intake among men and the impact these differences have on men’s health.

Keywords

diet quality nutrient intake Healthy Eating Index men non-Hispanic black

In the United States, non-Hispanic black (NHB) men have a higher risk of developing chronic disease (eg, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, some forms of cancer)^1

-7 and a higher age-adjusted mortality rate than men in other racial/ethnic groups.^8,9 Given these disparities in health, identifying and addressing the modifiable factors that contribute to chronic disease risk among NHB men are vital to improving public health.¹⁰

Diet quality is an important modifiable risk factor in the development and management of some chronic diseases.¹¹ Better diet quality, as measured by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI), is linked to reduced risk of several leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the US population.^12,13 Studies have reported sex differences in diet quality (eg, women often have better diet quality than men) and racial differences in diet quality (eg, NHB adults often have poorer diet quality than non-Hispanic white [NHW] adults).^14

-20 Despite the large amount of scientific information on the diet quality of US adults, data are scarce on the diet quality of NHB men, a demographic group that is understudied and underrepresented in public health research.^1,2,21

Describing the quality and nutrient composition of NHB men’s diet could provide greater context to the health disparities that persist among men.^1,2 Our study sheds light on the diet quality of NHB men, which may be useful for clinicians, researchers, and public health practitioners in developing targeted nutritional interventions. The objectives of this study were to (1) describe the diet quality and nutrient intake of a large, diverse sample of NHB men and (2) determine if their diet quality and nutrient intake differ significantly from NHW men after adjusting for sociodemographic measures (eg, age, poverty level). We hypothesized that the diet quality of NHB men would be significantly lower than the diet quality of NHW men.

Methods

Data Source

We pooled and analyzed cross-sectional data from multiple cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).²² NHANES is a survey of a nationally representative sample of noninstitutionalized US citizens that collects data on nutrition and health from participants by conducting a series of interviewer-administered questionnaires and examinations. NHANES uses a multi-stage probability sampling scheme to select persons for participation.²³ Thus, persons have a different probability of being selected for participation. We examined data on adult participants of NHANES cycles 2007-2008, 2009-2010, and 2011-2012. A total of 17 713 adults aged ≥20 participated in these cycles. After excluding women (n = 9057), men who were not black or white (n = 3342), and men with inadequate 24-hour recall data (n = 665), the final analytical sample included 5050 men (31.3% NHB, 68.7% NHW). NHANES participants self-reported their race/ethnicity during the in-home questionnaire; NHB men were oversampled to increase the precision of estimates for this subgroup. The National Center for Health Statistics Institutional Review Board approved NHANES, and all participants provided written informed consent. The University of Illinois at Chicago Institutional Review Board considered this secondary analysis of NHANES as exempt research.

Nutrient Intake

Measures of total energy intake and nutrient intake are publicly available for each NHANES participant. These measures represent estimates derived by NHANES from the foods and beverages reported on the first day of 24-hour recall. We examined the following variables: total energy (kcal per day), total fat (grams per day), saturated fat (grams per day), protein (grams per day), dietary fiber (grams per day), carbohydrates (grams per day), total sugars (grams per day), cholesterol (milligrams per day), and sodium (milligrams per day). We compared consumption levels for nutrient intake with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs), including: 20%-35% of energy from total fat, 10% of energy from saturated fat, 10%-35% of energy from protein, ≥38 g/day of fiber, 45%-65% of energy from carbohydrates, <300 mg/day of cholesterol, and <2300 mg/day of sodium.²⁴ Although a guideline for recommended total sugar intake does not exist,²⁵ the World Health Organization recommends that <5% of energy intake comes from added sugars.^25,26 Thus, we calculated the proportion of NHB and NHW men who met <5% of energy from total sugars to gain some insight to both groups’ added sugar consumption level.²⁵

Diet Quality

The primary outcome measure was diet quality as measured by HEI-2010. We calculated HEI-2010 total and component scores from participants’ first day of 24-hour dietary recall data by using the simple HEI scoring algorithm method,²⁷ which is detailed elsewhere.²⁸ Briefly, HEI-2010 is a measure of diet quality that determines how an individual’s diet aligns with the 2010 DGAs.²⁴ HEI-2010 measures are often used for epidemiological, policy, and nutritional research.^14,18,20 HEI-2010 total scores range from 0 to 100 (maximum score). Because of the nature of the scoring algorithm, it is not possible to receive a score of 0. Total score is the sum of 12 component scores. Nine components—total fruit, whole fruit, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, total protein foods, seafood and plant proteins, and fatty acids—measure adequacy; a higher score indicates higher consumption. Three components—refined grains, sodium, and empty calories—measure moderation; a higher score indicates lower consumption. Greater intake of foods that contribute to the measures of adequacy increases the HEI-2010 total score. Lower intake of foods that contribute to the measures of moderation increases the HEI-2010 total score. Six HEI-2010 components (total fruit, whole fruit, total vegetables, greens and beans, total protein foods, and seafood and plant proteins) contribute 5 points to the total score; 5 HEI-2010 components (whole grains, dairy, refined grains, sodium, and fatty acids) contribute 10 points to the total score; and 1 component (empty calories) contributes 20 points to the total score.

Sociodemographic and Health Measures

We examined the following characteristics: age (20-35, 36-50, 51-65, >65 years), education level (<high school diploma, high school diploma or equivalent, some college, ≥college degree), marital status (married, divorced or separated, widowed, living with partner, or never married), and poverty level (<100.0%, 100.0%-149.9%, 150.0%-199.9%, 200.0%-299.9%, and ≥300.0% of the federal poverty level [FPL]), number of household members (continuous), and body mass index (BMI, in kg/m²).^29,30 We selected these sociodemographic and health measures because they are related to diet quality.^14
-16 Participants self-reported their age, education level, marital status, income, and number of household members. BMI was calculated from height and weight measurements collected by trained health technicians during the NHANES physical examination. BMI was categorized as underweight (<18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m²), and obese (≥30.0 kg/m²).³⁰

Statistical Analysis

We calculated data on descriptive statistics (ie, weighted means and frequencies) for sociodemographic and health measures among all men, stratified by race. We conducted the Rao-Scott χ² test and the t test to determine differences in measures by race, with P < .05 considered significant. We calculated the weighted mean intake of each nutrient among NHB and NHW men and the weighted percentage of NHB and NHW men who met dietary recommendations for each nutrient.

We used multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models to determine associations between black race and decreased odds of meeting dietary recommendations for nutrient intake, and between black race and lower HEI-2010 total score and HEI-2010 component scores. Model 1 included the measures for black race and day of the week the participant had 24-hour recall. We modeled day of the week as weekday (Monday through Thursday) vs weekend (Friday through Sunday). Model 2 included all measures from Model 1, as well as age range and education level. Model 3 included all measures from Model 2, as well as FPL, marital status, number of household members, and BMI.

We conducted all analyses by using SAS version 9.4.³¹ We used estimated NHANES sampling weights derived after combining data sets from the 3 selected cycles.³²

Results

Overall, 28.6% of men were aged 36-50 and 31.3% of men had ≥college degree (Table 1). Most (59.2%) study participants were married and 10.8% had <100% FPL. The mean BMI was 28.7 kg/m²; 34.5% of study participants were obese. We found significant differences between NHB and NHW men for every measure except BMI. Compared with NHW men, a higher percentage of NHB men had <high school diploma (25.3% vs 12.6%) and were <100% FPL (22.6% vs 9.1%). A higher percentage of NHW men than NHB men reported being married (62.0% vs 40.5%), and a higher percentage of NHB men than NHW men were obese (38.0% vs 34.0%).

Table 1

Descriptive characteristics of non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic white men participating in NHANES, 2007-2012^a,b

Characteristic	All Men	Non-Hispanic Black Men	Non-Hispanic White Men	P Value^c
No. (%)	5050 (100.0)	1581 (31.3)	3469 (68.7)	—
Age, y				<.001
20-35	1201 (26.6)	420 (34.6)	781 (25.4)
36-50	1172 (28.6)	357 (29.4)	815 (28.5)
51-65	1295 (28.3)	496 (25.3)	799 (28.7)
>65	1382 (16.5)	308 (10.6)	1074 (17.4)
Highest education level				<.001
<High school degree	1104 (14.2)	442 (25.3)	662 (12.6)
High school degree or equivalent	1298 (24.3)	435 (28.6)	863 (23.7)
Some college	1437 (30.2)	466 (30.6)	971 (30.1)
≥College degree	1207 (31.3)	237 (15.5)	970 (33.6)
Federal poverty level, %				<.001
<100.0	819 (10.8)	313 (22.6)	506 (9.1)
100.0-149.9	708 (8.9)	207 (14.1)	501 (8.2)
150.0-199.9	480 (8.2)	188 (12.7)	292 (7.6)
200.0-299.9	718 (15.2)	233 (15.9)	485 (15.1)
≥300.0	1996 (56.8)	501 (34.7)	1495 (60.0)
Marital status				<.001
Married	2799 (59.2)	696 (40.5)	2103 (62.0)
Divorced or separated	644 (11.0)	238 (13.9)	406 (10.6)
Widowed	265 (2.7)	81 (3.2)	184 (2.6)
Living with partner	363 (7.1)	147 (11.0)	216 (6.5)
Never married	977 (20.0)	417 (31.4)	560 (18.3)
Mean (SE) no. of household members	2.8 (<0.1)	3.2 (0.1)	2.8 (<0.1)	<.001
Mean (SE) BMI, kg/m²	28.7 (0.1)	29.0 (0.2)	28.6 (0.1)	.11
BMI classification, kg/m²				<.001
Underweight (<18.5)	65 (0.9)	33 (1.9)	32 (0.7)
Normal (18.5-24.9)	1329 (25.7)	446 (29.0)	883 (25.2)
Overweight (25.0-29.9)	1838 (38.9)	494 (31.0)	1344 (40.0)
Obese (≥30.0)	1751 (34.5)	590 (38.0)	1161 (34.0)

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

^aAll values are number (weighted percentage), unless otherwise indicated. Cell counts may not total to sample size because of missing data. Percentages may not total to 100 because of rounding.

^bData source: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.²²

^c P value determined by Rao-Scott χ ² test or t test, with P < .05 considered significant.

Fewer than 7% of NHB and NHW men met dietary recommendations for dietary fiber (Table 2). Compared with NHW men, NHB men were less likely to meet dietary recommendations for intake of protein, cholesterol, and dietary fiber. After adjusting for all sociodemographic and health measures (Model 3), NHB men had significantly lower odds of meeting dietary recommendations for dietary fiber intake (odds ratio [OR] = 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.84) and cholesterol intake (OR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.99) than NHW men. NHB men had significantly higher odds of meeting dietary recommendations for saturated fat intake (OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.20-1.69) and sodium intake (OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.80) than NHW men.

Table 2

Results from logistic regression models examining the association between race and meeting recommendations for nutrient intake among non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic white men (N = 5050) participating in NHANES, 2007-2012^a

Nutrient	Recommended Intake	Mean (SE)	% of Men Meeting Guideline	Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)
Nutrient	Recommended Intake	Mean (SE)	% of Men Meeting Guideline	Model 1^b	Model 2^c	Model 3^d
Total energy intake, kcal/d	—^e
Non-Hispanic black	2345.7 (34.0)	—^e	—^e	—^e	—^e
Non-Hispanic white	2486.8 (18.2)	—^e	—^e	—^e	—^e
Total fat, g/d	20%-35% of energy^f
Non-Hispanic black	88.1 (1.8)	49.6	1.08 (0.93-1.26)	1.07 (0.91-1.25)	1.09 (0.90-1.32)
Non-Hispanic white	95.1 (1.0)	47.0	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Saturated fat, g/d	<10% of energy^f
Non-Hispanic black	27.8 (0.6)	48.1	1.43 (1.23-1.67)	1.45 (1.23-1.71)	1.42 (1.20-1.69)
Non-Hispanic white	31.3 (0.4)	39.3	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Protein, g/d	10%-35% of energy^f
Non-Hispanic black	88.8 (1.2)	87.4	0.67 (0.50-0.89)	0.80 (0.59-1.10)	0.88 (0.63-1.21)
Non-Hispanic white	96.8 (0.9)	91.7	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Dietary fiber, g/d	≥38 g^f
Non-Hispanic black	14.8 (0.3)	2.1	0.37 (0.23-0.58)	0.45 (0.28-0.71)	0.51 (0.31-0.84)
Non-Hispanic white	18.8 (0.4)	5.2	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Carbohydrates, g/d	45%-65% of energy^f
Non-Hispanic black	277.9 (4.4)	53.6	1.08 (0.93-1.26)	1.10 (0.93-1.29)	1.13 (0.94-1.34)
Non-Hispanic white	290.6 (2.2)	52.9	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Total sugars, g/d	<5% of energy^g
Non-Hispanic black	130.0 (3.0)	4.2	1.37 (0.98-1.91)	1.27 (0.95-1.70)	1.24 (0.89-1.72)
Non-Hispanic white	129.7 (1.9)	3.3	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Cholesterol, mg/d	<300 mg^f
Non-Hispanic black	345.8 (7.8)	53.1	0.80 (0.68-0.95)	0.83 (0.67-0.98)	0.81 (0.67-0.99)
Non-Hispanic white	331.6 (5.5)	56.9	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Sodium, mg/d	<2300 mg^f
Non-Hispanic black	3727.8 (54.1)	20.8	1.64 (1.32-2.04)	1.62 (1.29-2.02)	1.42 (1.12-1.80)
Non-Hispanic white	4130.7 (43.4)	14.0	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]

Abbreviation: NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

^aData source: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.²²

^bModel 1: Model adjusted for day of the week (weekday vs weekend).

^cModel 2: Model adjusted for day of the week, age range, and education level.

^dModel 3: Model adjusted for day of the week, age range, education level, poverty level, marital status, number of household members, and body mass index.

^eCaloric intake was not examined because there are no standard guidelines for caloric intake.

^fRecommended intake from 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.²⁴

^gRecommended intake of added sugars from the World Health Organization.²⁵

The mean HEI-2010 total score was 46.1 for NHB men and 49.4 for NHW men (Table 3). After adjusting for sociodemographic and health measures (Model 3), we found no difference in HEI-2010 total score between NHB and NHW men (β = −0.3; standard error [SE] = 0.6; P = .59). Compared with NHW men, NHB men had a significantly lower HEI-2010 component score for total vegetables (β = −0.3; SE = 0.6; P < .001), seafood and plant protein (β = −0.2; SE = 0.1; P = .02), and dairy (β = −1.5; SE = 0.1; P < .001) but a significantly higher HEI-2010 component score for total fruit (β = 0.4; SE = 0.1; P < .001), total protein (β = 0.2; SE = 0.1; P = .001), and fatty acids (β = 0.9; SE = 0.2; P < .001) (Table 3).

Table 3

Results from linear regression models examining associations between race and total and component scores on the Healthy Eating Index–2010^a among non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic white men (N = 5050) participating in NHANES, 2007-2012^b

Index and Components (Maximum Score)	Mean (95% CI)	β (SE) [P Value]^c
Index and Components (Maximum Score)	Mean (95% CI)	Model 1^d	Model 2^e	Model 3^f
Healthy Eating Index–2010 total score (100)
Non-Hispanic black	46.1 (45.2-47.0)	−3.38 (0.65) [<.001]	−0.95 (0.57) [.10]	−0.31 (0.57) [.59]
Non-Hispanic white	49.4 (48.5-50.4)	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Healthy Eating Index–2010 component scores
Total vegetables (5)
Non-Hispanic black	2.5 (2.4-2.6)	−0.45 (0.07) [<.001]	−0.29 (0.07) [<.001]	−0.31 (0.06) [<.001]
Non-Hispanic white	3.0 (2.9-3.1)	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Greens and beans (5)
Non-Hispanic black	1.1 (1.0-1.2)	−0.02 (0.08) [.91]	0.14 (0.07) [.06]	0.11 (0.08) [.17]
Non-Hispanic white	1.1 (1.0-1.2)	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Total fruit (5)
Non-Hispanic black	1.9 (1.8-2.0)	−0.02 (0.09) [.83]	0.25 (0.07) [.002]	0.35 (0.09) [<.001]
Non-Hispanic white	1.9 (1.9-2.0)	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Whole fruit (5)
Non-Hispanic black	1.5 (1.4-1.6)	−0.50 (0.08) [<.001]	−0.21 (0.07) [.004]	−0.07 (0.08) [.37]
Non-Hispanic white	2.0 (1.9-2.1)	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Whole grains (5)
Non-Hispanic black	1.8 (1.6-2.0)	−0.68 (0.13) [<.001]	−0.34 (0.11) [.01]	−0.23 (0.12) [.07]
Non-Hispanic white	2.4 (2.2-2.6)	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Dairy (10)
Non-Hispanic black	3.7 (3.5-3.9)	−1.57 (0.12) [.01]	−1.56 (0.12) [<.001]	−1.54 (0.12) [<.001]
Non-Hispanic white	5.2 (5.1-5.4)	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Total protein (5)
Non-Hispanic black	4.4 (4.4-4.5)	0.14 (0.05) [.01]	0.18 (0.06) [.002]	0.21 (0.06) [.001]
Non-Hispanic white	4.3 (4.2-4.4)	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Seafood and plant protein (5)
Non-Hispanic black	1.6 (1.5-1.7)	−0.45 (0.08) [<.001]	−0.24 (0.07) [.002]	−0.18 (0.07) [.02]
Non-Hispanic white	2.0 (1.9-2.1)	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Fatty acids (10)
Non-Hispanic black	5.2 (5.3-5.8)	0.71 (0.15) [<.001]	0.83 (0.16) [<.001]	0.90 (0.16) [<.001]
Non-Hispanic white	4.8 (4.7-5.0)	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Sodium (10)
Non-Hispanic black	4.4 (4.3-4.6)	0.35 (0.12) [.01]	0.27 (0.13) [.04]	0.28 (0.14) [.048]
Non-Hispanic white	4.1 (4.0-4.2)	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Refined grains (10)
Non-Hispanic black	6.6 (6.4-6.9)	0.09 (0.13) [.48]	0.21 (0.13) [.12]	0.24 (0.13) [.08]
Non-Hispanic white	6.5 (6.4-6.7)	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]
Empty calories (20)
Non-Hispanic black	10.9 (10.5-11.3)	−1.00 (0.25) [<.001]	−0.20 (0.24) [.42]	−0.06 (0.28) [.83]
Non-Hispanic white	11.9 (11.5-12.2)	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]

Abbreviation: NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

^aThe Healthy Eating Index–2010 is a measure of diet quality that indicates how a person’s diet aligns with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Ten component scores are calculated and summed to tabulate the total score. A higher total score (scale, 0-100) indicates better diet quality.²⁷

^bData source: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.²²

^c P value determined using linear regression, with P < .05 considered significant.

^dModel 1: Adjusted for day of the week (weekday vs weekend).

^eModel 2: Adjusted for day of the week, age range, and education level.

^fModel 3: Adjusted for day of the week, age range, education level, poverty level, marital status, number of household members, and body mass index.

Discussion

This research contributes to the literature on the diet of NHB men in the United States, which is limited.^33

-38 We hypothesized that NHB men would have poorer diet quality than NHW men after reviewing the literature on black–white disparities in diet quality among US adults.^14

-19 Our findings revealed that NHB and NHW men had similar diet quality after adjusting for sociodemographic factors such as education and poverty level. This finding suggests that education and poverty level may be important contributors to racial/ethnic disparities in dietary intake often observed among men.^1,2,17
-19

NHB and NHW men in our study differed in their consumption of certain nutrients and food types (eg, total vegetables, dietary fiber, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium). These results mirror findings from other studies that described white differences in dietary intake.^{14

-19,39,40} In our study, HEI-2010 component scores for total vegetables and dairy were, on average, lower among NHB men than among NHW men. Studies by Hiza et al¹⁴ and Kirkpatrick et al¹⁵ found that black men and women who participated in NHANES had significantly lower total vegetable and milk component scores than white men and women. Kant et al¹⁶ observed that black men and women who participated in NHANES reported a lower intake of vegetables and calcium than white men and women. Furthermore, Fulgoni et al³⁹ reported that black persons consumed significantly fewer calories per day from dairy than non-black persons. Similar to the study by Fulgoni et al, our findings on dairy consumption among NHB men may be explained by the high prevalence of lactose intolerance among NHB adults in the United States. Findings on vegetable intake among NHB men, however, are important and warrant additional research. Vegetable consumption is low in the United States^41
-43; studies show that NHB adults consume significantly fewer vegetables than other racial/ethnic groups.^42,43 Because vegetable intake is associated with a decreased risk of chronic disease, additional research is needed to describe the relationship between vegetable consumption and racial/ethnic disparities in the prevalence of chronic disease among men.⁴⁴

In our study, NHB men had lower odds of meeting dietary recommendations for dietary fiber and cholesterol intake than NHW men. Go et al⁴⁵ found similar results when comparing black and white adults who participated in NHANES. High fiber intake is associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer^46,47; high cholesterol intake substantially increases the risk of cardiovascular disease.⁴⁸ NHB men in our study fared better than NHW men in 2 key areas: saturated fat and sodium. NHB men had significantly higher odds of meeting dietary recommendations for saturated fat and sodium intake than NHW men. Newby and colleagues³³ reported that total fat and sodium intake were lower among black men than among white men who participated in the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study. Like cholesterol, saturated fat, when consumed in excess, increases the risk of cardiovascular disease.⁴⁹ Excess sodium consumption is an ongoing public health concern in the United States because of its association with hypertension.^50,51 These findings on racial/ethnic differences in nutrient intake among men further highlight the need for research on how these dietary factors contribute to men’s health.

It is important to note that high percentages of men in both groups failed to meet specific dietary recommendations. Only half of NHB and NHW men met recommendations for cholesterol intake, and fewer than half met recommendations for saturated fat intake. More than 90% of men in both groups exceeded the daily allowance of sodium, and fewer than 6% of men in both groups met recommendations for dietary fiber intake. These findings indicate that both groups need to improve consumption of key nutrients to improve overall diet quality.

Strengths and Limitations

This study had 2 strengths. One strength was the use of NHANES data, which included a large sample of NHB and NHW men. Another strength was use of the HEI-2010, which directly measures how an individual’s diet aligns with the DGAs.

This study also had several limitations. First, we examined only 1 day of dietary intake. Thus, we were not able to assess usual dietary intake and long-term dietary patterns. A detailed examination of dietary patterns would provide more accurate information on the dietary deficiencies of men that should be targeted for intervention. Second, we did not include geographic measures (eg, proximity to grocery stores) in the analysis; as such, we were unable to account for environmental factors that have previously been linked to diet quality in adults.⁵² Third, the study was limited by the self-reporting of information, which increased the potential for recall errors. Finally, this study offered no insight into other diet-related measures (eg, food purchasing behavior, access to healthy food) that may affect the diets of men. Diet-related measures are a promising area of research for those currently examining the diet and diet-related behaviors of NHB men in the United States.

Conclusions

Our study contributes to an understanding of the dietary intake of NHB men and the dietary differences between NHB and NHW men. Although the diet quality of NHB and NHW men participating in NHANES 2007-2012 was similar after adjusting for sociodemographic and health measures, NHB and NHW men differed in their intake of nutrients and food types. These differences may be explained by myriad sociocultural factors, such as cooking practices, household structure, and cultural attitudes toward healthy eating.^35

-38 Additional research is needed to examine how these sociocultural factors relate to racial/ethnic differences in the dietary intake of men. Unhealthy behaviors, such as excessive consumption of convenience foods with poor nutritional profiles, may explain why most men did not meet DGA recommendations.^35,36 Future research should measure the dietary patterns, food purchasing behaviors, and food preferences of NHB men and evaluate how racial/ethnic differences in dietary intake among men are related to differences in chronic disease risk.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Victor Fulgoni III, PhD, and his staff at Nutrition Impact, LLC (Battle Creek, Michigan), for their support in calculating the HEI-2010 total and component scores for the NHANES participants in our analytic sample.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors declared the following financial support with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research reported in this article was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R25CA057699); the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of NIH (T32HL007034); and the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities of NIH (P60MD000214). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIH.

ORCID iD

Terry L. Thompson

References

Gilbert

KL.

Ray

Siddiqi

et al. Visible and invisible trends in black men's health: pitfalls and promises for addressing racial, ethnic, and gender inequities in health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2016;37:295-311.doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021556

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26989830

Griffith

. “Centering the margins” moving equity to the center of men’s health research. Am J Mens Health. 2018;12(5):1317-1327.doi:10.1177/1557988318773973

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29749300

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . A Closer Look at African American Men and High Blood Pressure Control: A Review of Psychosocial Factors and Systems-Level Interventions. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division for Heart Disease & Stroke Prevention; 2010. https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/docs/african_american_sourcebook.pdf

Backland

. Racial differences in hypertension: implications for high blood pressure management. Am J Med Sci. 2014;348(2):135-138.doi:10.1097/MAJ.0000000000000308

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24983758

Robbins

JM.

Vaccarino

Zhang

Kasl

. Excess type 2 diabetes in African-American women and men aged 40-74 and socioeconomic status: evidence from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54(11):839-845.doi:10.1136/jech.54.11.839

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11027198

Winterich

JA.

Gryzwacz

JG.

Quandt

et al. Men’s knowledge and beliefs about prostate cancer: education, race, and screening status. Ethn Dis. 2009;19(2):199-203.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19537233

Thorpe

RJ.

Kelley

Bowie

JV.

Griffith

DM.

Bruce

LaVeist

. Explaining racial disparities in obesity among men: does place matter? Am J Mens Health. 2015;9(6):464-472.doi:10.1177/1557988314551197

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25249452

Beydoun

MA.

Beydoun

HA.

Mode

et al. Racial disparities in adult all-cause and cause-specific mortality among US adults: mediating and moderating factors. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1113.doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3744-z

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27770781

Geronimus

AT.

Bound

Colen

. Excess black mortality in the United States and in selected black and white high-poverty areas, 1980-2000. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(4):720-729.doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.195537

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21389293

10.

Thorpe

RJ.

Kennedy-Hendricks

Griffith

et al. Race, social and environmental conditions, and health behaviors in men. Fam Community Health. 2015;38(4):297-306.doi:10.1097/FCH.0000000000000078

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26291190

11.

Bauer

UE.

Briss

PA.

Goodman

RA.

Bowman

. Prevention of chronic disease in the 21st century: elimination of the leading preventable causes of premature death and disability in the USA. Lancet. 2014;384(9937):45-52.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60648-6

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24996589

12.

Reedy

Krebs-Smith

SM.

Miller

et al. Higher diet quality is associated with decreased risk of all-cause, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality among older adults. J Nutr. 2014;144(6):881-889.doi:10.3945/jn.113.189407

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24572039

13.

Schwingshackl

Bogensberger

Hoffmann

. Diet quality as assessed by the Healthy Eating Index, Alternate Healthy Eating Index, dietary approaches to stop hypertension score, and health outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2018;118(1):e11:74-100.doi:10.1016/j.jand.2017.08.024

29111090

14.

Hiza

HA.

Casavale

KO.

Guenther

PM.

Davis

. Diet quality of Americans differs by age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, and education level. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013;113(2):297-306.doi:10.1016/j.jand.2012.08.011

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23168270

15.

Kirkpatrick

SI.

Dodd

KW.

Reedy

Krebs-Smith

. Income and race/ethnicity are associated with adherence to food-based dietary guidance among US adults and children. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012;112(5):624-635.doi:10.1016/j.jand.2011.11.012

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22709767

16.

Kant

AK.

Graubard

BI.

Kumanyika

. Trends in black–white differentials in dietary intakes of U.S. adults, 1971-2002. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(4):264-272.doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.12.011

17383557

17.

Ervin

. Healthy Eating Index scores among adults, 60 years of age and over, by sociodemographic and health characteristics: United States, 1999-2002. Adv Data. 2008;395(395):1-16.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18646580

18.

Wang

DD.

Leung

CW.

et al. Trends in dietary quality among adults in the United States, 1999 through 2010. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(10):1587-1595.doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3422

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25179639

19.

Shannon

Shikany

JM.

Barrett-Connor

et al. Demographic factors associated with the diet quality of older US men: baseline data from the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study. Public Health Nutr. 2007;10(8):810-818.doi:10.1017/S1368980007258604

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17381915

20.

Powell-Wiley

TM.

Miller

PE.

Agyemang

Agurs-Collins

Reedy

. Perceived and objective diet quality in US adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Public Health Nutr. 2014;17(12):2641-2649.doi:10.1017/S1368980014000196

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24636343

21.

Jones

RA.

Steeves

Williams

. Strategies for recruiting African American men into prostate cancer screening studies. Nurs Res. 2009;58(6):452-456.doi:10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181b4bade

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19918156

22.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics . National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/index.htm. Accessed January 26, 2016.

23.

Johnson

CL.

Dohrmann

SM.

Burt

VL.

Mohadjer

. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: sample design, 2011-2014. Vital Health Stat 2. 2014;162:1-33.

24.

US Department of Agriculture US Department of Health and Human Services . Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2010. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/dietaryguidelines2010.pdf. Accessed December 4, 2019.

25.

Jaslow

. World Health Organization lowers sugar intake recommendations. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-lowers-sugar-intake-recommendations. Accessed December 4, 2019.

26.

Erickson

Slavin

. Total, added, and free sugars: are restrictive guidelines science-based or achievable? Nutrients. 2015;7(4):2866-2878.doi:10.3390/nu7042866

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25884659

27.

National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Control & Population Sciences . HEI scoring algorithm. https://epi.grants.cancer.gov/hei/hei-scoring-method.html. Accessed September 18, 2018.

28.

Guenther

PM.

Kirkpatrick

SI.

Reedy

et al. The Healthy Eating Index—2010 is a valid and reliable measure of diet quality according to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. J Nutr. 2014;144(3):399-407.doi:10.3945/jn.113.183079

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24453128

29.

US Department of Health and Human Services . Poverty guidelines. https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines. Accessed September 23, 2018.

30.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Healthy weight: what is BMI. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html. Accessed September 23, 2018.

31.

SAS [computer program] . Version 9.4. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2013.

32.

Lewis

. Estimation strategies involving pooled survey data. SAS Support Paper 767-2017. 2017. http://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings17/0767-2017.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2016.

33.

Newby

PK.

Noel

SE.

Grant

Judd

Shikany

JM.

Ard

. Race and region are associated with nutrient intakes among black and white men in the United States. J Nutr. 2011;141(2):296-303.doi:10.3945/jn.110.130583

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21178088

34.

Chan

Stamler

Elliott

. Dietary factors and higher blood pressure in African-Americans. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2015;17(2):10.doi:10.1007/s11906-014-0517-x

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25648747

35.

Griffith

DM.

Wooley

AM.

Allen

. “I’m ready to eat and grab whatever I can get” determinants and patterns of African American men’s eating practices. Health Promot Pract. 2013;14(2):181-188.doi:10.1177/1524839912437789

22773618

36.

Griffith

DM.

Cornish

EK.

McKissic

SA.

Dean

. Differences in perceptions of the food environment between African American men who did and did not consume recommended levels of fruits and vegetables. Health Educ Behav. 2013;43(6):648-655.doi:10.1177/1090198115626923

37.

Moser

RP.

Green

Weber

Doyle

. Psychosocial correlates of fruit and vegetable consumption among African American men. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2005;37(6):306-314.doi:10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60161-9

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16242062

38.

Bruce

MA.

Griffith

DM.

Thorpe

. Social determinants of men’s health disparities. Fam Community Health. 2015;38(4):281-283.doi:10.1097/FCH.0000000000000083

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26291188

39.

Fulgoni

Nicholls

Reed

et al. Dairy consumption and related nutrient intake in African-American adults and children in the United States: continuing survey of food intakes by individuals 1994-1996, 1998, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2000. J Am Diet Assoc. 2007;107(2):256-264.doi:10.1016/j.jada.2006.11.007

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17258962

40.

Vaccaro

JA.

Huffman

. Race/ethnicity-, gender-, age-specific differences in micronutrient intakes of US adults with and without diabetes. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2013;64(2):175-184.doi:10.3109/09637486.2012.710894

41.

Willett

WC.

Stampfer

. Current evidence on healthy eating. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34:77-95.doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124646

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23297654

42.

Krebs-Smith

SM.

Guenther

PM.

Subar

AF.

Kirkpatrick

SI.

Dodd

. Americans do not meet federal dietary recommendations. J Nutr. 2010;140(10):1832-1838.doi:10.3945/jn.110.124826

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20702750

43.

Moore

LV.

Dodd

KW.

Thompson

FE.

Grimm

KA.

Kim

SA.

Scanlon

. Using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data to estimate the percentage of the population meeting US Department of Agriculture food patterns fruit and vegetable intake recommendations. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;181(12):979-988.doi:10.1093/aje/kwu461

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25935424

44.

Boeing

Bechthold

Bub

et al. Critical review: vegetables and fruit in the prevention of chronic diseases. Eur J Nutr. 2012;51(6):637-663.doi:10.1007/s00394-012-0380-y

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22684631

45.

AS.

Mozaffarian

Roger

et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;129(3):e28-e292.doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000441139.02102.80

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24352519

46.

Kaczmarczyk

MM.

Miller

MJ.

Freund

. The health benefits of dietary fiber: beyond the usual suspects of type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease and colon cancer. Metabolism. 2012;61(8):1058-1066.doi:10.1016/j.metabol.2012.01.017

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22401879

47.

Ben

Sun

Chai

Qian

Yuan

. Dietary fiber intake reduces risk for colorectal adenoma: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2014;146(3):689-699.doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2013.11.003

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24216326

48.

Nelson

. Hyperlipidemia as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Prim Care. 2013;40(1):195-211.doi:10.1016/j.pop.2012.11.003

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23402469

49.

Hruby

Bernstein

et al. Saturated fats compared with unsaturated fats and sources of carbohydrates in relation to risk of coronary heart disease: a prospective cohort study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(14):1536-1548.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.07.055

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26429077

50.

. Dietary salt intake and hypertension. Electrolyte Blood Press. 2014;12(1):7-18.doi:10.5049/EBP.2014.12.1.7

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25061468

51.

Graudal

Jürgens

Baslund

Alderman

. Compared with usual sodium-intake, low- and excessive-sodium diets are associated with increased mortality: a meta-analysis. Am J Hypertens. 2014;27(9):1129-1137.doi:10.1093/ajh/hpu028

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24651634

52.

Caspi

CE.

Sorensen

Subramanian

SV.

Kawachi

. The local food environment and diet: a systematic review. Health Place. 2012;18(5):1172-1187.doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.05.006

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22717379

Differences in Nutrient Intake and Diet Quality Between Non-Hispanic Black and Non-Hispanic White Men in the United States

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Methods

Data Source

Nutrient Intake

Diet Quality

Sociodemographic and Health Measures

Statistical Analysis

Results

Discussion

Strengths and Limitations

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References