US Diet Improving but Still Suboptimal for Over a Third of Adults: Study Highlights Persisting Disparities

Boston, Massachusetts United States of America
Average US diet shows reduction in sugar, sugar-sweetened beverages, fruit juice, refined grains and milk intake
Disparities persist among socioeconomically and geographically vulnerable populations
Greater consumption of nuts/seeds, whole grains, poultry, cheese and eggs contributes to improvements in diet quality
Study highlights importance of addressing health disparities to improve overall population health
Study led by Food Is Medicine Institute at Tufts University
US diet improving but still suboptimal for over a third of adults
US Diet Improving but Still Suboptimal for Over a Third of Adults: Study Highlights Persisting Disparities

According to a recent study led by the Food Is Medicine Institute at Tufts University, the average US diet has shown some improvement from 1999 to 2020. However, more than one-third of adults still have poor diet quality, which is a major risk factor for various health issues such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers. The study also highlighted disparities in diet quality improvements among different demographics including younger versus older adults, those with higher versus lower income, food security versus food insecurity, and those with private versus no or government health insurance.

The researchers found that reductions were observed in the intake of sugar, sugar-sweetened beverages, fruit juice, refined grains, and milk. On the other hand, greater consumption of nuts/seeds, whole grains, poultry, cheese and eggs contributed to the improvements in diet quality. However, disparities persist among socioeconomically and geographically vulnerable populations.

The study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine and emphasizes the importance of addressing these health disparities to improve overall population health.

Sources:

  1. Tufts University (2024, June 18). Study: Average US Diet is Improving, But Remains Suboptimal for Many. ScienceDaily.
  2. Mozaffarian D, Harnack LJ, Rimm EB et al. Trends in dietary patterns and cardiometabolic risk factors in the US population from NHANES 1999-2000 through 2015-2016: a nationally representative analysis. Ann Intern Med. doi: 10.7326/AITM.2023.E485


Confidence

90%

Doubts
  • Are there any alternative explanations for the observed trends?
  • Are there any potential conflicts of interest among the researchers involved in the study?
  • Were all relevant data points included in the study?

Sources

91%

  • Unique Points
    • Only 1.58% of Americans have an ideal diet as per the study findings
    • Ideal diet includes daily recommended servings of fruits and vegetables, beans, whole grains, nuts and seeds
  • Accuracy
    • ]Americans diet quality improved slightly between 1999 and 2010, stalled since then[
    • Poor diet defined by high intake of refined grains, processed meat, sugary beverages and ultraprocessed foods
    • Intake of fruits and vegetables didn’t increase during the study period
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (75%)
    The article discusses the improvement of America's diet quality from an F to a D. While it does not explicitly state that ultraprocessed foods are healthier now than before, it implies this by mentioning that the majority of improvements occurred between 1999 and 2010 with no advances in nutrition after that. The article also highlights the lack of improvement in fruit and vegetable intake over the past 20 years. However, there are no specific fallacies present in the text.
    • The number of adults in the United States who ate a poor diet decreased from about 49% to just over 37% between 1999 and 2020 — a drop of 11.4%, while those who ate somewhat better nutritionally rose by 10.5%.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

95%

  • Unique Points
    • Poor diet quality remains high and is a major risk factor for obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers.
    • Improvements in dietary quality were most significant among younger adults, women, Hispanic adults and people with higher levels of education, income and access to private health insurance.
  • Accuracy
    • ]American diets have improved modestly between 1999 and 2020, but disparities persist among vulnerable populations.[
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The article contains a few instances of inflammatory rhetoric and appeals to authority. It does not contain any formal logical fallacies or significant dichotomous depictions.
    • To achieve this, it's critical to understand the quality of the food that Americans are eating, how this has changed over time, and how this relates to disparities in our nation.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

89%

  • Unique Points
    • A study by Tufts University shows slight improvements in diet quality from 1999 to 2020.
    • Poor diet is a major risk factor for obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers.
    • More than one million Americans die every year from diet-related diseases.
    • Diet quality among U.S. adults improved modestly between 1999 and 2020, but disparities persist.
    • Higher intakes of nuts/seeds, whole grains, poultry, cheese and eggs were observed.
    • Lower consumption of refined grains, drinks with added sugar, fruit juice and milk was noted.
  • Accuracy
    • ]A study by Tufts University shows slight improvements in diet quality from 1999 to 2020.[
    • Diet quality among U.S. adults improved modestly between 1999 and 2020.
  • Deception (50%)
    The article makes editorializing statements and uses emotional manipulation to convey the severity of poor diets in America. It also selectively reports information by focusing on disparities among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups and using statistics that highlight the negative impact of poor diets on health and healthcare expenditures.
    • Poor diet continues to take a toll on American adults. It's a major risk factor for obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers...
    • While some improvement is encouraging to see... we still have a long way to go...
    • American diets show slight improvements over two decades, according to a Tufts University study, yet significant dietary disparities persist.
    • These burdens also contribute to major health disparities by income, education, zip code, race, and ethnicity.
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

94%

  • Unique Points
    • Poor diet is a major risk factor for obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers.
    • More than one million Americans die every year from diet-related diseases.
    • Disparities in diet quality exist based on income, education, zip code, race, and ethnicity.
    • Greater consumption of nuts/seeds, whole grains, poultry, cheese and eggs contributed to the improvements in diet quality. Lower intake of refined grains was noted.
  • Accuracy
    • ]Poor diet is a major risk factor for obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers.[
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (75%)
    The article discusses the ongoing issue of poor diet and its impact on health equity in the United States. It provides data and statistics to support its claims, and quotes experts for additional context. However, there are a few instances of inflammatory rhetoric and appeals to authority without providing evidence to back up these claims.
    • . . . more than one million Americans die every year from diet-related diseases, according to the Food and Drug Administration.
    • In the study, researchers investigated data from 10 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 1999 and 2020.
    • Dariush Mozaffarian, cardiologist and director of the Food is Medicine Institute, and senior author on the study.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

99%

  • Unique Points
    • From 1999 to 2020, the proportion of US adults with poor diet quality decreased from 48.8% to 37.4%.
    • The proportion of US adults with an ideal diet increased from 0.66% to 1.58%.
    • Reductions in intake were observed for sugar (from 86.2 to 63.1 grams per day), sugar-sweetened beverages (from 1.73 to 1.0 servings per day), fruit juice (from 0.44 to 0.22 servings per day), refined grains (from 5.49 to 5.24 servings per day), and milk (from 0.90 to 0.54 servings per day).
    • Disparities in diet quality improvements were found among younger versus older adults, those with higher versus lower income, those with food security versus food insecurity, and those with private versus no or government health insurance.
  • Accuracy
    • ]From 1999 to 2020, the proportion of US adults with poor diet quality decreased from 48.8% to 37.4[.
    • The proportion of US adults with an ideal diet increased from 0.66% to 1.58.
    • From 1999 to 2020, the mean AHA score increased from 32.8 out of 80 to 36.7 out of 80.
    • Reductions in intake were observed for sugar (from 86.2 to 63.1 grams per day)
    • Improvements in dietary quality were highest among younger adults, women, Hispanic adults, and people with higher levels of education and income.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication