How Do the Indices based on the EAT-Lancet Recommendations Measure Adherence to Healthy and Sustainable Diets? A Comparison of Measurement Performance in Adults from a French National Survey.

Agust��n R Miranda, Florent Vieux, Matthieu Maillot, Eric O Verger
Author Information
  1. Agust��n R Miranda: MoISA, University of Montpellier, CIHEAM-IAMM, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, IRD, Montpellier, France.
  2. Florent Vieux: MS-Nutrition, Marseille, France.
  3. Matthieu Maillot: MS-Nutrition, Marseille, France.
  4. Eric O Verger: MoISA, University of Montpellier, CIHEAM-IAMM, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, IRD, Montpellier, France.

Abstract

Background: Measuring adherence to EAT-Lancet recommendations for healthy and sustainable diets is challenging, leading to diverse methods and a lack of consensus on standardized metrics. Available indices vary mainly in scoring systems, food components, units, energy adjustments, and cut-off points.
Objectives: To evaluate and compare the measurement performance of 9 dietary indices for assessing adherence to EAT-Lancet reference diet.
Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized repeated 24-h dietary recall data from 1723 adults in the French Third Individual and National Study on Food Consumption Survey (INCA3, 2014-2015). Sociodemographic, nutritional, and environmental variables were analyzed to assess the validity and reliability of dietary indices.
Results: The 4 indices assessing their food components with proportional scoring captured dietary variability, were less dependent on energy intake and converged to a large extent with nutritional indicators. Although the 3 binary indices showed a stronger correlation with environmental indicators, 1 proportional index converged with both domains. Indices had valid unidimensional structures, meaning that the combination of food components within each index accurately reflected the same construct, supporting the use of total scores. Furthermore, the indices differed between sociodemographic groups, demonstrating concurrent-criterion validity. Higher scores were associated with higher nutritional quality and lower environmental impact, but with unfavorable results for zinc intake, vitamin B12, and water use. A low concordance rate (32%-43%) indicated that indices categorized individuals differently.
Conclusions: Researchers must align study objectives with the applicability, assumptions, and significance of chosen indices. Indices using proportional scoring allow a global understanding of dietary health and sustainability, being advantageous in precision-focused research (for example, clinical trials or epidemiological research). Conversely, indices based on binary scoring offer a simplified perspective, serving as valuable tools for surveys, observational studies, and public health. Recognizing their strengths and limitations is crucial for a comprehensive assessment of diets and their implications.

Keywords

References

  1. Adv Nutr. 2021 Jun 1;12(3):621-631 [PMID: 33606879]
  2. Nutrients. 2019 Nov 17;11(11): [PMID: 31744179]
  3. Am J Clin Nutr. 2023 May;117(5):903-909 [PMID: 36841443]
  4. Br J Nutr. 2021 Jul 14;126(1):92-100 [PMID: 32993824]
  5. J Nutr. 2014 Mar;144(3):399-407 [PMID: 24453128]
  6. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024 Sep 10;46:101006 [PMID: 39529812]
  7. Lancet. 2023 Jul 29;402(10399):352-354 [PMID: 37442146]
  8. Eur J Nutr. 2023 Sep;62(6):2541-2553 [PMID: 37193932]
  9. J Nutr. 2021 Oct 23;151(12 Suppl 2):75S-92S [PMID: 34689200]
  10. Curr Dev Nutr. 2020 Dec 10;5(1):nzaa177 [PMID: 33501403]
  11. BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 24;8(2):e019033 [PMID: 29478018]
  12. Br J Nutr. 2022 Nov 28;128(10):2021-2045 [PMID: 34913425]
  13. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2018 Sep;118(9):1622-1633 [PMID: 30146073]
  14. Sci Total Environ. 2023 Jan 15;856(Pt 1):159052 [PMID: 36179832]
  15. Nat Food. 2021 Sep;2(9):724-732 [PMID: 37117472]
  16. Nutr Res. 2022 Nov;107:152-164 [PMID: 36223674]
  17. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020 Nov 11;112(5):1267-1279 [PMID: 32936868]
  18. Am J Prev Med. 2013 Oct;45(4):462-73 [PMID: 24050423]
  19. PLoS One. 2013 Nov 05;8(11):e79450 [PMID: 24348902]
  20. Nutrients. 2019 Feb 26;11(3): [PMID: 30813581]
  21. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Jul 1;160(1):68-76 [PMID: 15229119]
  22. Nutr Rev. 2018 Oct 1;76(10):747-764 [PMID: 30053192]
  23. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2016 Apr;29(2):241-54 [PMID: 25891903]
  24. Lancet. 2019 Jul 20;394(10194):213-214 [PMID: 31235280]
  25. Front Nutr. 2023 Oct 02;10:1180880 [PMID: 37850089]
  26. Br J Nutr. 2019 Aug 14;122(3):331-342 [PMID: 31342885]
  27. One Earth. 2023 Dec 15;6(12):1726-1734 [PMID: 38130482]
  28. Am J Clin Nutr. 2023 Jun;117(6):1174-1185 [PMID: 37019361]
  29. Lancet Glob Health. 2023 Jul;11(7):e1125-e1136 [PMID: 37349038]
  30. Br J Nutr. 2016 Jan 14;115(1):95-104 [PMID: 26490112]
  31. Environ Res Lett. 2020 Dec 22;15:123014 [PMID: 33897807]
  32. Lancet Planet Health. 2023 Mar;7(3):e233-e237 [PMID: 36889864]
  33. Am J Clin Nutr. 2024 Dec;120(6):1344-1353 [PMID: 39343034]
  34. Adv Nutr. 2023 Jan;14(1):147-160 [PMID: 36811586]
  35. Front Nutr. 2022 Jul 29;9:974768 [PMID: 35967799]
  36. Nutrients. 2020 Dec 30;13(1): [PMID: 33396659]
  37. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2023 Dec 14;20(1):146 [PMID: 38098050]
  38. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Dec;45(12):583-99 [PMID: 1810720]
  39. Eur J Nutr. 2023 Mar;62(2):807-817 [PMID: 36266476]
  40. PLoS One. 2023 Dec 20;18(12):e0296026 [PMID: 38117768]
  41. Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Aug 31;10(9): [PMID: 36141280]
  42. Salud Publica Mex. 2020 Nov-Dec;62(6):745-753 [PMID: 33620971]
  43. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2023 Sep;123(9):1289-1297 [PMID: 37209965]
  44. Nat Food. 2024 Oct;5(10):811-817 [PMID: 39354117]
  45. Nutrients. 2021 May 17;13(5): [PMID: 34067774]
  46. PeerJ. 2021 Jul 16;9:e11159 [PMID: 34316387]
  47. Eur J Nutr. 2024 Feb;63(1):195-207 [PMID: 37801156]
  48. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022 Oct 04;9:993930 [PMID: 36267633]
  49. Nutrients. 2021 Jul 28;13(8): [PMID: 34444753]
  50. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42155 [PMID: 22870293]
  51. Public Health Nutr. 2005 Oct;8(7A):1133-52 [PMID: 16277825]
  52. Br J Nutr. 2019 May;121(10):1166-1177 [PMID: 30973117]
  53. Food Funct. 2023 Oct 2;14(19):9018-9034 [PMID: 37740363]
  54. Curr Dev Nutr. 2017 Mar 01;1(3):e000075 [PMID: 29955694]
  55. Environ Res Lett. 2022 Oct 1;17(10):104043 [PMID: 36238079]
  56. J Nutr. 2022 Jul 6;152(7):1763-1772 [PMID: 35554563]
  57. Am J Clin Nutr. 2022 Mar 4;115(3):705-716 [PMID: 34791011]
  58. Lancet Planet Health. 2021 Nov;5(11):e786-e796 [PMID: 34688354]
  59. Lancet. 2019 Feb 2;393(10170):447-492 [PMID: 30660336]
  60. Lancet Planet Health. 2024 Jun;8(6):e391-e401 [PMID: 38849181]
  61. Public Health Nutr. 2019 Mar;22(4):584-600 [PMID: 30394264]
  62. Public Health Nutr. 2014 Aug;17(8):1689-96 [PMID: 23941862]
  63. J Nutr. 2022 Aug 9;152(8):1886-1894 [PMID: 35641231]
  64. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023 Apr 18;12(8):e026318 [PMID: 37066787]
  65. Proc Nutr Soc. 2013 May;72(2):191-9 [PMID: 23360896]
  66. Eur J Public Health. 2020 Mar 1;30(Suppl_1):i19-i23 [PMID: 32391903]
  67. Nutrients. 2018 Jan 24;10(2): [PMID: 29364173]
  68. Nutrients. 2021 Oct 20;13(11): [PMID: 34835947]
  69. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 25;9(3):e92829 [PMID: 24667343]
  70. Nat Food. 2021 Mar;2(3):198-209 [PMID: 37117443]
  71. Dialogues Health. 2023 Aug 19;3:100151 [PMID: 38515808]
  72. Br J Nutr. 2007 Jul;98(1):194-200 [PMID: 17367573]
  73. Br J Nutr. 2007 Feb;97(2):219-31 [PMID: 17298689]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0indicesdietaryscoringfoodEAT-LancetcomponentsdietnutritionalenvironmentalvalidityproportionalindexIndicesadherencehealthysustainabledietssystemsenergyassessingstudyFrenchNationalSurveyintakeconvergedindicatorsbinaryusescoreshealthresearchbasedassessmentBackground:MeasuringrecommendationschallengingleadingdiversemethodslackconsensusstandardizedmetricsAvailablevarymainlyunitsadjustmentscut-offpointsObjectives:evaluatecomparemeasurementperformance9referenceMethods:cross-sectionalutilizedrepeated24-hrecalldata1723adultsThirdIndividualStudyFoodConsumptionINCA32014-2015SociodemographicvariablesanalyzedassessreliabilityResults:4capturedvariabilitylessdependentlargeextentAlthough3showedstrongercorrelation1domainsvalidunidimensionalstructuresmeaningcombinationwithinaccuratelyreflectedconstructsupportingtotalFurthermoredifferedsociodemographicgroupsdemonstratingconcurrent-criterionHigherassociatedhigherqualitylowerimpactunfavorableresultszincvitaminB12waterlowconcordancerate32%-43%indicatedcategorizedindividualsdifferentlyConclusions:Researchersmustalignobjectivesapplicabilityassumptionssignificancechosenusingallowglobalunderstandingsustainabilityadvantageousprecision-focusedexampleclinicaltrialsepidemiologicalConverselyoffersimplifiedperspectiveservingvaluabletoolssurveysobservationalstudiespublicRecognizingstrengthslimitationscrucialcomprehensiveimplicationsRecommendationsMeasureAdherenceHealthySustainableDiets?ComparisonMeasurementPerformanceAdultsnutrientadequacyplanetaryboundaries

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.