Home Food Environment Changes and Dietary Intake during an Adolescent Behavioral Weight Loss Intervention Differ by Food Security Status

• Published in: Nutrients Vol. 14; no. 5; p. 976
• Main Authors: Adams, Elizabeth L., Caccavale, Laura J., LaRose, Jessica Gokee, Raynor, Hollie A., Bean, Melanie K.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 25.02.2022; MDPI
• Subjects: Adolescent; adolescents; Adults; Behavior; Beverages; Body mass index; Calories; Child; childhood obesity; Cooking; Diabetes; Eating; Energy; Energy intake; Exercise; food intake; food quality; Food Security; Food Supply; Goal setting; Households; Humans; Intervention; inventories; Obesity; Parents & parenting; Pediatric Obesity - therapy; Pediatrics; Physical fitness; Teenagers; Weight control; Weight Loss; United States > US; Virginia; adolescent; randomized clinical trial; diet; obesity; food security
• ISSN: 2072-6643; 2072-6643
• DOI: 10.3390/nu14050976

Behavioral weight loss (BWL) for pediatric obesity includes guidance on improving the home food environment and dietary quality; yet food insecurity presents barriers to making these changes. This study examined if home food environment, dietary quality, energy intake, and body weight changes during adolescent obesity treatment differed by food security status, and if changes in the home food environment were associated with changes in dietary quality and energy intake by food security status. Adolescents (n = 82; 13.7 ± 1.2 years) with obesity participated in a 4-month BWL treatment. Food insecurity, home food environment (Home Food Inventory [HFI]), dietary quality (Healthy Eating Index [HEI]), energy intake, and body mass index (BMI) were assessed at baseline and post-treatment. A reduced obesogenic home food environment and improved dietary quality were observed for food secure (ps < 0.01), but not insecure households (ps > 0.05) (mean difference, HFI: −6.6 ± 6.4 vs. −2.4 ± 7.4; HEI: 5.1 ± 14.4 vs. 2.7 ± 17.7). Energy intake and BMI decreased for adolescents in food secure and insecure households (ps < 0.03) (mean difference; energy intake: −287 ± 417 vs. −309 ± 434 kcal/day; BMI: −1.0 ± 1.4 vs. −0.7 ± 1.4). BWL yielded similar reductions in energy intake and body weight yet did not offer the same benefits for improved dietary quality and the home food environment for adolescents with food insecurity.