Adherence to the pyramid of the Mediterranean diet (2010),non-communicable diseases and lifestyle in online postgraduate Spanish students in the food area

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

In Spain, there are several studies published on the relationship between eating habits and lifestyle among university students; but only a few of them are focused on online postgraduate students.

OBJECTIVE:

Herein we aimed to evaluate the degree of adherence to the Mediterranean diet pyramid (2010 edition), non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and lifestyle in online postgraduate students aged 20–65 years belonging to the food area of the Fundación Universitaria Iberoamericana (FUNIBER).

METHODS:

We performed a descriptive cross-sectional study including 100 online post-graduate students aged 20–65 years who were recruited by an accidental non-probabilistic sampling method consisting of a questionnaire on their sociodemographic characteristics, NCDs, lifestyle, and a 3-day food intake record (3-d).

RESULTS:

The profile of the students was 74% women, with a mean age of 36.6 (±10.5) years and body mass index (BMI) of 22.6 kg / m2 (±3.3). 71% of the volunteers presented normal weight, while 20% were overweight. Indeed, only a low percentage of the volunteers presented hypertension (1%), cardiovascular disease (0%), diabetes mellitus 1 (2%), diabetes mellitus 2 (3%), hypercholesterolemia (9%), and hyperuricemia (2%). Concerning lifestyle, (77%) of students were non-smokers, (78%) consumed beverages with caffeine, (51%) did not consume alcoholic beverages, and nearly all of them (84%) frequently (3 times /week) practiced physical activity. 68% of the recruited students exhibited adherence to “Medium diet quality diet (4–7)” followed by (26%) with a “Poor diet quality (<3)” and “Optimal diet quality” (6%).

CONCLUSIONS:

Spanish postgraduate students of the nutritional area, have good health and a healthy lifestyle but are moving away from the MD model, should be established campaigns for the improvement of eating habits of the postgraduate university population.

Keywords

Mediterranean diet university students 3-day food intake record dietary patterns

1 Introduction

Despite the multiple recommendations and policies implemented by countries, the non-communicable diseases (NCDs) pandemic continues to increase in both, developed and, most worryingly, developing countries [1]. The role of the quality of the diet and the practice of physical activity in reducing the prevalence of NCDs is well established. High consumption of foods or dietary products, rich in bioactive compounds, has been correlated with a decreased risk of the development of the most common non-communicable diseases [2 –5].

The ANIBES study, carried out in 2013 [6] on a Spanish population between 9 and 75 years of age, observed that the mean calorie intake has decreased in the Spanish population to (1810±504kcal/day). And the Spanish diet was distributed in cereals or grains (27.4%), meats and derivatives (15.2%), oils and fats (12.3%), and milk and dairy products (11.8%), fruits (4.7%), vegetables (4%), non-alcoholic beverages (3.9%), fish and shellfish (3.6%), sugars and sweets (3.3%) and alcoholic beverages (2.6%). While total calories have been decreased, calories distribution are far away from the Mediterranean Diet (MD) recommendations [7].

In Spain overweight and/or obesity affect more than 50% of the adult population and nearly 30% of the population of infants and children [8]. Has been suggested that excessive energy intake is the primary cause of overweight and obesity. However, a good health and optimal functionality throughout life are achievable objectives, but they require a lifestyle that includes a diet with a correct balance of macronutrients and an adequate energy intake, as well as a correct practice of physical activity and exercise, which contributes to energy balance, body weight control, and improves a large number of physiological functions [9 –13].

The Decalogue of the Mediterranean Diet [14] recommends the use of olive oil as the source of fat, based the diet on fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, whole grains, dairy products, and fish. Red meat, processed meat, and eggs should be consumed in moderation. Water is the beverage par excellence, wine in moderation during meals, and be physically active every day. High adherence to MD has been shown to reduce the risk of developing severe diseases such as cardiovascular and neurodegenerative disorders, cancer, or diabetes [15, 16].

The eating pattern of the university students has been analyzed in different studies since, for a lot of them, their daily lives experience important and critical changes such as having to move from their city or learn to manage their diet by doing the grocery and cooking their food [17, 18]. The lack of time and a sedentary lifestyle can be the cause of weight gain that can extend into adult life [19]. Different studies carried out on a university population showed that their dietary pattern was characterized by being rich in protein, cholesterol, and saturated fat [20, 21]; and low in characteristic foods belonging to the MD such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and potatoes [22].

The objective of the study has been to evaluate if diet quality and lifestyle pattern, reported by other authors during the University period, is maintained in postgraduate students. The lack of studies after their University stage has motivated us to analyze the degree of adherence established in the MD pyramid (2010 edition), the NCDs, and the lifestyle in the students to the Fundación Universitaria Iberoamericana (FUNIBER), from the food area.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Study and participants

This was an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study conducted in 100 online postgraduate students from the food area belonging to FUNIBER, from 2010 to 2012.

The number of students enrolled in the online courses of FUNIBER food area in Spain, per year was around 60 students. For that reason, we define our universe as 120 students during the period from 2010 to 2012. The representative sample size was calculated through the finite populations’ formula, with a confidence interval of 95%, a margin of error of 5.5%, and a probability of 50%, being 95 students the number of participants as a representative sample size.

An invitation to participated in the study was sent to students as they enrolled. In the first moment, 110 students answered positively and accepted to participate in the study. After evaluated the information only 100 students submitted all the requested information, which was supervised by registered dietitians that contacted them if the information was not clear or well completed.

2.2 Measurements

Survey data collection was performed through a questionnaire on sociodemographic (weight, height, date of birth, and sex), NCDs, lifestyle, and a 3-day food intake record (3-d). Regarding NCDs, were asked about the medical diagnosis of arterial hypertension (yes/no), cardiovascular diseases (yes/no), diabetes mellitus type 1(yes/no) and 2 (yes/no), hypercholesterolemia (yes/no), and hyperuricemia (yes/no) were included. Also, lifestyle features were evaluated: “Do you smoke?” (yes/no) and the number of cigarettes per day, “Do you drink caffeinated beverages?” (yes /no) and the number of drinks per day, “Do you consume alcoholic beverages?” and the number of drinks per week, “Do you do practice physical activity 3 times/week?” (yes/no) and the number of hours per week, “Are you responsible for the grocery shopping?” (yes/no) and “Are you responsible for preparing your meal?” (yes/no).

The 3-d consisted of to fill a form recording everything students eat and drink for 3 days (2 weekdays and 1 weekend day). Included all meals, snacks, and beverages, how much quantity, when, and where were ingested, as well as the cooking/culinary techniques used. The 3-d is considered the “gold standard” for the study of food intake [23].

The average of the grams provided by each food was calculated through NUTRIBER software (version 1.1.1.3r) and converted to servings/day following the “Table of daily servings-equivalences recommendations for adults of the SENC” document [24]. The servings were recoded into percentages according to the “Percentage distribution of adequacy to MD based on the MD pyramid (2010 Edition)” [25]. Information was also obtained on the amounts of energy and nutrients ingested. All data were entered by the same person to avoid errors in this process.

The percentage of adequacy was determined considering the actual consumption over that recommended by the pyramid of the MD [14]: (100 x consumed servings/recommended servings). 5 ranges of adequacy percentages were established: excessive consumption (> 120%), optimal consumption (80% –119%), acceptable consumption (60–79%), poor consumption (40% –59%) and very poor consumption (< 39%) as they did in the Ortiz-Moncada study [22].

To establish the level of adherence to the MD model, all the students who had an “optimal” or “acceptable” consumption of the 15 food groups recommended in the pyramid of the Mediterranean Diet (2010) were added and classification of the diet in 3 levels: “indicates poor diet quality (≤3)” the adherence is low and needs to be improve, “medium diet quality [4 –7]” it is necessary to modify the diet to adapt it to the MD; and “optimal diet quality (≥8)” the adherences is correct but can be better, adapting the Mediterranean-diet scale used in the Trichopoulou study [26].

2.3 Ethical considerations

As stated in the report of the Ethics Committee of the Universidad Europea del Atlántico, when the study was carried out, was not necessary to be evaluated by an Ethics Committee.

2.4 Statistical analysis

The distribution of the data was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test. The quantitative variables are expressed as mean and standard deviation (X±SD) and the body mass index (BMI) has been distributed using WHO ranges classification. For the quantitative variables, the Student or Anova test were used. The qualitative variables have been expressed as percentages for which chi-square has been used for comparison. The criterion of significance was established at p < 0.05. All computer data were analyzed using the “Statistical Package for the Social Sciences” (SPSS) software, version 22.0 for Windows.

3 Results

The analyzed sample was made up of a total of 100 students, of which 74 (74%) were women and 26 (26%) were men. The average age was 36.6 (±10.5) years, 52% distributed between 18 and 34 years, 37% between 35 and 49 years, and 11% between 50 and 64 years. The average age was higher compared with other studies in the university population [16, 27], it is because our online education brings your training offer to a larger population who can follow you from home.

When the BMI (kg/m²) was analyzed in the study participants, it was average in 22.6 kg / m2 (±3.3). Our population, was mostly in a situation of normal weight (71%), followed by overweight (20%), and at the extremes, we had students with insufficient weight (5%) and obesity (4%). The BMI of “<18.5 (Underweight)” was represented by the female population (5%) and the majority with an age range of “18 to 34 years” (4%); in the range of BMI of “18.5–24.9 (Normal weight)” (60%) were women (p < 0.001) and in the range of age of “18–34 years” being able to affirm that young women are mostly in normal weight. The BMI of “25–29.9 (Pre-Obesity) was represented by the 20% of our population being 13% males and the 11% in the range of age “35–49 years”. Finally, (Obesity class I) was only the 4% with the same distribution between male and female (2%), represented with a 2% in the range of age “35–49 years”.

Regarding NCDs: No hypertension was (99%), no cardiovascular disease was (100%), no diabetes mellitus 1 was (98%), no diabetes mellitus 2 was (97%), no hypercholesterolemia was (91%) and no hyperuricemia was (98%). No statistically significant differences were found between men and women and age groups.

Lifestyle: They were non-smokers (77%), they drank caffeinated beverages (78%), they did not drink alcoholic beverages (51%) and they practiced physical exercise (3 times/week) (84%). Without presenting statistically significant differences between men and women and age groups. 76% were responsible for the grocery shopping, being higher in women (82.4%) (p < 0.05) and preparing meal were (70%), being higher in women (79.7%) (p < 0.001), Table 1. No statistically significant differences were found between age groups, Table 2.

Table 1
Non-communicable diseases and lifestyle by sex

NON-COMMUNICABLE DISEASES

YES NO Dk/Da

Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total p

n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)

ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION 1 (1.4) 0(0) 1 (1) 71(95.9) 24(92.3) 95(95) 2(2.7) 2(7.7) 4(4) 0.455

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 74(100) 26(100) 100(100) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) -

DIABETES TYPE 1 2(2.7) 0(0) 2(2) 72(93.7) 26(100) 98(98) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0.397

DIABETES TYPE 2 2(2.7) 1(3.8) 3(3) 72(97.3) 25(96.2) 97(97) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0.769

HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA 8(10.8) 1(3.8) 9(9) 65(87.8) 25(96.2) 90(90) 1(1.4) 0(0) 1(1) 0.464

HYPERURICEMIA 2(2.7) 0(0) 2(2) 72(97.3) 26(100) 98(98) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0.397

LIFESTYLE

YES NO Dk/Da

Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total p

n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)

TOBACCO HABIT 18(24.3) 5(19.2) 23(23) 56(75.7) 21(80.8) 77(77) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0.595

CONSUMPTION OF CAFFEINE BEVERAGES 60(81.1) 18(69.2) 78(78) 14(18.9) 8(30.8) 22(22) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0.210

CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES 35(47.3) 16(61.5) 51(51) 39(52.7) 10(38.5) 49(49) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0.211

PHYSICAL EXERCISE (3 TIMES / WEEK) 61(82.4) 23(88.5) 84(84) 13(17.6) 3(11.5) 16(16) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0.471

ARE YOU THE PERSON WHO DO THE GROCERY? 61(82.4) 15(57.7) 76(76) 13(17.6) 10(38.5) 23(23) 0(0) 1(1) 1(1) 0.018^*

ARE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE MEAL? 59(79.7) 11(42.3) 70(70) 15(20.3) 14(53.8) 29(29) 0(0) 1(1) 1(1) 0.001^**

NON-COMMUNICABLE DISEASES
	YES	NO	Dk/Da
	Women	Men	Total	Women	Men	Total	Women	Men	Total	p
	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)
ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION	1 (1.4)	0(0)	1 (1)	71(95.9)	24(92.3)	95(95)	2(2.7)	2(7.7)	4(4)	0.455
CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	74(100)	26(100)	100(100)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	-
DIABETES TYPE 1	2(2.7)	0(0)	2(2)	72(93.7)	26(100)	98(98)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.397
DIABETES TYPE 2	2(2.7)	1(3.8)	3(3)	72(97.3)	25(96.2)	97(97)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.769
HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA	8(10.8)	1(3.8)	9(9)	65(87.8)	25(96.2)	90(90)	1(1.4)	0(0)	1(1)	0.464
HYPERURICEMIA	2(2.7)	0(0)	2(2)	72(97.3)	26(100)	98(98)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.397
LIFESTYLE
	YES	NO	Dk/Da
	Women	Men	Total	Women	Men	Total	Women	Men	Total	p
	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)
TOBACCO HABIT	18(24.3)	5(19.2)	23(23)	56(75.7)	21(80.8)	77(77)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.595
CONSUMPTION OF CAFFEINE BEVERAGES	60(81.1)	18(69.2)	78(78)	14(18.9)	8(30.8)	22(22)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.210
CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES	35(47.3)	16(61.5)	51(51)	39(52.7)	10(38.5)	49(49)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.211
PHYSICAL EXERCISE (3 TIMES / WEEK)	61(82.4)	23(88.5)	84(84)	13(17.6)	3(11.5)	16(16)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.471
ARE YOU THE PERSON WHO DO THE GROCERY?	61(82.4)	15(57.7)	76(76)	13(17.6)	10(38.5)	23(23)	0(0)	1(1)	1(1)	0.018^*
ARE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE MEAL?	59(79.7)	11(42.3)	70(70)	15(20.3)	14(53.8)	29(29)	0(0)	1(1)	1(1)	0.001^**

^*Significantly different (p < 0.05) ^**(p < 0.001) using chi-square.

Table 2

Non-communicable diseases and lifestyle by range of age

NON-COMMUNICABLE DISEASES
	YES				NO				Dk/Da
	18–34	35–49	55–64	Total	18–34	35–49	55–64	Total	18–34	35–49	55–64	Total	p
	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)
ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION	0(0)	1(2.7)	0(0)	1(1)	49(94.2)	35(94.6)	11(100)	95(95)	3(5.8)	1(2.7)	0(0)	4(4)	0.603
CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	52(100)	37(100)	11(100)	100(100)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	-
DIABETES TYPE 1	1(1.9)	1(2.7)	0(0)	2(2)	51(98.1)	36(97.3)	11(100)	98(98)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.852
DIABETES TYPE 2	0(0)	3(8.1)	0(0)	3(3)	52(100)	34(91.9)	11(100)	97(97)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.720
HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA	6(11.5)	2(5.4)	1(9.1)	9(9)	46(88.5)	34(91.9)	10(90.9)	90(90)	0(0)	1(2.7)	0(0)	1(1)	0.621
HYPERURICEMIA	2(3.8)	0(0)	0(0)	2(2)	50(96.2)	37(100)	11(100)	98(98)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.390
LIFESTYLE
	YES				NO				Dk/Da
	18–34	35–49	55–64	Total	18–34	35–49	55–64	Total	18–34	35–49	55–64	Total	p
	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)
TOBACCO HABIT	15(28.8)	5(13.5)	3(27.3)	23(23)	37(71.2)	32(86.5)	8(72.7)	77(77)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.223
CONSUMPTION OF CAFFEINE BEVERAGES	39(75)	29(78.4)	10(90.9)	78(78)	13(25)	8(21.6)	1(9.1)	22(22)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.511
CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES	26(50)	18(48.6)	7(63.6)	51(51)	26(50)	19(51.4)	4(36.4)	49(49)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.668
PHYSICAL EXERCISE (3 TIMES / WEEK)	42(80.8)	32(86.5)	10(90.9)	84(84)	10(19.2)	5(13.5)	1(9.1)	16(16)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.617
ARE YOU THE PERSON WHO DO THE GROCERY?	38(73.1)	29(78.4)	9(81.8)	76(76)	13(25)	8(21.6)	2(18.2)	23(23)	1(1.9)	0(0)	0(0)	1(1)	0.863
ARE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE MEAL?	35(67.3)	27(73)	8(72.7)	70(70)	16(30.8)	10(27)	3(27.3)	29(29)	1(1.9)	0(0)	0(0)	1(1)	0.886

^*Significantly different (p < 0.05) ^** (p < 0.001) using chi-square.

In Table 3, we can see that the average calorie intake in women was (1573±480.2 kcal/day) being lower than the SENC intake recommendations (IR) of (2300 kcal/day) and in men, it was (1877.2±624.5kcal/day), lower than the SENC IR of (3000kcal/day) [28]. The percentage of proteins/day (20.2±5.3) in women (19.6±4.4%) was lower than that of men (22±7.2%) (p < 0.05), but in both cases was higher than the recommendations of the SENC (12–15%). The percentage of carbohydrates (47.2±9%) in women was (47.1±9%) and men were (47.4±9.1%) without significant differences between sexes (p = 0.908), but in both cases was lower than the IR of the SENC of (50 –55%). The percentage of lipids (33.8±7.8%) in women was (34.9±8.1%) being higher than that of men (30.9±6.1%) (p < 0.05), in both cases within the IR of the SENC (30–35%), cholesterol intake (224.9±135.7 mg/day) was higher in men (272.4±153.9 mg/day) than in women (208.3±125.6 mg/day) (p < 0.05). The grams of fiber (18.8±7.3 g/day) in women was (18.2±6.6 g/day) and in men (20.6±8.9 g/day), without presenting significant differences between them (p = 0.144), being lower than the SENC IR of (25–30 g /day) [29].

Table 3

Distribution of macronutrients by sex

		N	Mean	Standard derivation	IR SENC^1,2	p
Kcal/day	Women	74	1573.0	480.2	2300	0.030^*
	Men	26	1877.2	624.5	3000
Proteins (% /day)	Women	74	19.6	4.4	12–15	0.040^*
	Men	26	22.0	7.2
Carbohydrates (% /day)	Women	74	47.1	9.0	50–55	0.908
	Men	26	47.4	9.1
Fat (% /day)	Women	74	34.9	8.1	30–35	0.024^*
	Men	26	30.9	6.1
Cholesterol (mg/day)	Women	74	208.3	125.6	<300	0.064^*
	Men	26	272.4	153.9
Fiber (g/day)	Women	74	18.2	6.6	25–30	0.144
	Men	26	20.6	8.9

¹Moreiras et al. (2011) (28); ²Dapcich et al (2004) (29). Results are expressed in terms of mean±SD. ^*Significantly different (p < 0.05) using t-Student. % /day: Percentage of macronutrients related to total calorie intake.

As described in Fig. 1, Table 4 and Table 5, the degree of adherence to the food consumption recommendations:

Fig.1

Degree of adherence to DM by postgraduate university students. Grouped by “very poor consumption”, “poor consumption”, “acceptable consumption”, “optimal consumption” and “excessive consumption”.

Table 4

Percentage distribution of adequacy to DM based on the pyramid of the Mediterranean diet (2010 edition), between men and women

	VERY POOR			POOR			ACCEPTABLE			OPTIMAL			EXCESSIVE
	CONSUMPTION			CONSUMPTION			CONSUMPTION			CONSUMPTION			CONSUMPTION
	Women	Men	Total	Women	Men	Total	Women	Men	Total	Women	Men	Total	Women	Men	Total	p
	n = 74	n = 26	100	n = 74	n = 26	100	n = 74	n = 26	100	n = 74	n = 26	100	n = 74	n = 26	100
	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)
Every main meal
Fruits 1-2	26(37.1)	8(30.8)	34(35.4)	11(15.7)	5(19.2)	16(16.7)	12(17.1)	4(15.4)	16(16.7)	11(17.5)	5(19.2)	16(16.7)	10(14.3)	4(15.4)	14(14.6)	0.968
Vegetables≥2 s	33(46.6)	13(50)	46(46)	17(23)	8(30.8)	25(25)	17(23)	3(11.5)	20(20)	7(9.5)	2(7.7)	9(9)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.590
Olive 1 s (10ml)	1(1.4)	0(0)	1(1)	3(4.1)	2(7.7)	5(5)	11(14.9)	9(34.6)	20(20)	34(45.9)	9(34.6)	43(43)	25(33.8)	6(23.1)	31(31)	0.207
Bread/pasta/rice/couscous/other cereal 1-2 s (preferably whole grain)	7(9.5)	0(0)	7(7.1)	6(8.1)	1(4)	7(7.1)	9(12.2)	6(24)	15(15.2)	24(32.4)	7(28)	31(31.3)	28(37.8)	11(44)	39(39.4)	0.304
Every day
Dairy 2 s (preferably low fat)	21(28.8)	11(42.3)	32(32.3)	15(20.5)	3(11.5)	18(18.2)	10(13.7)	5(19.2)	15(15.2)	23(31.5)	7(26.9)	30(30.3)	4(5.5)	0(0)	4(4)	0.421
Olives/nuts/seeds 1-2 s	64(86.5)	21(80.8)	85(85)	7(9.5)	1(3.8)	8(8)	2(2.7)	1(3.8)	3(3)	1(1.4)	2(7.7)	3(3)	0(0)	1(3.8)	1(1)	0.175
Water (8 glasses)	34(45.9)	14(53.8)	48(48)	17(23)	9(34.6)	26(26)	19(25.7)	1(3.8)	20(20)	3(4.1)	1(3.8)	4(4)	1(1.4)	1(3.8)	2(2)	0.169
Weekly
Potatoes≤3 s	49(66.2)	18(69.2)	67(67)	9(12.2)	3(11.5)	12(12)	7(9.5)	1(3.8)	8(8)	4(5.4)	3(11.5)	7(7)	5(6.8)	1(3.8)	6(6)	0.718
White meat 2 s	30(40.5)	7(26.9)	37(37)	3(4.1)	0(0)	3(3)	1(1.4)	1(3.8)	2(2)	8(10.8)	2(7.7)	10(10)	32(43.2)	16(61.5)	48(48)	0.387
Read meat < 2 s	33(44.6)	9(34.6)	42(42)	12(16.2)	1(3.8)	13(13)	9(12.2)	1(3.8)	10(10)	13(17.6)	10(38.5)	23(23)	7(9.5)	5(19.2)	12(12)	0.050^*
Processed meat≤1 s	34(45.9)	17(65.9)	51(51)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	5(6.8)	0(0)	5(5)	35(47.3)	9(34.6)	44(44)	0.143
Fish/seafood≥2 s	11(14.9)	1(3.8)	12(12)	3(4.1)	0(0)	3(3)	2(2.7)	1(3.8)	3(3)	2(2.7)	0(0)	2(2)	56(75.5)	24(92.3)	80(80)	0.348
Eggs 2–4 s	41(55.4)	17(65.4)	58(58)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	15(20.3)	2(7.7)	17(17)	3(4.1)	0(0)	3(3)	15(20.3)	7(26.9)	22(22)	0.313
Legumes≥2 s	40(54.1)	15(57.7)	55(55)	3(4.1)	0(0)	3(3)	11(14.9)	4(15.4)	15(15)	8(10.8)	3(11.5)	11(11)	12(16.2)	4(15.4)	16(16)	0.891
Sweets≤2 s	5(6.8)	9(34.6)	14(14)	1(1.4)	0(0)	1(1)	1(1.4)	0(0)	1(1)	3(4.1)	0(0)	3(3)	64(86.5)	17(65.4)	81(81)	0.009^*

^*Significantly different (p < 0.05) using Chi-square test.

Table 5

Percentage distribution of adequacy to DM based on the pyramid of the Mediterranean diet (2010 edition), between range of age

	VERY POOR				POOR				ACCEPTABLE				OPTIMAL				EXCESSIVE
	CONSUMPTION				CONSUMPTION				CONSUMPTION				CONSUMPTION				CONSUMPTION
	18–34	35–49	55–64	Total	18–34	35–49	55–64	Total	18–34	35–49	55–64	Total	18–34	35–49	55–64	Total	18–34	35–49	55–64	Total	p
	n = 52	n = 37	n = 11	n = 100	n = 52	n = 37	n = 11	n = 100	n = 52	n = 37	n = 11	n = 100	n = 52	n = 37	n = 11	n = 100	n = 52	n = 37	n = 11	n = 100
	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)
Every main meal
Fruits 1-2	26(51)	7(20)	1(10)	34(35.4)	5(9.8)	8(22.9)	3(30)	16(16.7)	10(19.6)	6(17.1)	0(0)	16(16.7)	6(11.8)	8(22.9)	2(20)	16(16.7)	4(7.8)	6(17.1)	4(40)	14(14.6)	0.008^*
Vegetables≥2 s	25(48.1)	16(43.2)	5(45.5)	46(46)	15(28.8)	8(21.6)	2(18.2)	25(25)	9(17.3)	8(21.6)	3(27.3)	20(20)	3(5.8)	5(13.5)	1(9.1)	9(9)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0.838
Olive 1 s (10ml)	0(0)	0(0)	1(9.1)	1(1)	3(5.8)	2(5.4)	0(0)	5(5)	12(23.1)	5(13.5)	3(27.3)	20(20)	22(42.3)	18(48.6)	3(27.3)	43(43)	15(48.4)	12(38.7)	4(12.9)	31(31)	0.193
Bread/pasta/rice/couscous/other cereal 1-2 s (preferably whole grain)	1(1.9)	3(8.3)	3(27.3)	7(7.1)	5(9.6)	0(0)	2(18.2)	7(7.1)	9(17.3)	6(16.7)	0(0)	15(15.2)	19(61.3)	11(30.6)	1(9.1)	31(31.3)	18(34.6)	16(44.4)	5(45.5)	39(39.4)	0.021^*
Every day
Dairy 2 s (preferably low fat)	13(25.5)	13(35.1)	6(54.5)	32(32.3)	12(23.5)	5(13.5)	1(9.1)	18(18.2)	8(15.7)	6(16.2)	1(9.1)	15(15.2)	17(33.3)	10(27)	3(27.3)	30(30.3)	1(2)	3(8.1)	0(0)	4(4)	0.496
Olives/nuts/seeds 1-2 s	47(90.4)	28(75.7)	10(90.9)	85(85)	3(5.8)	5(13.5)	0(0)	8(8)	1(1.9)	1(2.7)	1(9.1)	3(3)	0(0)	3(8.1)	0(0)	3(3)	1(1.9)	0(0)	0(0)	1(1)	0.212
Water (8 glasses)	29(55.8)	14(37.8)	5(45.5)	48(48)	11(21.2)	10(27)	5(45.5)	26(26)	10(19.2)	9(24.3)	1(9.1)	20(20)	1(1.9)	3(8.1)	0(0)	4(4)	1(1.9)	1(2.7)	0(0)	2(2)	0.490
Weekly
Potatoes≤3 s	32(61.5)	29(78.4)	6(54.5)	67(67)	9(17.3)	2(5.4)	1(9.1)	12(12)	6(11.5)	1(2.7)	1(9.1)	8(8)	3(5.8)	2(5.4)	2(18.2)	7(7)	2(3.8)	3(8.1)	1(9.1)	6(6)	0.340
White meat 2 s	16(30.8)	14(37.8)	7(63.6)	37(37)	2(3.8)	1(2.7)	0(0)	3(3)	1(1.9)	0(0)	1(9.1)	2(2)	5(9.6)	5(13.5)	0(0)	10(10)	28(53.8)	17(45.9)	3(27.3)	48(48)	0.295
Read meat < 2 s	25(48.1)	12(32.4)	5(45.5)	42(42)	6(11.5)	5(13.5)	2(18.2)	13(13)	6(11.5)	4(10.8)	0(0)	10(10)	11(21.2)	10(27)	2(18.2)	23(23)	4(7.7)	6(16.2)	2(18.2)	12(12)	0.756
Processed meat≤1 s	28(53.8)	16(43.2)	7(63.6)	51(51)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	1(1.9)	3(8.1)	1(9.1)	5(5)	23(44.2)	18(48.6)	3(27.3)	44(44)	0.432
Fish/seafood≥2 s	6(11.5)	5(13.5)	1(9.1)	12(12)	1(1.9)	1(2.7)	1(9.1)	3(3)	1(1.9)	1(2.7)	1(9.1)	3(3)	2(3.8)	0(0)	0(0)	2(2)	42(80.8)	30(81.1)	8(72.7)	80(80)	0.733
Eggs 2–4 s	31(59.6)	20(54.1)	7(63.6)	58(58)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	11(21.2)	3(8.1)	3(27.3)	17(7)	0(0)	3(8.1)	0(0)	3(3)	10(19.2)	11(29.7)	1(9.1)	22(22)	0.115
Legumes≥2 s	28(53.8)	22(59.5)	5(45.5)	55(55)	2(3.8)	1(2.7)	0(0)	3(3)	8(15.4)	4(10.8)	3(27.3)	15(15)	6(11.5)	4(10.8)	1(9.1)	11(11)	8(15.4)	6(16.2)	2(18.2)	16(16)	0.965
Sweets≤2 s	5(9.6)	8(21.6)	1(9.1)	14(14)	1(1.9)	0(0)	0(0)	1(1)	0(0)	0(0)	1(9.1)	1(1)	2(2)	1(1)	0(0)	3(3)	44(84.6)	28(75.7)	9(81.8)	81(81)	0.145

^*Significantly different (p < 0.05) using Chi-square test.

In each main meal: It was “very poor consumption” in fruits in (35.4%), being higher in students aged 18–34 years in (51%) (p < 0.001) and vegetables (46%); “Optimal consumption” in olive oil (43%) and “Excessive consumption” for (Bread/pasta/rice/couscous/other cereals) (39.4%), being higher in students aged 55–64 years by (45.5 %) (p < 0.05).

Regarding daily consumption: It was “very poor consumption” in dairy products (32.3%), nuts/seeds/olives (85%), and in water intake (8 glasses) was “very poor consumption” in the (48%) followed by a “poor consumption” (26%). No statistically significant differences were found between men and women and age groups.

In the weekly consumption: It was “very poor consumption” in potatoes (67%), red meat (42%), especially lower consumption in women (44.6%) (p < 0.05), processed meat (51%), eggs (58%) and legumes (55%). “Excessive” in white meat (48%), fish and seafood (80%) and consumption of sweets, snacks, and soft drinks (81%), being (86.5%) higher in women (p < 0.001).

When analyzing the degree of adherence to MD, we can observe that in “Poor diet quality (< 3)” there were (26%) of the students, in “Medium diet quality [4 –7]” the (68%) and in “Optimal diet quality (> 8)” (6%) being female (6%) and on the range of age of “55–64” (18.2%). No significant differences were found between men and women and range or age. Table 6 and Table 7.

Table 6

Quality of DM by sex

POOR DIET			MEDIUM DIET			OPTIMAL DIET
QUALITY (≤3)			QUALITY (4–7)			QUALITY (≥8)
Women	Men	Total	Women	Men	Total	Women	Men	Total	p
n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)
20(27)	6(23.1)	26(26)	48(64.9)	20(76.9)	68(68)	6(8.1)	0(0)	6(6)	0.268

Significantly different (p < 0.05) using Chi-square test.

Table 7

Quality of DM by range of age

POOR DIET				MEDIUM DIET				OPTIMAL DIET
QUALITY (≤3)				QUALITY (4–7)				QUALITY (≥8)
18–34	35–49	55–64	Total	18–34	35–49	55–64	Total	18–34	35–49	55–64	Total	p
n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)
16(30.8)	9 (24.3)	1 (9.1)	26(26)	34 (65.4)	26(70.3)	8(72.7)	68 (68)	2(3.8)	2(5.4)	2(18.2)	6 (6)	0.291

Significantly different (p < 0.05) using Chi-square test.

In Table 8 we can see that there are no significant differences when we compare the adherence with the MD and lifestyle as age, weight, BMI, hours of exercise/week, hours of sleep/day, the number of cigarettes/day, Kcal/day, mg of cholesterol/day, % of proteins, % of carbohydrates and % of lipids. Significant differences were found in the “grams of fiber per day”, being higher in “Optimal diet quality (>8)” (25.6±3.9 g/day) (p < 0.05).

Table 8

Quality of DM and its relationship with age, BMI, lifestyle, and diet

	POOR DIET	MEDIUM DIET	OPTIMAL DIET	p
	QUALITY (≤3)	QUALITY (4–7)	QUALITY (≥8)
	n = 26	n = 68	N = 6
AGE (years)	33.1 (±9.9)	37.5(±10.3)	41.8(±11.7)	0.091
WEIGHT (Kg)	62.2 (±10.5)	63.5(±13.1)	55.8(±5.1)	0.329
BMI (Kg/m²)¹	23.1(±3)	22.5(±3.4)	20.9(±1.7)	0.332
EXERCISE HOURS/WEEK	4(±2)	5.5(±4.1)	6.5(±6)	0.278
HOURS OF SLEEP/DAY	7.3(±0.8)	7.1(±0.9)	7.5(±0.5)	0.397
NUMBER OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES/WEEK	2 (±1.4)	1.9(±1.4)	3(±0)	0.380
NUMBER OF CAFFEINE DRINKS/DAY	0.9(±1.1)	1(±1.1)	1.5(±1.2)	0.528
NUMBER OF CIGARETTES/DAY	1.6(±1.3)	0.76(±0.8)	0(±0)	0.168
KCAL/DAY	1646.4(±583.5)	1656.3(±529.4)	1628.5(±461.5)	0.991
FIBER (g)/DAY	16.2(±7.2)	19.1(±7.1)	25.6(±3.9)	0.012^*
CHOLESTEROL (mg)/DAY	212.7(±148.7)	235.9(±134)	153.6(±69.5)	0.318
% PROTEIN	19.5(±5.8)	20.7(±5.1)	16.5(±3.3)	0.127
% FAT	35.8(±10.5)	32.9(±6.5)	35.5(±5.9)	0.219
% CARBOHYDRATES	47(±11.7)	47(±7.8)	50.2(±7.7)	0.697

¹Categories according to BMI (WHO): Underweight < 18.5kg/m²; Normal weight: 18.5–24.9 kg/m²; Overweight: 25–29.9 kg/m²; Obese≥30 kg/m²). Results are expressed in terms of mean and±SD. ^*Significantly different (p < 0.05) using Anova test.

4 Discussion

In the Mediterranean area, in the last decades, most of that population have been changing healthy dietary patterns, from ancient lifestyle to globalized behaviours, especially in young people [30]. In adult people has been recently published a systematic review, that shows that 2-point increment in the adherence to a MD is associated with a 10% of all risk of mortality [31]. However, several studies indicate that in the last two decades the adherence to the MD by the Spanish population has decreased [32 –34].

Analyzed dietary pattern has become an important approach in food consumption and epidemiology studies, associating the relation on diet-disease [35]. There are two ways to analyses dietary patterns, a priory, using scores or indices to assess how diet agrees with some ideal diet [36], or a posteriori using statistical methods looking the patterns within the study population as we have done in the current study.

In this study, we have a sample of Spanish postgraduate students, mostly female (74%) with a mean age of 36.6 years (±10.5), with most of them in the age range of 18 to 34 years (52%) and presenting normal weight (71%) being (60%) female (p < 0.001). The BMI of < 18.5 (insufficient weight) is represented by women in the age range of 18 to 34 years (4%), as observed in the study by Cutillas with Spanish population [37]. BMI of females was lower than for males (21.7 kg/m² vs 25.4 kg/m²) as well as calories intake (1573±480.2 kcal/day vs 1877.2±624.5 kcal/day) contrary that was found in Zarei M. study with Iranian Postgraduate students in University of Putra Malaysia [38] were females had lower BMI, but higher calorie intake compares with males’ group.

The intake amount of calories/day for men (1877±625.4kcal/day) and women (1573±480.2kcal/day), are lower comparing with the IR of the SENC [28], we have observed a decreasing trend in energy intake, that have been reported by other studies from Spain [7 , 39] and its similar in other studies from European countries [40 –42]. Protein intake was (20.2±5.3%) of the energy, well above the upper SENC recommendation limit (< 15%), our results are similar to the ENIDE study with (18%) [43] and higher compared with the ANIBES study results (16.8%) [7]. Carbohydrate intake was below recommendation (47.2±9%) of the SENC energy recommendations (50–55%), similar results were obtained on the ENIDE study [43] and ANIBES study (41.1%) [7]. Fat intake (33.8±7.8%) was close to the SENC recommendations (30–35%) and cholesterol (208.3±152.3 mg/day) was close to the SENC recommendations. Fiber intake (18.8±7.3 g/day) was below SENC recommendations (25–30 g/day), lower results were obtained in the ANIBES study (1.4%) [7]. Intervention studies conclude that high-fat diets (> 35%) low carbohydrate intake (< 50%) and fiber (< 25 g/day), are associated with adverse effects on body weight and chronic disease [44].

Regarding the food consumed in each main meal: the consumption of fruit (35.4%), especially the youngest ones [18 –34] (p < 0.05), and vegetable (46%) was “very poor consumption”. Decreasing fruits and vegetable intake by the Spanish population has been described in the ANIBES study [45]. MD recommendations endorse a minimum consumption of fruit to 150–300 g/day (1-2 servings/day) and up to over 300 g/day (2 servings/day) of vegetables. These recommendations are based on strong evidence that related fruit and vegetables intake with cardiovascular disease prevention, possible for decreasing risk of colon cancer, pancreatic diseases, and stroke [46]. When compared with other European countries we can observe that fruit and vegetable intake are even lower than the Spanish population [47] and similar intake has been described in Italian population [48]. A cause may be the high price, lack of time, and not being so appetizing, as has been described in other studies [49, 50].

The consumption of olive oil was “optimal consumption” in the (43%), among the Spanish population, olive oil consumption is quite common, and its price is affordable [51]. Cereal consumption was “excessive consumption” in the (39%), especially in students aged [–64], followed by “optimal consumption” in the (31%). In the last decades carbohydrate intake in the Spanish diet came from grain and derivates, being bread the most consumed [7]. In Spain, there has been a moderate decrease in the consumption of cereals as derivatives, preferable whole grains, replaced by other groups more processed and transformed [52].

In daily consumption: the consumption of dairy products was “very poor consumption” in the (32.3%) and “optimal consumption” in the (30.3%), milk and dairy products have experienced a reduction in the last years in the Spanish population [53] if we compare with other European countries, we can conclude that Netherlands has a higher consumption than Spain and Belgium [47]. Olives/nuts/seeds group intake was “very poor consumption” in the (85%), MD is characterized by an intake of olive, nuts, and seeds as a source of fiber, non-saturated fat and vegetal proteins [54], in Spanish population the intake of nuts, has been decreased in the last decades [53].

Water intake was “very poor consumption” in the (48%) followed by a “poor consumption” (26%), in Spain the intake of soft drinks has increased 27% in the last decades, displacing water and alcoholic beverages [53].

In weekly consumption: a “very poor consumption” in the (67%), was for potatoes, MD recommendations endorse a maximum consumption of 470 g/week (< 3 servings/week) reduction in the intake of potatoes was found as well in the ANIBES study [45]. Legumes were “very poor consumption” in the (55%), the consume of legumes in Spain have decreased in the last decades, MD recommendations (≥2 servings/week) is to increase legumes consumption for being a source of proteins, fiber and have an important role in colon cancer prevention, glucose reduction and risk of cardiovascular diseases [55]. Eggs consumption was “very poor consumption” in the (58%), egg consumption has experienced a decrease from the de 4.3 medium-sized/week in 2000 [39], one reason could be the bad press receive for the high cholesterol content; recently review, did not show evidence to support a role of dietary cholesterol in the development of cardiovascular diseases. Eggs contain minimal saturated fatty acids (1.56g/egg), high-quality protein, and they are rich in several micronutrients [56]. Red meat (42%) was “very poor consumption” especially lower consumption in women (p < 0.05) and processed meat (51%) was “very poor consumption”, one of the reasons could be the advice of the World Health Organization (WHO) to avoid high intake of red meat and processed meat for the risk to develop colon cancer [57]. Although “excessive consumption” was found in white meat (48%), fish, and seafood (80%). Finally, sweets were “excessive consumption” (81%), especially in women (p < 0.05), the association was found in sugary soft drinks, displacing water consumption [58].

In our analysis we can conclude that women are frequently more weight-conscious and try to limit calories, reducing the intake of carbohydrates and fat, improving protein [59]. Besides, consumption of fruit and vegetables generally increases during the transition from young to adult [60].

In the analysis of the quality of the diet, “Medium diet quality [4 –7]” (68%), followed by a “Poor diet quality (≤3)” (26%) and finally in “Optimal diet quality (≥8)” (6%) being female on the range of age of “55–64”. Moving away from the recommendations of the MD, choosing more palatable foods, that require less time to be prepared. Age, BMI, or lifestyle were not found to influence the final classification, assuming that the different age groups behave similarly when it comes to moving away from the MD pattern. A diet with a mayor intake of fiber, correlates with a greater adherence to the MD.

4.1 Limitations

The cross-sectional design provides evidence for associations but not for a causal relationship. Studies based on being self-reported surveys and a 3-d meal record and where it is possible that occasionally foods were not evaluated correctly, we did not use MEDAS-14 to compare the adherence to the MD with our results. A self-filling questionnaire could be another limitation, especially on the anthropometric measures. Our sample size is small to be a representative population and finally the inadequate distribution among genders and age groups.

5 Conclusions

Spanish postgraduate students from the food area have good health and a healthy lifestyle but are moving away from the MD model. These results show us the importance of establishing awareness campaigns for the improvement of eating habits aimed at the postgraduate university population, who must adapt to the high demand of their studies together with a full or part-time job and be aware that their diet and lifestyle will determine the future of your health. Similar studies should be done to compare our results.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank Anna Marín, Lili Zabala and Marilyn Montejo (Fundación Unibersitaria Iberoamericana) for their colaboration collecting data. There was no external funding for the study.

Conflict of interest

The study authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

Organisationmondiale de la santé.Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2014: attaining the nine global noncommunicable diseases targets; a shared responsibility. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.

Battino

, Forbes-Hernández

, Gasparrini

, Afrin

, Cianciosi

, Zhang

, et al. Relevance of functional foods in the Mediterranean diet: the role of olive oil, berries and honey in the prevention of cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2019;59(6):893–920.

Giampieri

, Alvarez-Suarez

, Cordero

, Gasparrini

, Forbes-Hernandez

, Afrin

, et al. Strawberry consumption improves aging-associated impairments, mitochondrial biogenesis and functionality through the AMP-activated protein kinase signaling cascade. Food Chem. 2017;234:464–71.

Quesada-Morúa

, Hidalgo

, Morera

, Rojas

, Pérez

, Vaillant

, et al. Hypolipidaemic, hypoglycaemic and antioxidant effects of a tropical highland blackberry beverage consumption in healthy individuals on a high-fat, high-carbohydrate diet challenge. Journal of Berry Research. 2020;10(3):459–74.

Howell

. Clinical evidence supporting cranberry as a complementary approach to Helicobacter pylori management. Food Frontiers. 2020;1(3):329–31.

Ruiz

, Ávila

, Castillo

, Valero

, del Pozo

, Rodriguez

, et al. The ANIBES Study on Energy Balance in Spain: Design, Protocol and Methodology. Nutrients. 2015;7(2):970–98.

Ruiz

, Ávila

, Valero

, del Pozo

, Rodriguez

, Aranceta-Bartrina

,et al.. Energy Intake, Profile, and Dietary Sources in the Spanish Population: Findings of the ANIBES Study. Nutrients. 2015;7(6):4739–62.

Ministerio de Sanidad, Consumo y Bienestar Social - Portal Estadístico del SNS - Encuesta Nacional [homepage on the Internet]. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Consumo y Bienestar Social; 2012 [update 2018 Jun 06; cited 2021 Jan 24]. Available from: https://www.mscbs.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/encuestaNacional/encuesta2011.htm

Mielgo-Ayuso

, Aparicio-Ugarriza

, Castillo

, Ruiz

, Avila

, Aranceta-Bartrina

,et al.. Sedentary behavior among Spanish children and adolescents: findings from the ANIBES study. BMC Public Health. 2017 19;17(1):94.

10.

Navia

, López-Sobaler

, Villalobos

, Aranceta-Bartrina

, Gil

, González-Gross

,et al.. Breakfast habits and differences regarding abdominal obesity in a cross-sectional study in Spanish adults: The ANIBES study. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(11):e0188828.

11.

Olza

, Martínez de Victoria

, Aranceta-Bartrina

, González-Gross

, Ortega

, Serra-Majem

,et al.. Adequacy of Critical Nutrients Affecting the Quality of the Spanish Diet in the ANIBES Study. Nutrients. 2019;11(10).

12.

Partearroyo

, Samaniego-Vaesken

Ma de L

, Ruiz

, Varela-Moreiras

. Assessment of micronutrients intakes in the Spanish population: a review of the findings from the ANIBES study. Nutr Hosp. 2018;35(Spec No6):20–4.

13.

Pérez-Rodrigo

, Gianzo-Citores

, Gil

, González-Gross

, Ortega

, Serra-Majem

,et al.. Lifestyle Patterns and Weight Status in Spanish Adults: The ANIBES Study. Nutrients. 2017;9(6).

14.

What’s the mediterranean diet? [homepage on the internet]. Barcelona: Fundación Dieta Mediterranea; 2021 [updated 2021 March 18; cited 2021 March 18]. Available from: https://dietamediterranea.com/en/nutrition

15.

Abellán

, Zafrilla

, Montoro-García

, Mulero

, Pérez

, Leal

,et al.. Adherence to the ‘Mediterranean Diet’ in Spain and Its Relationship with Cardiovascular Risk (DIMERICA Study). Nutrients. 2016;8(11).

16.

Cobo-Cuenca

, Garrido-Miguel

, Soriano-Cano

, Ferri-Morales

, Martínez-Vizcaíno

, Martín-Espinosa

. Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet and Its Association with Body Composition and Physical Fitness in Spanish University Students. Nutrients. 2019;11(11):2830.

17.

Durá

, Castroviejo

. Adherencia a la dieta mediterránea en la población universitaria. Nutr. Hosp.. 2011;(3):192–8.

18.

Payne-Sturges

, Tjaden

, Caldeira

, Vincent

, Arria

. Student Hunger on Campus: Food Insecurity Among College Students and Implications for Academic Institutions. Am J Health Promot. 2018;32(2):349–54.

19.

Pope

, Hansen

, Harvey

. Examining the Weight Trajectory of College Students. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 2017;49(2):137–141.e1.

20.

Bollat

, Durá

. Modelo dietético de los universitarios. Nutrición Hospitalaria. 2008;23(6):626–7.

21.

Sumalla Cano

, Elío

, Domínguez

, Calderón

, García

, Fernández

,et al.. Valoración del perfil e ingesta de nutrientes de un grupo de estudiantes iberoamericanos de postgrados en nutrición. Nutrición Hospitalaria. 2013;28(2):532–40.

22.

Ortiz-Moncada

, Norte

, Zaragoza

, Fernández

, Davó

MªC

. ¿Siguen patrones de dieta mediterránea los universitarios españoles?. Nutr Hosp. 2012;(6):1952–9.

23.

Ortega

, Pérez

, López-Sobaler

. Métodos de evaluación de la ingesta actual: registro o diario diétetico. Rev Esp Nutr Comunitaria. 2015;21(Supl. 1):34–41.

24.

Aranceta

, Arija

, Maíz

, Martínez

, Ortega

, Pérez-Rodríguez

, Quiles

,et al.. Guías alimentarias para la población española (SENC, diciembre la nueva pirámide de la alimentación saludable. Nutr Hosp. 2016;33(Supl. 8):1–48.

25.

Bach-Faig

, Berry

, Lairon

, Reguant

, Trichopoulou

, Dernini

,et al.. Mediterranean diet pyramid today. Science and cultural updates. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14(12A):2274–84.

26.

Trichopoulou

, Costacou

, Bamia

, Trichopoulos

. Adherence to a Mediterranean diet and survival in a Greek population. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2599–608.

27.

Chacón-Cuberos

, Castro-Sánchez

, Muros-Molina

, Espejo-Garcés

, Zurita-Ortega

, Linares-Manrique

. Adhesión a la dieta mediterránea en estudiantes universitarios y su relación con los hábitos de ocio digital. Nutr Hosp. 2016;33(2).

28.

Moreiras

, Carbajal

, Cabrera

, Cuadrado

. Tablas de composición de alimentos. Ediciones Pirámide. 15.ª ed. Madrid. 2011.

29.

Dapcich

, Salvador

, Ribas

L y col

. Guía de la alimentación saludable. Editado por la Sociedad Española de Nutrición Comunitaria (SENC). Madrid. 2004.

30.

Aidoud

. Changes in Mediterranean dietary pattern of university students: a comparative study between Spain and Algeria. Nutricion Clinica y Dietetica Hospitalaria. 2019;(39):26–33.

31.

Soltani

, Jayedi

, Shab-Bidar

, Becerra-Tomás

, Salas-Salvadó

. Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet in Relation to All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. Advances in Nutrition. 2019;10(6):1029–39.

32.

Davis

, Bryan

, Hodgson

, Murphy

. Definition of the Mediterranean Diet; A Literature Review. Nutrients. 2015;7(11):9139–53.

33.

Varela-Moreiras

, Ruiz

, Valero

, Avila

, del Pozo

. The Spanish diet: an update. Nutr Hosp. 2013;Suppl 5:13–20.

34.

León-Muñoz

, Guallar-Castillón

, Graciani

, López-García

, Mesas

, Aguilera

,et al.. Adherence to the Mediterranean diet pattern has declined in Spanish adults. J Nutr. 2012;142(10):1843–50.

35.

Hodge

, Bassett

. What can we learn from dietary pattern analysis? Public Health Nutrition. 2016;19(2):191–4.

36.

Newby

, Tucker Katherine

. Empirically derived eating patterns using factor or cluster analysis: a review. Nutr Rev.. 2004;62(5):177–203.

37.

Cutillas

, Herrero

, de San Eustaquio

, Zamora

, Pérez-Llamas

. Prevalencia de peso insuficiente, sobrepeso y obesidad, ingesta de energía y perfil calórico de la dieta de estudiantes universitarios de la comunidad autónoma de la región de murcia (españa). Nutr Hosp. 2013;28(3):683–9.

38.

Zarei

, Mohd Taib

, Zarei

, Abu Saad

. Factors Associated With Body Weight Status of Iranian Postgraduate Students in University of Putra Malaysia. Nurs Midwifery Stud. 2013;2(4):97–102.

39.

Varela-Moreiras

, Avila

, Cuadrado

, del Pozo

, Ruiz

, Moreiras

. Evaluation of food consumption and dietary patterns in Spain by the Food Consumption Survey: updated information. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010;64 Suppl 3:S37–43.

40.

Leclercq

, Arcella

, Piccinelli

, Sette

, Le Donne

, Turrini

,et al.. The Italian National Food Consumption Survey INRAN-SCAI - main results in terms of food consumption. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12(12):2504–32.

41.

Dubuisson

, Lioret

, Touvier

, Dufour

, Calamassi-Tran

, Volatier

J-L

,et al.. Trends in food and nutritional intakes of French adults from to results from the INCA surveys. Br J Nutr. 2010;103(7):1035–48.

42.

NDNS: results from Years 1 to 4 (combined) [homepage on the Internet]. GOV.UK; 2021 [updated 2021 March 18 cited 2021 March 18]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-diet-and-nutrition-survey-results-from-years-1-to-4-combined-of-the-rolling-programme-for-2008-and-2009-to-2011-and-2012

43.

Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios sociales e igualdad. Evaluación Nutricional de la dieta española. Energía y Macronutrientes. Sobre datos de la encuesta nacional de ingesta dietética (ENIDE) [homepage on the Internet]; Madrid; 2011. [updated 2014 June 17 cited 2021 March 18]. Available from: http://www.cibr.es/ka/apps/cibr/docs/estudio-enide-1.pdf

44.

EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies (NDA). Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for carbohydrates and dietary fibre. EFSA Journal. 2010;8(3):1462.

45.

Partearroyo

, Samaniego-Vaesken

M de L

, Ruiz

, Aranceta-Bartrina

, Gil

, González-Gross

,et al.. Current Food Consumption amongst the Spanish ANIBES Study Population. Nutrients. 2019;11(11).

46.

Angelino

, Godos

, Ghelfi

, Tieri

, Titta

, Lafranconi

,et al.. Fruit and vegetable consumption and health outcomes: an umbrella review of observational studies. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2019;70(6):652–67.

47.

Bel

, De Ridder

KAA

, Lebacq

, Ost

, Teppers

, Cuypers

,et al.. Habitual food consumption of the Belgian population in –and adherence to food-based dietary guidelines. Arch Public Health. 2019;77:14.

48.

Pounis

, Bonanni

, Ruggiero

, Di Castelnuovo

, Costanzo

, Persichillo

,et al.. Food group consumption in an Italian population using the updated food classification system FoodEx Results from the Italian Nutrition & Health Survey (INHES) study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2017;27(4):307–28.

49.

El Ansari

, Stock

, Mikolajczyk

. Relationships between food consumption and living arrangements among university students in four European countries - a cross-sectional study. Nutr J. 2012;11:28.

50.

Strawson

, Bell

, Downs

, Farmer

, Olstad

, Willows

. Dietary patterns of female university students with nutrition education. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2013;74(3):138–42.

51.

Navarro-González

, Ros

, Martínez-García

, Rodríguez-Tadeo

, Periago

MaJ

. Adherencia a la dieta mediterránea y su relación con la calidad del desayuno en estudiantes de la Universidad de Murcia. Nutr Hosp. 2016;33(4).

52.

van den Boom

, Serra-Majem

, Ribas

, Ngo

, Pérez-Rodrigo

, Aranceta

,et al.. The contribution of ready-to-eat cereals to daily nutrient intake and breakfast quality in a Mediterranean setting. J Am Coll Nutr. 2006;25(2):135–43.

53.

del Pozo

, García

, Cuadrado

, Ruíz

, Valero

, Ávila

, Varela

. Valoración nutricional de la dieta española de acuerdo al panel de consumo alimentario. Madrid: Federación Española de la Nutrición; 2012.

54.

Willett

, Sacks

, Trichopoulou

, Drescher

, Ferro-Luzzi

, Helsing

,et al.. Mediterranean diet pyramid: a cultural model for healthy eating. Am J Clin Nutr. 1995;61(6 Suppl):1402S–1406S.

55.

Jenkins

DJA

, Kendall

CWC

, Augustin

LSA

, Mitchell

, Sahye-Pudaruth

, Blanco Mejia

,et al.. Effect of legumes as part of a low glycemic index diet on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(21):1653–60.

56.

Soliman

. Dietary Cholesterol and the Lack of Evidence in Cardiovascular Disease. Nutrients. 2018;10(6).

57.

Bouvard

, Loomis

, Guyton

, Grosse

, Ghissassi

, Benbrahim-Tallaa

,et al.. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(16):1599–600.

58.

Basu

, McKee

, Galea

, Stuckler

. Relationship of soft drink consumption to global overweight, obesity, and diabetes: a cross-national analysis of 75 countries. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(11):2071–7.

59.

Davy

, Benes

, Driskell

. Sex differences in dieting trends, eating habits, and nutrition beliefs of a group of midwestern college students. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106(10):1673–7.

60.

Lake

, Mathers

, Rugg-Gunn

, Adamson

. Longitudinal change in food habits between adolescence (11-12 years) and adulthood (32-33 years): the ASH30 Study. J Public Health (Oxf). 2006;28(1):10–6.