↓ Skip to main content

Greenhouse gas emissions of self-selected diets in the UK and their association with diet quality: is energy under-reporting a problem?

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Greenhouse gas emissions of self-selected diets in the UK and their association with diet quality: is energy under-reporting a problem?
Published in
Nutrition Journal, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12937-018-0338-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kentaro Murakami, M. Barbara E. Livingstone

Abstract

While the admittedly limited number of epidemiological findings on the association between diet-related greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) and diet quality are not always consistent, potential influence of bias in the estimation of diet-related GHGE caused by misreporting of energy intake (EI) has not been investigated. This cross-sectional study evaluated diet-related GHGE in the UK and their association with diet quality, taking account of EI under-reporting. Dietary data used were from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey rolling programme 2008/2009-2013/2014, in which 4-day food diaries were collected from 3502 adults aged ≥19 years. Diet-related GHGE were estimated based on 133 food groups, using GHGE values from various secondary sources. Diet quality was assessed by the healthy diet indicator (HDI), Mediterranean diet score (MDS) and Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) score. EI misreporting was assessed as reported EI divided by estimated energy requirement (EI:EER). Mean value of daily GHGE was 5.7 kg carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq), which is consistent with those reported from a number of national representative samples in other European countries. Mean EI:EER was 0.74. Assuming that all the dietary variables were misreported in proportion to the misreporting of EI, the mean value of the misreporting-adjusted diet-related GHGE was 8.2 kg CO2eq/d. In the entire population, after adjustment for potential confounders (i.e., age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic classification, smoking status and physical activity), diet-related GHGE were inversely associated with HDI and DASH score but not with MDS. However, with further adjustment for EI:EER, diet-related GHGE showed inverse associations with all three measures of diet quality. Similar associations were observed when only under-reporters (EI:EER < 0.70; n = 1578) were analysed. Conversely, in the analysis including only plausible reporters (EI:EER 0.70-1.43; n = 1895), diet-related GHGE showed inverse associations with all diet quality measures irrespective of adjustment. With taking account of EI under-reporting, this study showed inverse associations between diet-related GHGE and diet quality not only in the entire sample but also in the separate analyses of plausible reporters and under-reporters, as well as potential underreporting of diet-related GHGE.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 24%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 18%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 12 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2020.
All research outputs
#1,818,158
of 15,943,540 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#454
of 1,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,991
of 278,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,943,540 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,386 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them