Differences in Dietary Quality by Sexual Orientation and Sex in the United States: NHANES 2011-2016.

Citation metadata

Publisher: Elsevier Science Publishers
Document Type: Report
Length: 542 words

Document controls

Main content

Abstract :

Keywords Healthy Eating Index; Health disparities; LGBTQ; Chronic disease; Obesity Abstract Background There are persistent disparities in weight- and diet-related diseases by sexual orientation. Lesbian and bisexual females have a higher risk of obesity and cardiovascular disease compared with heterosexual females. Gay and bisexual males have a higher risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease compared with heterosexual males. However, it remains unknown how sexual orientation groups differ in their dietary quality. Objective This study aimed to determine whether dietary quality differs by sexual orientation and sex among US adults. Design This was a cross-sectional study of 24-hour dietary recall data from a nationally representative sample of adults aged 20 through 65 years participating in the 2011-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Participants/setting Study participants were adults (n = 8,851) with complete information on dietary intake, sexual orientation, and sex. Main outcome measures The main outcome measures were daily energy intake from 20 specific food and beverage groups and Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015) scores for sexual orientation groups (heterosexual vs gay/lesbian/bisexual). Statistical analyses performed Ordinary least squares regressions were used to calculate adjusted means for each food and beverage group and HEI-2015, stratified by sex and controlling for covariates (eg, age and race/ethnicity) and survey cycles (2011-2012, 2013-2014, and 2015-2016). Results Among males, red and processed meat/poultry/seafood (P = .01) and sandwiches (P = .02) were smaller contributors to energy intake for gay/bisexual males compared with heterosexual males. Among females, cereals (P =.04) and mixed dishes (P = .02) were smaller contributors to energy intake for lesbian/bisexual females compared with heterosexual females. Gay/bisexual males had significantly higher total HEI-2015 scores than heterosexual males (mean [plus or minus] standard deviation 53.40 [plus or minus] 1.36 vs 49.29 [plus or minus] 0.32, difference = 4.14; P = .004). Lesbian/bisexual females did not differ in total or component HEI-2015 scores from heterosexual females. Conclusions Although gay/lesbian/bisexual groups were similar for a variety of dietary outcomes compared with heterosexual groups, gay and bisexual men displayed healthier dietary quality for processed meat (by consuming smaller amounts) and overall dietary quality (according to HEI-2015) compared with heterosexual males. Author Affiliation: (1) Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC (2) Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Cambridge, MA (3) Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (4) Department of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY (5) Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC * Address correspondence to: Lindsey Smith Taillie, PhD, MPH, Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, 123 West Franklin St, Chapel Hill, NC 27516. Article History: Revised 10 November 2021; Accepted 6 December 2021 (footnote) Supplementary materials:, , , , and and are available at www.jandonline.org(http://www.jandonline.org) (footnote) STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. (footnote) FUNDING/SUPPORT This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (T32 HD007168, P2C HD050924 to A. H. Grummon). Byline: Carmen E. Prestemon (1), Anna H. Grummon, PhD (2,3), Pasquale E. Rummo, PhD (4), Lindsey Smith Taillie, PhD, MPH [taillie@unc.edu] (5,*)

Source Citation

Source Citation   

Gale Document Number: GALE|A700982611