Investigates food knowledge and adherence to dietary guidelines in Brazil, suggesting importance for health education.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between food knowledge according to the level of food processing and adherence to the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population. METHODS: This study was carried out with a subsample of the NutriNet-Brazil cohort based on quotas (n = 1,053). Adherence to the Guide was assessed using a scale of dietary practices (24 items), which generates a score ranging from 0 to 72. To assess knowledge, participants indicated on a scale of 1 to 10 how healthy they considered each item on a list of 12 foods in four categories (fruit, meat, dairy products and grains), including three groups from the Nova food classification: fresh or minimally processed (G1); processed (G3); and ultra-processed (G4). To generate the score (0 to 8), two points were assigned in each category when option G1 was evaluated as healthier than G3, and both as healthier than G4. In the analysis, sample weighting was used to bring the distribution of the sample closer to the profile of the Brazilian population. The association between the knowledge score and adherence to the Guide was tested using linear regression with adjustment for sociodemographic, socioeconomic and behavioral variables. RESULTS: The mean score for adherence to the Guide was 43.1 (SD = 9.29) and the mean score for knowledge was 5.4 (SD = 1.2). In the crude model, for every one point increase in knowledge, adherence to the Guide increased by an average of 0.8 points (p = 0.002). The association remained significant in the adjusted model, but the coefficient was reduced to 0.6 (p = 0.020) with the inclusion of socioeconomic variables in the model. CONCLUSION: Greater knowledge to recognize ultra-processed foods as less healthy is associated with greater adherence to the dietary practices recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population, reinforcing the importance of disseminating the recommendations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gabe et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: