Search

Aim: In Australian adults, this study seeks to describe the experiences and factors associated with the perceived outcomes of using a very low calorie diet (VLCD) program for ≥4 weeks. Methods: A mixed method study using the method perspective was conducted to analyse individual semi‐structured interviews conducted via videoconference and cross‐sectional survey data. Australians 18 to 65 years were eligible if they were currently consuming at least one VLCD product daily for ≥4 weeks or had ceased consumption within 4 weeks. Interviews were thematically analysed. Results: Weight loss (19 kg [SD: 18 kg]) and duration (5 months [SD: 5 months]) of VLCD product use of the 31 participants (female: 97%, 44 [SD: 11] years, body mass index >30 kg/m2: 84%) were strongly correlated (r = 0.73, P <.001). Participants' experiences were influenced by a journey of learning from their previous weight loss attempts, discerned the VLCD program as credible, and chose to commence the VLCD due to a convergence of internal motivators. Early health‐related outcomes were a reinforcing stimulus and participants developed new health behaviours but felt dependent on the VLCD long term. Throughout these experiences the participants identified various individual, program structure, and environment related factors which either facilitated their VLCD program use or created barriers to achieving their goals. Health care professionals were minimally engaged. Conclusions: A model of care to support facilitators and overcome barriers would mean more meaningful engagement of health care professionals to ultimately improve the experience and adherence of the VLCD program users in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia and New Zealand are currently reviewing the regulations governing nutrition function, health and related claims on foods. Health claims currently are not permitted on food labels, with one exception. The aim of this study was to describe the use of such claims on packaged food for sale in Australia (excluding nutrient content claims) prior to any changes to the regulations, and measure compliance with existing regulations. A survey was conducted of the labelling of 7850 products (including multiple pack sizes of individual foods) in 47 different food categories on sale in New South Wales in 2003. A total of 2098 nutrition function, health or related claims and 12 therapeutic claims were recorded. Fourteen percent of products carried some sort of claim. If nutrient function and general health maintenance claims are excluded, 8.1% of products carried a health or related claim. Using the claims categorisation proposed by Food Standards Australia New Zealand for a new standard on claims, general-level claims were found on 9.8% of products and high-level and therapeutic claims (illegal at the time) on 1.2%. The food categories with the highest proportion of products carrying claims were sports drinks (92%), energy drinks (84%), sports bars (57%) and breakfast cereals (54%). 118 high-level and therapeutic claims did not conform to current food standards and there were many general-level claims for ingredient benefits that were unlikely to be able to be scientifically substantiated. The results of this survey suggest that more than 5% of claims were not complying with the current regulations and that the standards were not being fully enforced. To be effective, the new standard will need to be accompanied by clear guidelines for manufacturers on requirements for substantiating claims. Comprehensive education and enforcement frameworks also will be needed, to reduce the number of illegal or apparently unsubstantiated claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Food costs are a barrier to healthier diet selections, particularly for low socioeconomic households who regularly choose processed foods containing refined grains, added sugars, and added fats. In this study, the objectives were to: (i) identify the nutrient density-to-cost ratio of Australian foods; (ii) model the impact of substituting foods with lower nutrient density-to-cost ratio with those with the highest nutrient density-to-cost ratio for diet quality and affordability in low and medium socioeconomic households; and (iii) evaluate food processing levels. Foods were categorized, coded for processing level, analysed for nutrient density and cost, and ranked by nutrient density-to-cost ratio. The top quartile of nutrient dense, low-cost foods included 54% unprocessed (vegetables and reduced fat dairy), 33% ultra-processed (fortified wholegrain bread and breakfast cereals <20 g sugars/100 g), and 13% processed (fruit juice and canned legumes). Using substitution modelling, diet quality improved by 52% for adults and 71% for children across all households, while diet affordability improved by 25% and 27% for low and medium socioeconomic households, respectively. The results indicate that the quality and affordability of the Australian diet can be improved when nutritious, low-cost foods are selected. Processing levels in the healthier modelled diets suggest that some ultra-processed foods may provide a beneficial source of nutrition when consumed within national food group recommendations.