Next Article in Journal
A Modified Holder Pasteurization Method for Donor Human Milk: Preliminary Data
Next Article in Special Issue
Socio-Ecological Factors That Influence Infant and Young Child Nutrition in Kiribati: A Biocultural Perspective
Previous Article in Journal
Dietary Protein and Muscle Mass: Translating Science to Application and Health Benefit
Previous Article in Special Issue
Children’s Dietary Quality and Micronutrient Adequacy by Food Security in the Household and among Household Children

Nutrients 2019, 11(5), 1137; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11051137

Article
Egg Consumption in U.S. Children is Associated with Greater Daily Nutrient Intakes, including Protein, Lutein + Zeaxanthin, Choline, α-Linolenic Acid, and Docosahexanoic Acid
1
Nutritional Strategies, Nutrition Research & Regulatory Affairs, 59 Marriott Place, Paris, ON N3L 0A3, Canada
2
Nutrition Impact, Nutrition Research, 9725 D Drive North, Battle Creek, MI 49014, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 25 March 2019 / Accepted: 9 May 2019 / Published: 22 May 2019

Abstract

:
Dietary pattern recommendations include consuming a variety of nutrient-dense foods in children and adolescents to promote optimal growth and development. The current study investigated associations with egg consumption and nutrient intakes, diet quality, and growth outcomes relative to non-egg consumers. The analysis used data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2001-2012 in children and adolescents aged 2–18 years (N = 3,299, egg consumers; N = 17,030, egg non-consumers). Daily energy and nutrient intakes were adjusted for the complex sample design of NHANES using appropriate weights. Consuming eggs was associated with increased daily energy intake relative to non-egg consumption. Children and adolescents consuming eggs had elevated daily intake of protein, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated and total fat, α-linolenic acid, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), choline, lutein + zeaxanthin, vitamin D, potassium, phosphorus, and selenium. Egg consumers had greater consumption, sodium, saturated fat, with reduced total and added sugar versus egg non-consumers. The analysis also showed that egg consumption was linked with lower intake of dietary folate, iron, and niacin. No associations were determined when examining diet quality and growth-related measures. A sub-analysis considering socioeconomic status showed that egg consumption was positively related with daily lutein + zeaxanthin and DHA intake. The current analysis demonstrated several nutrient-related benefits to support the continued inclusion of eggs in the dietary patterns of children and adolescents.
Keywords:
NHANES; children; adolescents; nutrients; eggs; diet quality; dietary patterns

1. Introduction

Since the late 1960s, authoritative bodies have not recommended eggs as part of the diet, largely due to misperceptions resulting from insufficient data that egg consumption contributed to higher cholesterol levels and elevated risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In fact, in 1968, the American Heart Association published dietary recommendations to limit consumption of egg yolks to less than three/week [1]. A recent review has argued that this egg-specific dietary guidance was founded on mis-interpreted data that ultimately led to public health nutritional consequences [2]. With several countries removing dietary cholesterol restrictions from dietary guidance and questioning U.S dietary guidance [3,4,5,6], the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) [7] report reversed previous recommendations with the statement, “Previously, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) recommended that cholesterol intake be limited to no more than 300 mg/day. The 2015 DGAC will not bring forward this recommendation because available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum (blood) cholesterol, consistent with the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology report. Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.”
The 2015–2020 DGA policy report [8] emphasizes increased consumption of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low-fat/fat-free dairy products, and a variety of protein foods, including eggs, seafood, lean meats, legumes, nuts, and soy products. Further, dietary guidance has identified eggs to be nutrient-rich food products when consumed with minimal or no added sugars, sodium and/or solid fats. As such, all healthy dietary patterns recommended by the 2015–2020 DGA include eggs for Americans ≥2 years-old [8]. Nutrient-rich foods, like eggs, can contribute significantly to optimal childhood growth [9]. One 50 g egg (i.e., large egg) provides several essential nutrients and bioactives [10]. Particularly, eggs are an important dietary source of choline, an essential nutrient that is under consumed by the American population [11]. A 50 g egg contributes 146.9 mg of dietary choline and has been documented as a leading food source for choline in the American diet [10,12]. In addition, eggs contain omega-3 fatty acids, such that one large egg contributes about 30 mg docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and 18 mg octadecatrienoic acid (α-linolenic-acid) [10]. A recent study in American children aged 7 to 12 years reported that few children meet recommendations for omega-3 fatty acids. In particular, only 6.8% of children had adequate intake of DHA + eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) when using the United Nation Food and Agricultural Organization recommendations, while only 14.1% of children had adequate intakes when using the more lenient recommendations of the National Academy of Medicine [13]. A scientific EFSA panel has acknowledged that children’s brains accrue significant levels of DHA, with emphasis at infancy, but also throughout childhood, thus substantiating a cause and effect link for DHA dietary intake and neural physiology [14]. Eggs also provide highly bioavailable lutein and zeaxanthin, with a 50 g egg contributing approximately 250 mcg lutein + zeaxanathin [10]. Lutein and zeaxanthin are carotenoids which have been linked to eye health and reduced risk for eye- and vision-related diseases [15].
Previously published data in infants demonstrates several beneficial associations with egg consumption, of which included higher recumbent length compared to infants not consuming eggs. Furthermore, introducing eggs during infancy was linked to improved nutrient profiles, including higher daily intakes of protein, DHA, α-linolenic acid, phosphorus, choline, vitamin B12, and lutein + zeaxanthin [16]. At present, there are no studies in children and adolescents that have examined nutrient-related associations between consumers of eggs and non-egg consumers. As such, the purpose of the current investigation was to determine associations between egg consumers, nutrient intakes, diet quality, and growth-related outcomes in Americans 2-18 years of age, in comparison to egg non-consumers.

2. Materials and Methods

The present investigation used data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is a cross-sectional, nationally-representative, sample of U.S. free-living individuals. The data are compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. Written informed consent and all ethical considerations have been previously approved by the appropriate ethics board at the CDC. For the current analysis, the methodology combined 6 datasets for individuals 2–18 years of age, beginning in 2001 and ending in 2012, to provide twelve years of data collection [17]. Data for nutrients are from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (FNDDS) versions 5.0 and 6.0 for NHANES 2009–2010 and 2011–2012, respectively [18,19]. FNDDS serve as the databases which determine foods and beverages nutrient values in What We Eat in America (WWEIA) [19], which represents the dietary intake component of NHANES. WWEIA considers approximately 150 classifications, 15 central food groupings and 46 food subgroups. The collection procedure for WWEIA involves use of the Automated Multiple Pass Method (AMPM), representing a dietary collection tool that provides a valid, evidence-based approach for gathering data for national dietary surveys [20]. Although two days of recall are recorded in NHANES, the current analysis focused on 24-hour recalls obtained from Day 1 to represent data collected by an onsite interviewer [20,21]. Accuracy, effectiveness, and efficiency of the AMPM method has been extensively reported and previously documented [22,23,24].

2.1. Participants and Definition of Eggs

Male and female data on children and adolescents were combined for the present analysis and differentiated as consumers of eggs (N = 3,299) or egg non-consumers (N = 17,030). Only data that was determined to be reliable and included completed 24 hour recalled dietary data was included in the analysis. Egg consumption was defined strictly as participants that consumed only eggs, poached eggs, scrambled eggs, and omelets while excluding egg-containing mixed dishes (i.e., egg-containing sandwiches, breakfast burritos, and all egg-containing bakery foods, including cakes, breads, cookies, and biscuits).

2.2. Methodolgy

Statistical procedures were completed with the employment of SAS software (Version 9.2, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) and SUDAAN 11.0. The investigation used survey weights to develop nationally representative estimates for children and adolescents, followed by adjustment to consider the complex sample design of the database. Adjusted means (± standard errors) for daily intake of energy (kilocalories), nutrients, and diet quality were determined. Energy, nutrient and diet quality included adjustment for several variables, including age, ethnicity, gender, kilocalories (i.e., all variables with the exception of energy intake), socioeconomic status (i.e., as measured by the poverty income ratio (PIR) and participation in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program of Women, Infants and Children (WIC)) [24]. Similar adjustments were made for nutrient intakes, body weight, and growth measurements, with the inclusion of an adjustment for energy. USDA’s validated Healthy Eating Index-2010 (HEI 2010) tool was used to measure total diet quality—a measurement of alignment to authoritative dietary guidance [25].

3. Results

3.1. Population Demographics

Study population demographics can be viewed in Table 1. Consumers of eggs and non-egg consumers had differences in age, WIC and PIR status. For PIR, a greater value is representative of a larger income.

3.2. Daily Nutrient and Energy Intakes

Daily nutrient and energy intake comparisons for egg consumers and non-egg consumers can be seen in Table 2. Egg consumption was associated with higher protein, phosphorus, α-linolenic acid), DHA, polyunsaturated fat, monounsaturated fat, lutein + zeaxanthin, potassium, riboflavin, selenium, choline, vitamins D, A, and E. Egg consumption was associated with significantly lower daily added and total sugar intake. In contrast, consumers of eggs had reduced daily intakes of fiber, folate, and iron. Egg consumption was also linked to greater sodium, saturated and total fat intake compared to non-egg consumers.

3.3. Diet Quality Scores

The scores for total and sub-categories of Healthy Eating Index-2010 are presented in Table 3. The present analysis did not observe associations between the two egg groups when considering total diet quality, as assessed by HEI-2010. However, associations were apparent in certain sub-categories of HEI-2010. Specifically, consumption of eggs was associated with increased scores for fruits and vegetables, green beans, and total protein foods. Concurrently, egg consumption was also linked to decreased scores for whole grain and sodium consumption, implying that sodium is greater than recommended, and whole grain consumption is lower than recommended.

3.4. Sub-Analysis to Determine Intake Added Sugar, Carotenoids and Omega-3 Fatty Acids by Socio-Economic Status

In general, consumption of eggs in children and adolescents was linked to reduced daily intake for added sugar, but increased daily intake of lutein + zeaxanthin when compared to non-consumption of eggs in the defined age group. No differences were observed between daily intake of added sugar when subjects were classified as WIC participants. All egg consumers, regardless of their socioeconomic classification, had greater intake of docosahexaenoic acid relative to egg non-consumers. In all cases, except when children were classified as WIC participants, egg consumption was linked to higher α-linolenic acid daily intake when compared to non-egg consumption. In certain socioeconomic groups, but not all, egg consumers exhibited higher eicosapentaenoic acid intake compared to non-egg consumption. All results for added sugar, carotenoid and omega-3 fatty acid intake by socioeconomic status can be seen in Table 4.

3.5. Weight and Growth Measures

Table 5 provides results for weight and growth outcomes assessed. No significant differences were seen in weight and growth measures examined between egg consumers and egg non-consumers.

4. Discussion

The current NHANES analysis revealed significant associations with egg consumption in children and adolescents. A dietary pattern that includes eggs was linked with higher amounts of several nutrients, including protein, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat, α-linolenic acid, DHA, lutein + zeaxanthin, potassium, phosphorus, choline, riboflavin, selenium, choline, vitamins D, E, and vitamin A. Likewise, egg consumers had lower daily sugar intake (i.e., added and total sugar) when compared to children and adolescents not consuming eggs. Egg consumption was further associated with significantly lower daily intakes of dietary fiber, iron, and folate. The current study also showed that egg consumption was positively related with sodium intake, as well as saturated and total fat intake; thus, preparation of eggs, or foods that accompany eggs may require further investigation. In additional analyses considering socioeconomic status, the current data show benefits linked with egg consumption in this population. In general, egg consumption in children and adolescents, irrespective of food security, poverty and/or WIC status, was related with higher daily intake of lutein + zeaxanthin and DHA, and in most cases, reduced daily intake of added sugar versus the avoidance of eggs in the diet.
The present study further illustrates that choline intake is elevated in children and adolescents consuming eggs. Previous literature has documented the dietary importance of choline, largely due to choline’s relevance in physiology and metabolic activity [9,10,11,12] with several publications targeting the critical role choline plays in neuronal structures in early life [9,10,11]. While data shows that small amounts of choline can be generated endogenously, levels are not sufficient to meet physiological needs [26,27]. Most children consume less than the Adequate Intake (i.e., 550 mg for individuals greater than 4 years of age) [27,28]. A recent NHANES study showed that average choline intake in children and adolescents was approximately 256 mg per day [29]. Eggs have been identified as a leading dietary source of choline—a 50 g hard-boiled egg contributing 146.9 mg total choline or 27% of the recommended Daily Value [10]. As an example, the DGA Healthy Mediterranean-Style eating pattern recommends 5.5 oz equivalents for protein foods (not including dairy foods) within 1600 kcal daily [8]. If allowing for other protein-rich foods, including seafood, meat, poultry, nuts/seeds, etc., and adding two large 50 g eggs (2 oz equivalents) daily to the dietary pattern, a child’s daily choline intake would be approximately 295 mg, representing over 50% of the Adequate Intake for choline [10]. Additionally, since a large egg contributes a good source of dietary DHA [10], consuming 2 eggs daily would represent a DHA intake meeting 24% of EFSA’s daily recommendation for individuals 2-18 years-old (250 mg DHA) [14]. An EFSA expert panel noted a cause and effect mechanism in early brain and nervous system development during infancy and childhood with DHA intake resulting in the approval of claims for food marketing purposes [14].
Our previously published data also verified that consumption of eggs in infants and toddlers was related with increased daily nutrient intake relative to infants consuming no eggs in their dietary pattern [16]. Indeed, infants consuming egg had significantly higher daily intake of protein, α-linolenic acid, DHA, phosphorus, selenium, choline, lutein + zeaxanthin, and vitamin B12. Infants consuming eggs also had significantly reduced added and total sugar intake compared to non-consumers. However, infant egg consumption was also associated with lowered daily intakes of vitamins D, A, and E, in addition to reduced daily intake of three shortfall nutrients [7,8], including iron, potassium and dietary fiber. This may imply that other food groups, including grain foods, dairy foods, fruits and vegetables, may be key additions to early life eating patterns. Like the current data, the infant/toddler study showed that egg consumption was associated with higher saturated fat and sodium intake. While not investigated in the current study, foods that traditionally accompany eggs, including bacon and sausages, may be contributing to the increased sodium intake in the dietary pattern. This may imply the cooking methods involved with preparing and serving eggs and higher sodium foods that accompany eggs, may require additional scientific evaluation. Further investigation in this area is recommended, particularly with the release of a new report in older adults that showed higher consumption of cholesterol or eggs was associated with a small increase in CVD and all-cause mortality [30]. However, the study did not consider foods often consumed with eggs, including higher added sugar-, saturated fat-, and sodium-containing foods, like bacon, sausages, pancakes, waffles, and syrups.
Also aligned to the infant and toddler data, the current analysis in children and adolescents showed that eggs, as part of a dietary pattern, was not related with HEI, a measure of diet quality. Nevertheless, consumption of eggs in children and adolescents was associated with several HEI sub-categories, of which included, higher values for total fruits and vegetables, beans, and protein foods, but reduced scores for whole grains and total dairy consumption. Sodium scores were reflective of greater sodium intake in children and adolescents consuming eggs, suggesting that preparation of eggs and/or the types of foods that accompany egg meals (i.e., omelets with high-sodium foods including bacon) may need further investigation.
Further, in our current analysis, we did not observe associations with egg or non-egg consumption in several growth outcomes, including overweight, obesity, body weight, standing height or recumbent length. As previously discussed, while protein intake was elevated in children and adolescents consuming eggs, growth and development are multifactorial, thus numerous variables within a dietary pattern can impact such health outcomes [16].
Our analysis involving socioeconomic status revealed associations, such that greater daily lutein + zeaxanthin intake was linked to egg consumption, thus emphasizing the critical dietary role eggs can play with eye health in this population. In most cases, egg consumption was associated with reduced daily intake of added sugar relative to non-egg consumers, suggesting that increased egg consumption in children and adolescents may serve to help this population reduce added sugars in the diet through food selection, thus aligning with DGA recommendations. All egg consumers, regardless of their socioeconomic classification, had greater intake of docosahexaenoic acid relative to egg non-consumers. Additionally, except when children were classified as WIC participants, egg consumption was associated with higher intake of α-linolenic acid. Previous work has discussed how diet quality disproportions may potentially be linked to the higher costs of healthier dietary patterns [31], thus, from an economical perspective, eggs may offer nutrient density at a reasonable cost [32].
As has been documented previously in similar research methods [16], the current study has limitations inherent in observational research. NHANES provides a unique tool to researchers in that it offers a large cross-sectional database that pools together sophisticated, in-person interviews with validated physical and biochemical examinations. Limitations include memory recall bias with the 24-hour dietary recall; however, procedures are in place to reduce and minimize error introduction into the dataset. Further strengths and limitations have been previously published and discussed [33,34,35].

5. Conclusions

This data represents the first study in US children and adolescents to demonstrate nutrient intake associations when comparing egg consumption to non-consumption within a dietary pattern. Egg intake in this population was associated with increased daily intake of protein, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat, α-linolenic acid, DHA, lutein + zeaxanthin, choline, potassium, phosphorus, selenium, riboflavin, vitamins D, A, and E. Likewise, egg consumers had lower daily sugar intake (i.e., added/total sugar) when compared to children and adolescents not consuming eggs. Several shortfall nutrients were associated with egg consumption, including reduced daily intakes of dietary fiber, iron, and folate, concurrently with greater daily intake of sodium, total and saturated fat, suggesting that future research may need to evaluate the contribution of mixed egg meals and the type of foods accompanying eggs in the diet. In additional analyses considering socioeconomic status, the current data show benefits linked with egg consumption in this population. In general, egg consumption in children and adolescents, irrespective of food security, poverty income ratio and/or WIC status, was linked with elevated daily lutein + zeaxanthin and DHA intake, and in most cases, reduced added sugar intake. The present study further illustrates an opportunity to communicate the benefits linked with egg consumption to individuals that influence children and adolescents, including parents, school nutrition organizations, educators, and dietary guideline advisory committees globally.

Author Contributions

V.L.F. and Y.P. were responsible for the intellectual conception and interpretation of the research; V.L.F. generated the design of the research study and completed the final analysis; Y.P. drafted the manuscript, and both Y.P. and V.L.F. provided final editing of the manuscript. Both Y.P. and V.L.F. approved the final draft of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Egg Nutrition Center, Rosemont, IL, USA.

Acknowledgments

The current analysis was supported by the Egg Nutrition Center (ENC).

Conflicts of Interest

ENC had no input into the intellectual conceptualization and design of the present analysis and overall study; in the gathering, analysis, or data interpretation; in drafting any version of the manuscript, and in the final decision to publish the study and data. Y.P., as VP of Nutritional Strategies, collaborates with food, dietary supplements and beverage companies on various food, nutrition and regulatory affairs projects. Y.P. and V.L.F. regularly collaborate on analyses involving the NHANES database. V.L.F., as SVP of Nutrition Impact, collaborates with food, dietary supplement and beverage companies on numerous nutrition research studies, including publishing study findings involving analyses of the NHANES database.

References

  1. American Heart Association, Committee on Nutrition. Diet and Heart Disease; American Heart Association: Dallas, TX, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
  2. McNamara, D.J. The Fifty Year Rehabilitation of the Egg. Nutrients 2015, 7, 8716–8722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Fernandez, M.L.; Calle, M. Revisiting dietary cholesterol recommendations: does the evidence support a limit of 300 mg/d? Curr. Atheroscler. Rep. 2010, 12, 377–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. McDonald, B.E. The Canadian experience: why Canada decided against an upper limit for cholesterol. J. Am. Nutr. 2004, 23, 616S–620S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. McDonald, B.E. Dietary Fat and Cholesterol: Lessons from the Past Decade. NIN Review; National Institute of Nutrition: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  6. Gray, J.; Griffin, B. Eggs and dietary cholesterol - dispelling the myth. Nutr. Bull. 2009, 34, 66–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Available online: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/pdfs/scientific-report-of-the-2015-dietary-guidelines-advisory-committee.pdf address (accessed on 1 May 2019).
  8. United States Department of Health and Human Services and United States Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015–2020, 8th ed.; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. Available online: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/2015-2020_Dietary_Guidelines.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2019).
  9. Iannotti, L.L.; Lutter, C.K.; Bunn, D.A.; Stewart, C.P. Eggs: The uncracked potential for improving maternal and young child nutrition among the world’s poor. Nutr. Rev. 2014, 72, 355–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service USDA Food Composition Databases, USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (Release 29, Released September 2015, Revised April 2018). Food Group: Dairy and Egg Products: Reference No. 01123, Egg, Whole, Raw, Fresh. Available online: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/ (accessed on 17 March 2019).
  11. United States Institute of Medicine Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenic Acid, Biotin, and Choline; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
  12. Lutter, C.K.; Iannotti, L.L.; Stewart, C.P. Cracking the egg potential during pregnancy and lactation. Sight Life 2016, 30, 75–81. [Google Scholar]
  13. Sheppard, K.W.; Cheatham, C.L. Omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid intake of children and older adults in the U.S.: dietary intake in comparison to current dietary recommendations and the Healthy Eating Index. Lipids Heal. 2018, 17, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to DHA and contribution to normal brain development pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA J. 2014, 12, 3840. Available online: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3840 (accessed on 31 January 2019).
  15. Mares, J. Lutein and Zeaxanthin Isomers in Eye Health and Disease. Annu. Nutr. 2016, 36, 571–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Papanikolaou, Y.; Fulgoni, V.L. Egg Consumption in Infants is Associated with Longer Recumbent Length and Greater Intake of Several Nutrients Essential in Growth and Development. Nutrients 2018, 10, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Analytic and Reporting Guidelines. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/analyticguidelines.aspx (accessed on 7 January 2019).
  18. Ahuja, J.K.A.; Montville, J.B.; Omolewa-Tomobi, G.; Heendeniya, K.Y.; Martin, C.L.; Steinfeldt, L.C.; Anand, J.; Adler, M.E.; LaComb, R.P.; Moshfegh, A.J. USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies, 5.0–Documentation and User Guide; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Food Surveys Research Group: Beltsville, MD, USA, 2012.
  19. Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (FNDDS). U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Library. Food Service Research Group. Beltsville, MD. Available online: https://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/food-and-nutrient-database-dietary-studies-fndds (accessed on 23 February 2019).
  20. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service. Food Service Research Group. Beltsville, MD. What We Eat in America, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Overview, 2011–2014: Data Collection. Available online: https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeast-area/beltsville-md-bhnrc/beltsville-human-nutrition-research-center/food-surveys-research-group/docs/wweianhanes-overview/ (accessed on 23 February 2019).
  21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013–2014. Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies. Dietary Interview—Total Nutrient Intakes, First Day (DR1TOT_H). 2016. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2013-2014/DR1TOT_H.htm (accessed on 23 February 2019). [Google Scholar]
  22. Raper, N.; Perloff, B.; Ingwersen, L.; Steinfeldt, L.; Anand, J. An overview of USDA’s dietary intake data system. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2004, 17, 545–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Moshfegh, A.J.; Rhodes, D.G.; Baer, D.J.; Murayi, T.; Clemens, J.C.; Rumpler, W.V.; Paul, D.R.; Sebastian, R.S.; Kuczynski, K.C.; Ingwersen, L.A.; et al. The USDA Automated Multiple-Pass Method reduces bias in the collection of energy intakes. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 88, 324–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. United States Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service. Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Available online: https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/women-infants-and-children-wic (accessed on 17 January 2019).
  25. Guenther, P.M.; Casavale, K.O.; Reedy, J.; Kirkpatrick, S.I.; Hiza, H.A.; Kuczynski, K.J.; Kahle, L.L.; Krebs-Smith, S.M. Update of the Healthy Eating Index: HEI-2010. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2013, 113, 569–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Zeisel, S.H. Choline. In Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, 11th ed.; Ross, A.C., Caballero, B., Cousins, R.J., Tucker, K.L., Ziegler, T.R., Eds.; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2014; pp. 416–426. [Google Scholar]
  27. National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements. Choline: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals. Available online: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Choline-HealthProfessional/ (accessed on 17 March 2019).
  28. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels 2016. Available online: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/05/27/2016-11867/food-labeling-revision-of-the-nutrition-and-supplement-facts-labels (accessed on 17 March 2019).
  29. What We Eat in America, NHANES 2013–2014. Available online: https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400530/pdf/1314/Table_25_SNK_GEN_13.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2019).
  30. Zhong, V.W.; Van Horn, L.; Cornelis, M.C.; Wilkins, J.T.; Ning, H.; Carnethon, M.R.; Greenland, P.; Mentz, R.J.; Tucker, K.L.; Zhao, L.; et al. Associations of Dietary Cholesterol or Egg Consumption With Incident Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality. JAMA 2019, 321, 1081–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Darmon, N.; Drewnowski, A. Contribution of food prices and diet cost to socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and health: a systematic review and analysis. Nutr. Rev. 2015, 73, 643–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Drewnowski, A. The cost of US foods as related to their nutritive value123. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2010, 92, 1181–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ahluwalia, N.; Dwyer, J.; Terry, A.; Moshfegh, A.; Johnson, C. Update on NHANES Dietary Data: Focus on Collection, Release, Analytical Considerations, and Uses to Inform Public Policy12. Adv. Nutr. Int. J. 2016, 7, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Zipf, G.; Chiappa, M.; Porter, K.; Ostchega, Y.; Lewis, B.; Dostal, J. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Plans and operations. Vital Health Stat. 2013, 56, 1–37. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ahluwalia, N.; Herrick, K.; Paulose-Ram, R.; Johnson, C. Data needs for B-24 and beyond: NHANES data relevant for nutrition surveillance of infants and young children. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014, 99, 747S–754S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Mean variables for demographics when comparing egg non-consumers to egg consumers.
Table 1. Mean variables for demographics when comparing egg non-consumers to egg consumers.
VariableEgg Non-Consumers
Sample N = 17,030
Population N = 59,475,530
Egg Consumers
Sample N = 3299
Population N = 11,503,648
p
MeanSEMeanSE
Age (Years)10.160.079.380.17<0.0001
Gender, Male (%)50.760.6450.001.340.6088
PIR < 1.35 (%)31.981.0439.241.780.0004
1.35 ≤ PIR ≤ 1.85 (%)11.580.5610.190.890.1862
PIR > 1.85 (%)56.441.1850.571.960.0103
WIC Participant (%)14.250.6218.371.130.0014
Full Food Security (%)71.670.8968.791.570.1097
Mean = least square mean; SE = standard error; PIR = Poverty Income Ratio; WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program of Women, Infants and Children.
Table 2. Day 1 nutrient and energy intakes in egg consumers vs. egg non-consumers.
Table 2. Day 1 nutrient and energy intakes in egg consumers vs. egg non-consumers.
Energy/NutrientsEgg Non-ConsumersEgg ConsumersBetaSEp
MeanSEMeanSE
Energy (kcal)19591021522919432<0.0001
Carbohydrate (g)270.90.7248.01.6−22.81.7<0.0001
Added sugars (tsp eq)21.10.218.20.4−2.90.4<0.0001
Total sugars (g)137.50.7124.71.7−12.81.7<0.0001
Protein (g)68.40.375.50.77.10.8<0.0001
Total fat (g)72.10.278.40.66.30.7<0.0001
Total MUFA (g)26.20.128.60.32.40.3<0.0001
Total PUFA (g)14.50.115.50.21.00.2<0.0001
Total SFA (g)25.40.127.30.31.90.3<0.0001
PUFA 18:3 (Octadecatrienoic) (g)1.210.011.290.020.080.020.001
PUFA 20:5 (Eicosapentaenoic) (g)0.010.00060.020.0010.0020.0020.1194
PUFA 22:6 (Docosahexaenoic) (g)0.030.0010.060.0020.0350.002<0.0001
Cholesterol (mg)176.51.0494.66.8318.17.1<0.0001
Dietary fiber (g)13.20.112.40.2−0.80.2<0.0001
Calcium (mg)1022.07.4997.315.7−24.716.70.1426
Folate, DFE (µg)541.25.1459.68.1−81.610.1<0.0001
Iron (mg)14.50.113.60.2−0.90.20.0002
Lutein + zeaxanthin (µg)711.018.81035.549.2324.553.6<0.0001
Magnesium (mg)230.91.2229.02.4−2.02.50.4269
Niacin (mg)21.10.119.10.3−2.10.3<0.0001
Phosphorus (mg)1247.75.31328.813.281.113.4<0.0001
Potassium (mg)2215.313.92274.524.159.226.10.0257
Riboflavin (Vitamin B2) (mg)2.070.012.190.030.130.030.0001
Selenium (µg)89.70.4110.51.220.71.2<0.0001
Sodium (mg)3102.914.03305.328.2202.429.7<0.0001
Thiamin (Vitamin B1) (mg)1.570.011.450.02−0.120.02<0.0001
Total choline (mg)225.91.5402.45.1176.45.5<0.0001
Vitamin A, RAE (µg)575.66.4640.414.564.816.00.0001
Vitamin B12 (µg)5.020.055.260.120.240.140.0951
Vitamin B6 (mg)1.700.011.650.03−0.040.030.1583
Vitamin C (mg)82.41.383.32.00.92.40.7046
Vitamin D (µg)5.80.16.70.10.90.1<0.0001
Vitamin E (mg)5.90.16.60.20.70.20.0001
Zinc (mg)10.60.110.30.1−0.40.10.0079
LSMean = least square mean; SE = standard error; Beta = regression coefficient for difference between egg consumers vs. non-egg consumers; MUFA = monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA = polyunsaturated fatty acids; SFA = saturated fatty acids; vitamin D = D2 and D3; vitamin E = as α-tocopherol.
Table 3. Day 1 Healthy Eating Index-2010 (HEI) and Sub-Category Mean Scores.
Table 3. Day 1 Healthy Eating Index-2010 (HEI) and Sub-Category Mean Scores.
HEI Total & 12 HEI Sub-CategoriesEgg Non-ConsumersEgg Consumersp
MeanSEMeanSE
Total Vegetables (Category 1)2.080.022.180.050.0358
Greens and Beans (Category 2)0.570.020.740.050.0034
Total Fruit (Category 3)2.470.042.630.060.0103
Whole Fruit (Category 4)2.120.042.140.070.7418
Whole Grains (Category 5)1.940.041.650.090.0030
Total Dairy (Category 6)7.060.056.530.11<0.0001
Total Protein Foods (Category 7)3.410.024.260.03<0.0001
Seafood and Plant Protein (Category 8)1.430.031.280.080.0473
Fatty Acid Ratio (Category 9)3.790.043.750.110.7088
Sodium (Category 10)5.160.054.320.10<0.0001
Refined Grains (Category 11)5.180.056.000.11<0.0001
SOFAAS Calories (Category 12)10.180.1010.720.210.0134
Total45.390.2346.210.440.0656
Mean = least square mean; SE = standard error; Beta = regression coefficient for difference between egg consumers vs. non-egg consumers; SOFAAS = solid fats, alcohol, added sugars.
Table 4. Day 1 daily Intakes of added sugar, lutein/zeaxanthin, and omega-3 fatty acids by food security, poverty income ratio (PIR) and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) status.
Table 4. Day 1 daily Intakes of added sugar, lutein/zeaxanthin, and omega-3 fatty acids by food security, poverty income ratio (PIR) and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) status.
PopulationNutrientEgg Non-ConsumersEgg ConsumersSEp
NMeanSENMean
Food Security = HighAdded sugars (tsp eq)10,35321.10.2191417.90.4<0.0001
Food Security = HighLutein + zeaxanthin (mcg)10,353709.223.319141073.064.7<0.0001
Food Security = HighPFA 18:3 (Octadecatrienoic) (gm)10,3521.200.0119151.280.030.025
Food Security = HighPFA 20:5 (Eicosapentaenoic) (gm)10,3520.010.000819150.020.0010.034
Food Security = HighPFA 22:6 (Docosahexaenoic) (gm)10,3520.030.00119150.060.003<0.0001
Food Security = LowAdded sugars (tsp eq)626121.00.3131518.90.60.0016
Food Security = LowLutein + zeaxanthin (mcg)6261714.928.01315946.650.8<0.0001
Food Security = LowPFA 18:3 (Octadecatrienoic) (gm)62611.230.0113151.330.030.004
Food Security = LowPFA 20:5 (Eicosapentaenoic) (gm)62610.020.00113150.010.0030.9327
Food Security = LowPFA 22:6 (Docosahexaenoic) (gm)62610.030.00213150.060.003<0.0001
PIR < 1.35Added sugars (tsp eq)707920.30.3158218.90.50.0223
PIR < 1.35Lutein + zeaxanthin (mcg)7079726.324.91582937.447.1<0.0001
PIR < 1.35PFA 18:3 (Octadecatrienoic) (gm)70791.230.0115821.300.030.019
PIR < 1.35PFA 20:5 (Eicosapentaenoic) (gm)70790.020.00115820.020.0020.9048
PIR < 1.35PFA 22:6 (Docosahexaenoic) (gm)70790.030.00215820.060.003<0.0001
PIR ≥ 1.35Added sugars (tsp eq)893021.50.2150417.70.5<0.0001
PIR ≥ 1.35Lutein + zeaxanthin (mcg)8930703.323.915041102.868.8<0.0001
PIR ≥ 1.35PFA 18:3 (Octadecatrienoic) (gm)89291.200.0115051.290.030.012
PIR ≥ 1.35PFA 20:5 (Eicosapentaenoic) (gm)89290.010.00115050.020.0020.045
PIR ≥ 1.35PFA 22:6 (Docosahexaenoic) (gm)89290.030.00115050.060.003<0.0001
WIC Participant = NoAdded sugars (tsp eq)10,81521.20.2191518.10.5<0.0001
WIC Participant = NoLutein + zeaxanthin (mcg)10,815719.722.519151078.667.3<0.0001
WIC Participant = NoPFA 18:3 (Octadecatrienoic) (gm)10,8141.220.0119161.320.030.001
WIC Participant = NoPFA 20:5 (Eicosapentaenoic) (gm)10,8140.010.00119160.020.0010.3449
WIC Participant = NoPFA 22:6 (Docosahexaenoic) (gm)10,8140.030.00119160.060.003<0.0001
WIC Participant = YesAdded sugars (tsp eq)283217.60.373216.90.50.2954
WIC Participant = YesLutein + zeaxanthin (mcg)2832630.121.1732852.529.9<0.0001
WIC Participant = YesPFA 18:3 (Octadecatrienoic) (gm)28321.170.037321.220.030.1510
WIC Participant = YesPFA 20:5 (Eicosapentaenoic) (gm)28320.010.0027320.010.0020.2558
WIC Participant = YesPFA 22:6 (Docosahexaenoic) (gm)28320.020.0027320.050.003<0.0001
Mean = least square mean; SE = standard error.
Table 5. Adjusted mean (SE) weight and growth measures for egg consumers vs. egg non-consumers.
Table 5. Adjusted mean (SE) weight and growth measures for egg consumers vs. egg non-consumers.
Weight/Growth MeasuresEgg Non-Consumers Egg Consumers p
Growth VariableNLSMeanSENLSMeanSE
Overweight2,7710.140.017070.130.020.3671
Obese2,7710.180.017070.220.020.1270
Overweight or Obese2,7710.320.017070.350.030.4321
Body Weight (kg)2,80632.50.372333.50.70.1276
Standing Height (cm)2,769124.80.2706124.00.50.1706
Recumbent Length (cm)2,03396.10.160295.60.30.2363
LSMean = least square mean; SE = standard error; Data were gender combined; NHANES 2001–2012; Day 1 intakes; Covariates include age, gender, ethnicity, poverty income ratio, and energy intake (kcal).

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Back to TopTop