Next Article in Journal
College Students’ Feasibility and Acceptability of a Culinary Medicine and Wellness Class and Food Security and Eating Behaviors at a Minority-Serving Institution: A Pilot Study
Previous Article in Journal
Extra Virgin Olive Oil (EVOO) Components: Interaction with Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines Focusing on Cancer and Skeletal Muscle Biology
Previous Article in Special Issue
Should Grain-Based Staple Foods Be Included in Admonitions to “Avoid Processed and Ultra-Processed Food”?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 17
Issue 14
10.3390/nu17142335
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Consumption of Barley, Buckwheat and Quinoa in the United States: Associations with Diet and Metabolic Health

by
Namrata Sanjeevi
,
Sarah Elizabeth Stella
and
Pablo Monsivais
*
Department of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology, Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine, Washington State University, Spokane, WA 99202, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2025, 17(14), 2335; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17142335
Submission received: 29 May 2025 / Revised: 14 July 2025 / Accepted: 15 July 2025 / Published: 17 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Dietary Grains on Human Health)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Despite the health benefits of fiber intake, most Americans do not meet the dietary recommendations for this nutrient. With barley, buckwheat and quinoa containing several nutrients, including fiber, the integration of these foods into the American diet could improve diet quality and health. The purpose of this study is to examine the consumption patterns of barley, buckwheat and quinoa and its association with diet and metabolic health markers. Methods: We used National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013–2018 data. Adults who had consumed barley, buckwheat and quinoa, as determined by food codes representing these foods, in at least one of the two 24 h recalls were categorized as consumers. Due to the very low prevalence of buckwheat consumption, the associations of consumption with diet and health markers were examined only for barley and quinoa. Results: The prevalence of barley, buckwheat and quinoa consumption among US adults were 0.36%, 0.04% and 1.07%, respectively. Compared with non-consumers, barley and quinoa consumers had significantly greater diet quality and higher intakes of potassium and fiber. While barley consumption was associated with a lower body mass index, waist circumference and glycohemoglobin, quinoa consumption was associated with a lower body mass index, waist circumference, triglycerides and total cholesterol. Conclusions: In this study, we found an overall low prevalence of the consumption of barley, buckwheat and quinoa among US adults. The consumers of barley and quinoa had better dietary intake compared with non-consumers. Although better metabolic health in consumers may be explained by their overall healthier dietary patterns, understanding the barriers and facilitators to the intake of these foods could inform efforts to improve diet quality and health.

1. Introduction

Unhealthy dietary patterns are a significant contributor to the prevalence of chronic diseases in the United States (US) [1,2,3,4]. Despite the evidence supporting the role of dietary fiber in the promotion of optimal metabolic health, about 90% of the US population is estimated to fall short of meeting the recommended intake for this nutrient [5]. The microbial fermentation of dietary fiber into short chain fatty acids has been shown to regulate glucose and lipid metabolism [6]. Furthermore, the intake of dietary fiber has been associated with a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) via mechanisms such as the regulation of lipids, body weight, glucose metabolism, blood pressure and inflammation [7]. Promoting the consumption of foods rich in dietary fiber could help mitigate the burden of noncommunicable disease in the US.
The inclusion of whole grain products could facilitate the consumption of dietary fiber of all varieties; however, 98% of the US population do not meet the recommended intake for whole grains [8,9,10]. Given that barley, buckwheat and quinoa contain more fiber than refined grain products as well as certain other whole grains [11], the incorporation of these foods into the diet could be an effective way to increase dietary fiber in the US population.
Barley is a cereal grain mostly used for livestock feed and malting, with only a small portion being consumed by humans in the pearl form or as flour, despite being high in fiber and including moderate amounts of protein, calcium, phosphorous and B vitamins [12]. Buckwheat is a gluten-free, pseudocereal with a wide range of beneficial effects, potentially due to its bioactive components [13]. Quinoa is a pseudo-grain that shares some of the benefits of barley and buckwheat, while also being a rich source of antioxidants [14,15,16]. Barley, buckwheat and quinoa are known to contain high levels of dietary fiber and randomized controlled trials provide support for the beneficial effects of barley, buckwheat and quinoa consumption on CVD markers [17,18,19,20]. However, socioeconomic and structural barriers could hinder the availability, accessibility and affordability of these foods [21,22]. An understanding of the sociodemographic characteristics of consumers, the associations of consumption with metabolic health in free-living individuals, as well as the monetary costs of these foods is currently lacking.
The purpose of this study is to characterize the sociodemographic, dietary and metabolic profiles associated with the consumption of barley, buckwheat and quinoa in the US population. In addition, we examined the eating context and retail sources of these three foods, as well as their retail monetary cost, in comparison with rice.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Sources

The NHANES is a series of nationally representative, cross-sectional surveys that assesses the nutrition and health status of the noninstitutionalized civilian U.S. population [23]. We utilized 2-year NHANES cycles from 2013 to 2014 through 2017 to 2018. To obtain the cost estimates of barley, buckwheat, quinoa and rice, we used the Purchase to Plate National Average Price (PP-NAP) 2017–2018, which provides price estimates for foods reported in the dietary component of NHANES. The PP-NAP provides food prices (in US Dollars) that are the average of price data collected from grocery stores. More details on PP-NAP are provided elsewhere [24].

2.2. Study Population

Analyses examining demographic characteristics and dietary intake included adults, aged 20 years or older (n = 14,806). Analyses involving body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, glycohemoglobin (HbA1c) and total cholesterol included non-pregnant adults, aged 20 years or older (n = 14,633), whereas analyses involving other metabolic health markers included a fasting subsample of non-pregnant participants, aged 20 years or older (n = 6397). Analyses examining individual foods and sources of acquisition included only consumers of barley, buckwheat and quinoa, aged 3 years or older (n = 116 for barley; n = 17 for buckwheat; n = 192 for quinoa). Due to the use of publicly available, de-identified datasets, the current study was considered ‘not human subjects research’ and did not require IRB approval. The data collection protocol for NHANES has been approved by the National Center for Health Statistics’ Research Ethics Review Board [25]. Written informed consent was obtained from the participants, with parents or guardians providing permission for participation among children aged less than 18 years [26].

2.3. Identifying Consumers of Barley, Buckwheat and Quinoa

NHANES uses up to two 24 h dietary recalls [27] to collect dietary information from participants; for participants who completed only one 24 h recall, dietary data from one recall was used. The 24 h recalls are designed to collect detailed information on all foods and beverages consumed in the past 24 h, including estimates of the amount consumed [27]. Trained interviewers use the USDA Automated Multiple Pass Method for conducting the 24 h dietary recall. The first 24 h dietary recall is conducted in the Mobile Examination Center (MEC) and the second recall is completed by telephone 3–10 days later. Dietary intakes are self-reported by participants aged ≥12 years. For children aged 6–11 years, proxy-assisted dietary interviews are conducted, whereas 24 h recalls are collected from proxies for children aged <6 years [28].
Publicly available individual food files [29,30] and food code description files [31] were used to identify consumers of barley, buckwheat and quinoa. Food codes corresponding to barley, buckwheat and quinoa foods were identified from the food code description and ingredient list. Only two foods containing barley (i.e., oxtail soup and Puerto Rican bread) and one food containing buckwheat (i.e., injera bread) were identified based on the ingredient list. Since the barley and buckwheat content in these foods is unclear, food codes representing these foods were not used in the classification of individuals as consumers. Participants with an occurrence of food codes representing barley, buckwheat and quinoa in at least one of the two 24 h recalls were classified as consumers. All others were categorized as non-consumers. In addition, among consumers, the description of the individual barley, buckwheat and quinoa foods consumed were determined using food code description information. The source of acquisition (i.e., retail and other sources) of these foods was obtained from the individual food files.

2.4. Dietary Intake

Dietary intake variables of interest include diet quality and nutrient intake. For participants who completed two 24 h recalls, the average of the recall data was used [32,33]. When only one 24 h recall was available, data from one recall was used.
Overall dietary quality was assessed using the Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015), a measure that evaluates conformance of dietary intake to the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) [34]. The HEI-2015 consists of nine adequacy components (i.e., total fruits, whole fruits, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, total protein foods, seafood and plant proteins, and fatty acids) and four moderation components (refined grains, sodium, added sugars and saturated fat). Greater intakes of adequacy components receive higher scores, whereas moderation components are scored so that higher scores are assigned to lower intakes. Thus, higher scores in each HEI-2015 component are reflective of a greater alignment of intake with recommendations. The total HEI-2015 score is a summation of the scores for the adequacy and moderation components.
We estimated the intakes of nutrients of public health concern [35] (i.e., potassium (mg), iron (mg), calcium (mg), vitamin D (mcg) and fiber (gm)) from the NHANES data release. Fiber density was then calculated as grams per 1000 kilocalories (kcal).

2.5. Cost Estimates of Barley, Buckwheat, Quinoa and Rice

The price for 100 g of barley, buckwheat, quinoa, white rice and brown rice were obtained from the PP-NAP 2017–2018. Based on the ounce equivalents and kcal present in 100 g, we calculated the cost per ounce equivalent and cost per 100 kcal for these foods. The type of price measure could affect the understanding of which foods are more expensive [36]; thus, cost per ounce equivalent and cost per 100 kcal were both utilized in this study.

2.6. Sociodemographic and Dietary Characteristics

Sociodemographic characteristics included for the analyses were participants’ age, sex, race/ethnicity (Mexican American/Other Hispanic; non-Hispanic White; non-Hispanic Black; non-Hispanic Asian/other), education level (high school or less; some college/associate degree; college graduate or above) and family income-to-poverty-ratio.

2.7. Metabolic Health Markers

The following metabolic health markers were considered: BMI, waist circumference, HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), total cholesterol, triglycerides and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). BMI, calculated from measured height and weight, and waist circumference were obtained from participants attending the MEC. Blood specimens drawn from participants at the MEC were used to measure HbA1c [37] and total cholesterol [38]. Furthermore, a fasting subsample of participants attending the morning examination session were assessed for FPG [39] and triglycerides [40]. Due to changes in laboratory instrumentation, FPG values from NHANES 2015–2016 and 2017–2018 were matched to NHANES 2013–2014 using backward Deming’s regression [39,41,42]. LDL-C was estimated using the Friedewald equation, using total cholesterol, triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol values [40].

2.8. Statistical Analyses

Since the number of buckwheat consumers in NHANES 2013–2018 was nine, we did not examine the demographic, dietary and metabolic profiles associated with buckwheat consumption. Linear regression and chi-square tests examined the differences between consumers and non-consumers of barley and quinoa for continuous and categorical demographic characteristics, respectively. Linear regression examined the differences in dietary intake between consumers and non-consumers of barley and quinoa. Linear regression analyses examined the associations of barley and quinoa consumption with metabolic health markers in non-pregnant US adults. Analyses using BMI and waist circumference as outcomes were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level and income to poverty ratio, whereas analyses using HbA1c, FPG, LDL-C, total cholesterol and triglycerides as outcomes were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level, income-to-poverty-ratio as well as BMI. Analyses accounted for the complex survey design of NHANES, and appropriate sample weights were used.
Among consumers, frequency tables were used to obtain the distribution of individual foods, and sources of acquisition of barley, buckwheat and quinoa. All analyses were conducted in the SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) software.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Characteristics of Consumers and Non-Consumers of Barley and Quinoa

Table 1 indicates the differences in demographic characteristics between consumers and non-consumers of barley and quinoa. The proportion of barley consumers who were non-Hispanic Asians/other race and with a college degree or above was greater than the proportion of non-consumers with the corresponding race/ethnicity and education level. Barley consumption did not significantly differ by age, sex and income to poverty ratio. In contrast, quinoa consumption was more common in females compared with males and quinoa consumers had a greater income-to-poverty-ratio. The consumption of quinoa also significantly differed by race/ethnicity and education level. The proportion of quinoa consumers who were non-Hispanic white and with a college degree or above was greater than the proportion of non-consumers with the corresponding race/ethnicity and education level. For both barley and quinoa, the proportion of consumers classified as non-Hispanic black was lower than other race/ethnicity categories.

3.2. Dietary Intake of Consumers and Non-Consumers of Barley and Quinoa

Compared with non-consumers, barley and quinoa consumers had a significantly greater diet quality, as indicated by HEI-2015 total score (Table 2). Barley consumers also had significantly higher scores for all HEI-2015 components, except for greens and beans, total protein, fatty acids and refined grains. Quinoa consumers had significantly higher scores for all dietary components, except for total dairy and sodium. Significant differences in nutrient intake also were observed, such that barley consumers had significantly higher intakes of potassium, iron and fiber than non-consumers. Compared with quinoa non-consumers, consumers had significantly higher intakes of potassium and fiber.

3.3. Association of Barley and Quinoa Consumption with Metabolic Health Markers

Table 3 indicates the association of barley and quinoa consumption with metabolic health markers. While barley consumption was significantly associated with a lower BMI, waist circumference and HbA1c, its associations with FPG, LDL-C, total cholesterol and triglycerides were not statistically significant. Quinoa consumption was significantly related to a lower BMI, waist circumference, total cholesterol and triglycerides; however, its associations with other metabolic health markers were not significant.

3.4. Eating Context and Sources of Barley, Buckwheat and Quinoa

Table 4 indicates the distribution of individual foods and dishes containing barley, buckwheat, or quinoa reported by consumers. Barley soup, quinoa (without any fat) and buckwheat pancakes were the most commonly consumed foods within each of the three food categories. Table 5 indicates the distribution of retail and other sources of barley, buckwheat and quinoa acquisition. Consumers of barley, buckwheat and quinoa predominantly obtained these foods from grocery stores/supermarkets. Restaurants/fast food joints were the second most common source for these foods, whereas convenience stores represented just about 1% of the sources of barley, buckwheat and quinoa.

3.5. Cost of Barley, Buckwheat, Quinoa, Brown Rice and White Rice

Table 6 indicates that the cost estimates for quinoa and buckwheat were higher than that for barley, brown rice and white rice. Although the cost for barley was lower than that of brown rice, it was greater than the cost estimates for white rice.

4. Discussion

In this study, we found that barley, buckwheat and quinoa were sparsely consumed by US adults, with prevalences of 0.36%, 0.04% and 1.07%, respectively. The slightly higher prevalence of quinoa consumption may be attributed to the expansion of quinoa production, supply and popularity in recent years [43,44,45]. Significant differences in demographic characteristics and dietary intake were observed by consumption status, such that barley and quinoa consumers had a greater education level and diet quality compared with non-consumers. The consumption of barley and quinoa was also significantly associated with better metabolic health markers. While barley and quinoa could have independently contributed to improved diet quality and health markers in consumers, it is also possible that the consumers of these foods have an overall healthful diet and thus better metabolic health than non-consumers. Nevertheless, barley, buckwheat and quinoa are rich sources of fiber and several other nutrients [12,13,14,15], and consumers of barley and quinoa also showed significantly greater intakes of total dietary fiber. Taken together, these findings suggest that efforts to increase the consumption of these foods could be vital to improve diets and promote the health of Americans.
Compared with barley and quinoa non-consumers, a significantly greater proportion of consumers had an education level of college degree or above. Differences were also observed by race/ethnicity, such that a significantly greater proportion of barley and quinoa consumers were non-Hispanic Asian/other and non-Hispanic White, respectively. Although quinoa consumers had a higher income-to-poverty ratio than non-consumers, the income-to-poverty ratio did not significantly differ between barley consumers and non-consumers. The demographic pattern of quinoa consumption is consistent with previous research indicating greater whole grain purchasing [46] and consumption [47] among individuals of higher socioeconomic status and who were non-Hispanic White. The lack of significant difference in income-to-poverty ratio by barley consumption status may be attributed to the greater affordability of barley compared with other whole grain foods. Consistently, in this study, we found that the cost of barley was lower than buckwheat, quinoa and brown rice, and was only slightly higher than white rice. The barley consumption pattern observed among individuals from non-Hispanic Asian/other race/ethnicity may be attributed to the integration of barley as a staple food in Asian culture [48]. For both barley and quinoa, the proportion of consumers who were non-Hispanic black was lower than other race/ethnicity categories. Taken together with previous research suggesting disparities in whole grain and fiber intake among non-Hispanic Black adults [47,49], future studies could investigate the potential of increasing fiber intake in this racial/ethnic group via the incorporation of barley, buckwheat and quinoa.
The average HEI-2015 score for barley and quinoa consumers was greater than that of non-consumers of these foods. Compared with barley and quinoa non-consumers, consumers also scored higher in several HEI-2015 dietary components, such as total fruits, whole fruits, total vegetables, whole grains, seafood and plant protein and added sugar. The overall healthful intake among consumers could be attributed to sociodemographic factors, such as a greater education level, which is known to be associated with greater nutrition knowledge and improved food purchasing behaviors [50]. Furthermore, the common inclusion of barley and quinoa in soups/salads is expected to concomitantly increase the intake of vegetables, fruits and plant proteins in the diet [51,52]. We also observed that consumers had greater intakes of some shortfall nutrients, including potassium and fiber, possibly due to the healthfulness of dietary intake among barley and quinoa consumers.
In the current study, barley and quinoa consumption was significantly associated with better metabolic health markers. Specifically, barley and quinoa consumption was related to a lower BMI and waist circumference, even after adjustment for demographic characteristics. After additionally adjusting for BMI, barley consumption was associated with lower HbA1c, whereas quinoa consumption was associated with lower total cholesterol and triglycerides. These associations remained statistically significant even after adjustment for overall diet quality. For example, even after adjustment for overall diet quality, quinoa consumption was significantly associated with lower triglycerides (estimate± standard error = −15.16 ± 7.24; p-value= 0.04). Furthermore, the strength of these associations implies that the study findings are clinically meaningful. Although these findings may be explained by the overall healthier dietary patterns in consumers, they are somewhat consistent to randomized controlled trials indicating that barley and quinoa supplementation could reduce cardiovascular risk factors in adults [17,18].
We found that grocery stores/supermarkets constituted the major retail source for acquisition of barley, buckwheat and quinoa; a finding that is similar to our previous analysis examining the source of acquisition of lentils and dried peas [53]. While this result could be explained by the greater use of grocery stores/supermarkets for food purchasing among Americans [54], it could also be reflective of the reduced availability of healthful foods in convenience stores [55]. Furthermore, the greater neighborhood availability of convenience stores has been associated with lower whole grain consumption in young adults [56]. With the higher density of convenience stores in low-income neighborhoods [57], the increased availability of whole grains and plant proteins in these stores could represent an opportunity to improve the accessibility of these foods among low-income households.
The limitations of this study include the use of a cross-sectional design, which limits the inferences on causality. Possible residual confounding could have overestimated some of the study associations. Self-reported dietary intake obtained from 24 h dietary recalls could be subject to misreporting due to social desirability or recall bias [58,59] and may not be reflective of long-term intake. Furthermore, the dietary recall data does not distinguish between pearl and hulled barley, which differ in whole grain content and other nutrition properties [60]. The lack of distinction between pearl and hulled barley could have underestimated the associations of barley consumption with metabolic health markers. The low prevalence of buckwheat consumption precluded the investigation of sociodemographic and dietary differences between consumers and non-consumers. Nevertheless, the study findings are strengthened by using nationally representative data and employing two 24 h recalls, when available, for the estimations of dietary intake. To our knowledge, this is the first study to comprehensively examine the consumption patterns of barley, buckwheat and quinoa, its associations with overall dietary intake and metabolic health as well as the eating context and monetary costs of these foods.

5. Conclusions

In this nationally representative sample of US adults, we found an overall low prevalence of the consumption of barley, buckwheat and quinoa. Sociodemographic differences were observed between consumers and non-consumers of barley and quinoa, such that a significantly greater proportion of consumers had an education level of college degree or above. The consumers of barley and quinoa had better diet quality and metabolic health markers than non-consumers. The cost estimates of quinoa and buckwheat were higher than that of barley. Future research investigating the barriers, such as cost and availability, to barley, buckwheat and quinoa consumption could inform efforts to increase the intake of these foods.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.M.; methodology, N.S., P.M.; formal analysis, N.S.; investigation, N.S.; writing—original draft preparation, N.S. and S.E.S.; writing—review and editing, N.S., S.E.S. and P.M.; supervision, P.M.; funding acquisition, P.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the United States Department of Agriculture, grant number 2021-68012-35955.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Due to the use of publicly available, de-identified datasets, the current study was considered ‘not human subjects research’ and did not require IRB approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used for the study analysis were obtained from https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/default.aspx. Accessed on 20 November 2022.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
NHANESNational Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
PP-NAPPurchase to Plate National Average Price
BMIBody mass index
HbA1cGlycohemoglobin
FPGFasting plasma glucose
LDL-CLow-density lipoprotein cholesterol
MECMobile examination center
HEI-2015Healthy Eating Index 2015

References

  1. Thorndike, A.N.; Gardner, C.D.; Kendrick, K.B.; Seligman, H.K.; Yaroch, A.L.; Gomes, A.V.; Ivy, K.N.; Scarmo, S.; Cotwright, C.J.; Schwartz, M.B.; et al. Strengthening US Food Policies and Programs to Promote Equity in Nutrition Security: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2022, 145, E1077–E1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Feigin, A.S.; Anderson, K.E. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2019, 393, 1958–1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Micha, R.; Shulkin, M.L.; Peñalvo, J.L.; Khatibzadeh, S.; Singh, G.M.; Rao, M.; Fahimi, S.; Powles, J.; Mozaffarian, D.; Kiechl, S. Etiologic effects and optimal intakes of foods and nutrients for risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses from the Nutrition and Chronic Diseases Expert Group (NutriCoDE). PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0175149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Micha, R.; Peñalvo, J.L.; Cudhea, F.; Imamura, F.; Rehm, C.D.; Mozaffarian, D. Association Between Dietary Factors and Mortality From Heart Disease, Stroke, and Type 2 Diabetes in the United States. JAMA 2017, 317, 912–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. McRorie, J.W. Evidence-Based Approach to Fiber Supplements and Clinically Meaningful Health Benefits, Part 2: What to Look for and How to Recommend an Effective Fiber Therapy. Nutr. Today 2015, 50, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Cronin, P.; Joyce, S.A.; O’Toole, P.W.; O’Connor, E.M. Dietary Fibre Modulates the Gut Microbiota. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Satija, A.; Hu, F.B. Cardiovascular Benefits of Dietary Fiber. Curr. Atheroscler. Rep. 2012, 14, 505–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. United States Department of Agriculture and United States Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025, 9th ed; DietaryGuidelines.gov. December 2020. Available online: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ (accessed on 9 February 2023).
  9. Miller, K.B. Review of whole grain and dietary fiber recommendations and intake levels in different countries. Nutr. Rev. 2020, 78 (Suppl. S1), 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Good, M.; Braun, A.C.; Taylor, C.A.; Spees, C.K. US Adults Fall Short of the Dietary Guidelines for Cancer Prevention Regardless of BMI Category. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2022, 122, 1737–1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service. FoodData Central. Available online: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/index.html (accessed on 10 July 2024).
  12. Zhou, M.X. Barley Production and Consumption. In Genetics and Improvement of Barley Malt Quality; Zhang, G., Li, C., Eds.; In Advanced Topics in Science and Technology in China; Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Giménez-Bastida, J.A.; Zieliński, H. Buckwheat as a Functional Food and Its Effects on Health. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 7896–7913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Simnadis, T.G.; Tapsell, L.C.; Beck, E.J. Physiological Effects Associated with Quinoa Consumption and Implications for Research Involving Humans: A Review. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2015, 70, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Alvarez-Jubete, L.; Wijngaard, H.; Arendt, E.; Gallagher, E. Polyphenol composition and in vitro antioxidant activity of amaranth, quinoa buckwheat and wheat as affected by sprouting and baking. Food Chem. 2010, 119, 770–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Angeli, V.; Silva, P.M.; Massuela, D.C.; Khan, M.W.; Hamar, A.; Khajehei, F.; Graeff-Hönninger, S.; Piatti, C. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): An Overview of the Potentials of the “Golden Grain” and Socio-Economic and Environmental Aspects of Its Cultivation and Marketization. Foods 2020, 9, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Ho, H.V.T.; Sievenpiper, J.L.; Zurbau, A.; Mejia, S.B.; Jovanovski, E.; Au-Yeung, F.; Jenkins, A.L.; Vuksan, V. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the effect of barley β-glucan on LDL-C, non-HDL-C and apoB for cardiovascular disease risk reductioni-iv. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 70, 1239–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Karimian, J.; Abedi, S.; Shirinbakhshmasoleh, M.; Moodi, F.; Moodi, V.; Ghavami, A. The effects of quinoa seed supplementation on cardiovascular risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Phytother. Res. 2021, 35, 1688–1696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Li, L.; Lietz, G.; Seal, C. Buckwheat and CVD Risk Markers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients 2018, 10, 619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kellogg, J.A.; Monsivais, P.; Murphy, K.M.; Perrigue, M.M. High β-Glucan Whole Grain Barley Reduces Postprandial Glycemic Response in Healthy Adults—Part One of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients 2025, 17, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Gundersen, C.; Ziliak, J.P. Food Insecurity Research in the United States: Where We Have Been and Where We Need to Go. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2018, 40, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/about/index.html (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  24. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Purchase to Plate—Documentation. Updated May 2025. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/purchase-to-plate/documentation (accessed on 1 June 2025).
  25. National Center for Health Statistics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NCHS Research Ethics Review Board (ERB) Approval. 2017. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/about/erb.html (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  26. Zipf, G.; Chiappa, M.; Porter, K.S.; Ostchega, Y.; Lewis, B.G.; Dostal, J. National health and nutrition examination survey: Plan and operations, 1999–2010. Vital Health Stat. 2013, 1, 1–37. [Google Scholar]
  27. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. MEC In-Person Dietary Interviewers Procedures Manual. National Center for Health Statistics. Hyattsville, MD. 2006. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/public/2005/manuals/mec_interview.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2023).
  28. 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 Policy. Adv. Nutr. Int. Rev. J. 2016, 7, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Dietary Interview—Individual Foods, First Day (DR1IFF_J). First Published Jun 2020. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Data/Nhanes/Public/2017/DataFiles/DR1IFF_J.htm (accessed on 15 August 2023).
  30. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Dietary Interview—Individual Foods, First Day (DR2IFF_J). First Published Jun 2020. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Data/Nhanes/Public/2017/DataFiles/DR2IFF_J.htm (accessed on 15 August 2023).
  31. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Dietary Interview Technical Support File—Food Codes (DRXFCD_J). First Published Jun 2020. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Data/Nhanes/Public/2017/DataFiles/DRXFCD_J.htm (accessed on 15 August 2023).
  32. Sanjeevi, N.; Hooker, K.; Monsivais, P. Association of household food insecurity with diet quality in a nationally representative sample of United States toddlers: A cross-sectional study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2025, 121, 892–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Sanjeevi, N.; Freeland-Graves, J.H.; Sachdev, P.K. Association of loss of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits with food insecurity and dietary intake of adults and children. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 114, 683–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Krebs-Smith, S.M.; Pannucci, T.E.; Subar, A.F.; Kirkpatrick, S.I.; Lerman, J.L.; Tooze, J.A.; Wilson, M.M.; Reedy, J. Update of the Healthy Eating Index: HEI-2015. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2018, 118, 1591–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines and Online Materials. Food Sources of Select Nutrients. Available online: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/resources/2020-2025-dietary-guidelines-online-materials/food-sources-select-nutrients (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  36. Carlson, A.; Frazão, E. Are Healthy Foods Really More Expensive? It Depends on How You Measure the Price, EIB-96, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, May 2012. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=44679 (accessed on 1 June 2025).
  37. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. 2015–2016 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies. Glycohemoglobin (GHB_I). Published Sep 2017. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Data/Nhanes/Public/2015/DataFiles/GHB_I.htm (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  38. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. 2015–2016 Data Documentation, Codebook, And Frequencies. Cholesterol—Total (TCHOL_I). Published Sep 2017. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Data/Nhanes/Public/2015/DataFiles/TCHOL_I.htm (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  39. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. 2015–2016 Data Documentation, Codebook, And Frequencies. Plasma Fasting Glucose (GLU_I). Published Jun 2018. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Data/Nhanes/Public/2015/DataFiles/GLU_I.htm (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  40. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. 2015–2016 Data Documentation, Codebook, And Frequencies. Cholesterol-Low-Density Lipoprotein (LDL) & Triglycerides (TRIGLY_I). Published Jan 2019. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Data/Nhanes/Public/2015/DataFiles/TRIGLY_I.htm (accessed on 18 May 2025).
  41. Sanjeevi, N.; Freeland-Graves, J.H. Low diet quality is associated with adverse levels of metabolic health markers and clustering of risk factors in adults with type 2 diabetes. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2023, 36, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Sanjeevi, N.; Freeland-Graves, J.H. Birth weight and prediabetes in a nationally representative sample of US adolescents. Clin. Obes. 2022, 12, e12504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hinojosa, L.; Leguizamo, A.; Carpio, C.; Muñoz, D.; Mestanza, C.; Ochoa, J.; Castillo, C.; Murillo, A.; Villacréz, E.; Monar, C.; et al. Quinoa in Ecuador: Recent Advances under Global Expansion. Plants 2021, 10, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Wu, G.; Ross, C.F.; Morris, C.F.; Murphy, K.M. Lexicon Development, Consumer Acceptance, and Drivers of Liking of Quinoa Varieties. J. Food Sci. 2017, 82, 993–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Bazile, D.; Jacobsen, S.-E.; Verniau, A. The Global Expansion of Quinoa: Trends and Limits. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Dunford, E.K.; Miles, D.R.; Popkin, B.; Ng, S.W. Whole Grain and Refined Grains: An Examination of US Household Grocery Store Purchases. J. Nutr. 2022, 152, 550–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Du, M.; Mozaffarian, D.; Wong, J.B.; Pomeranz, J.L.; Wilde, P.; Zhang, F.F. Whole-grain food intake among US adults, based on different definitions of whole-grain foods, NHANES 2003–2018. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2022, 116, 1704–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Liu, X.; Reid, R.E.B.; Biehl, P.F. The prehistoric roots of Chinese cuisines: Mapping staple food systems of China, 6000 BC–220 AD. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0240930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Cifuentes, L.; O′KEefe, S. Analysis of 1999–2017 NHANES Data: Minimal Increase and Racial Disparities in U.S. Fiber Consumption Over 18 Years. Nutr. Cancer 2024, 76, 345–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. McKinnon, L.; Giskes, K.; Turrell, G. The contribution of three components of nutrition knowledge to socio-economic differences in food purchasing choices. Public Health Nutr. 2014, 17, 1814–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Lukinac, J.; Jukić, M. Barley in the Production of Cereal-Based Products. Plants 2022, 11, 3519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Hussain, M.I.; Farooq, M.; Syed, Q.A.; Ishaq, A.; Al-Ghamdi, A.A.; Hatamleh, A.A. Botany, Nutritional Value, Phytochemical Composition and Biological Activities of Quinoa. Plants 2021, 10, 2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Sanjeevi, N.; Monsivais, P. Consumption Trends and Eating Context of Lentils and Dried Peas in the United States: A Nationally Representative Study. Nutrients 2024, 16, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Chrisinger, B.W.; Kallan, M.J.; Whiteman, E.D.; Hillier, A. Where do U.S. households purchase healthy foods? An analysis of food-at-home purchases across different types of retailers in a nationally representative dataset. Prev. Med. 2018, 112, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Pulvera, R.; Hewawitharana, S.C.; Thompson, H.R.; Leung, C.W.; Gosliner, W. Availability and Quality of Healthy Foods Vary by Store Participation in SNAP and WIC in Low-Income California Neighborhoods. J. Hunger. Environ. Nutr. 2023, 19, 1165–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rummo, P.E.; Meyer, K.A.; Boone-Heinonen, J.; Jacobs, D.R., Jr.; Kiefe, C.I.; Lewis, C.E.; Steffen, L.M.; Gordon-Larsen, P. Neighborhood Availability of Convenience Stores and Diet Quality: Findings From 20 Years of Follow-Up in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study. Am. J. Public Health 2015, 105, e65–e73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Hilmers, A.; Hilmers, D.C.; Dave, J. Neighborhood Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods and Their Effects on Environmental Justice. Am. J. Public Health 2012, 102, 1644–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Hebert, J.R.; Clemow, L.; Pbert, L.; Ockene, I.S.; Ockene, J.K. Social Desirability Bias in Dietary Self-Report May Compromise the Validity of Dietary Intake Measures. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1995, 24, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Okada, E.; Nakade, M.; Hanzawa, F.; Murakami, K.; Matsumoto, M.; Sasaki, S.; Takimoto, H. National Nutrition Surveys Applying Dietary Records or 24-h Dietary Recalls with Questionnaires: A Scoping Review. Nutrients 2023, 15, 4739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Beloshapka, A.N.; Buff, P.R.; Fahey, G.C.; Swanson, K.S. Compositional Analysis of Whole Grains, Processed Grains, Grain Co-Products, and Other Carbohydrate Sources with Applicability to Pet Animal Nutrition. Foods 2016, 5, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of US adults by consumption of barley and quinoa a: NHANES 2013–2018.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of US adults by consumption of barley and quinoa a: NHANES 2013–2018.
Consumption of BarleyConsumption of Quinoa
Characteristics bNoYesNoYes
Adults (aged 20 years or older)
Age		n = 14,748
47.5 ± 0.4 		n = 58
54.6 ± 3.7		n = 14,683
47.5 ± 0.4		n = 123
44.9 ± 2.6
Sex
Male48.750.149 ***25
Female 51.349.95175
Race/ethnicity
Mexican American/Other Hispanic15.7 ***3.115.7 **9.9
Non-Hispanic White63.457.263.375.6
Non-Hispanic Black11.22.111.32
Non-Hispanic Asian/Other9.637.69.712.5
Education level
High school or less36.5 ***18.336.8 ***1.8
Some college/associate degree32.618.432.531
College graduate or above 30.963.330.767.2
Income-to-poverty-ratio2.98 ± 0.053.27 ± 0.392.97 ± 0.05 ***3.97 ± 0.17
NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, a Days 1 and 2 of 24 h dietary recall were used for participants who completed both days of diet recall; day 1 diet recall was used for other participants, b Data are represented as mean ± standard error of mean or %.
Table 2. Dietary intake of US adults by consumption of barley and quinoa a: NHANES 2013–2018.
Table 2. Dietary intake of US adults by consumption of barley and quinoa a: NHANES 2013–2018.
Consumption of BarleyConsumption of Quinoa
Characteristics bNoYesNoYes
Adults (aged 20 years or older)n = 14,748n = 58n = 14,683n = 123
Healthy Eating Index 2015 total score53.1 ± 0.37 ***62.3 ± 2.2253 ± 0.36 ***70.2 ± 1.32
HEI-2015 component scores
Total fruits2.2 ± 0.04 ***3.7 ± 0.292.2 ± 0.04 ***3.6 ± 0.23
Whole fruits2.4 ± 0.05 ***4.1 ± 0.282.4 ± 0.05 ***4.0 ± 0.20
Total vegetables3.2 ± 0.03 ***4.3 ± 0.203.2 ± 0.03 ***4.3 ± 0.16
Greens and beans2.0 ± 0.042.6 ± 0.552.0 ± 0.04 ***3.7 ± 0.30
Whole grains2.8 ± 0.06 ***4.7 ± 0.542.8 ± 0.06 ***6.2 ± 0.35
Total dairy5.2 ± 0.06 **3.8 ± 0.475.2 ± 0.064.6 ± 0.46
Total protein4.5 ± 0.024.5 ± 0.204.5 ± 0.02 ***4.7 ± 0.05
Seafood and plant protein2.9 ± 0.04 **3.9 ± 0.332.9 ± 0.04 ***4.3 ± 0.13
Fatty acid ratio4.9 ± 0.056.1 ± 0.624.9 ± 0.05 ***7.1 ± 0.36
Sodium4.1 ± 0.06 ***2.4 ± 0.384.1 ± 0.063.9 ± 0.36
Saturated fat5.6 ± 0.06 ***7.6 ± 0.555.6 ± 0.06 ***6.9 ± 0.33
Added sugar7.0 ± 0.07 ***9.0 ± 0.277.0 ± 0.07 ***9.1 ± 0.16
Refined grain6.3 ± 0.065.7 ± 0.616.3 ± 0.06 ***8.0 ± 0.33
Nutrient intake
Potassium, mg2608.73 ± 21.2 **3361.81 ± 222.132605.78 ± 21.5 ***3134.33 ± 145.71
Iron, mg14.3 ± 0.11 ***18.1 ± 0.7614.2 ± 0.1116.4 ± 1.15
Calcium, mg954.77 ± 9.10962.55 ± 41.67954.67 ± 8.98966.26 ± 65.09
Vitamin D, mcg4.6 ± 0.074.9 ± 0.54.6 ± 0.075.2 ± 0.5
Fiber, g per1000 kcal8.4 ± 0.07 ***11.9 ± 0.678.4 ± 0.07 ***12.9 ± 0.51
NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, a Days 1 and 2 of 24 h dietary recall were used for participants who completed both days of diet recall; day 1 diet recall was used for other participants, b Data are represented as mean ± standard error of mean or %.
Table 3. Association a of barley and quinoa consumption with metabolic health markers in US adults b, aged 20 years or older, NHANES 2013–2018.
Table 3. Association a of barley and quinoa consumption with metabolic health markers in US adults b, aged 20 years or older, NHANES 2013–2018.
BMIWCHbA1cFPGLDL-CTotal CholesterolTriglycerides
Estimate ± Standard Error
Barley
Non-consumers (reference category)--------------
Consumers−2.62 ± 0.82 **−6.43 ± 2.15 **−0.14 ± 0.06 *−4.70 ± 2.76−5.55 ± 7.99−13.29 ± 7.875.09 ± 26.33
Quinoa
Non-consumers (reference category)--------------
Consumers−3.29 ± 0.56 ***−9.13 ± 1.14 ***−0.03 ± 0.072.30 ± 3.63−5.97 ± 4.50−6.58 ± 3.03 *−19.19 ± 6.35 **
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. BMI, body mass index; WC, waist circumference; HbA1c, glycohemoglobin; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. a Associations of consumption with BMI and WC were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level and income-to-poverty-ratio; associations with all other metabolic health markers were additionally adjusted for BMI. b Pregnant women were excluded from the sample.
Table 4. Distribution of individual foods and dishes containing barley, buckwheat or quinoa, reported by consumers a, NHANES 2013–2018.
Table 4. Distribution of individual foods and dishes containing barley, buckwheat or quinoa, reported by consumers a, NHANES 2013–2018.
Individual Foods and DishesProportion of Occurrence (%)
Barley b
Barley soup, home recipe, canned, or ready-to-serve55.3
Barley, no added fat 17.1
Barley soup, sweet, with or without nuts, Asian Style 11.8
Barley, NS as to fat7.9
Barley, cooked, fat not added/NS as to fat added in cooking5.3
Bread, barley1.3
Bread, barley, toasted 1.3
Quinoa
Quinoa, no added fat31.6
Quinoa, NS as to fat22.2
Quinoa, fat added14.6
Quinoa, cooked, no fat added15.2
Quinoa, cooked, NS as to fat10.5
Quinoa, cooked, fat added5.9
Buckwheat
Pancakes, buckwheat50
Buckwheat groats, fat not added in cooking21.4
Buckwheat groats, NS as to fat14.3
Buckwheat groats, cooked, fat added in cooking7.1
Buckwheat groats, fat added in cooking7.1
NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; NS, not specified. a Includes consumers aged 3 years or older. b The food, ‘barley cereal, baby food’ was excluded from analyses.
Table 5. Distribution of retail and other sources of barley, buckwheat and quinoa among consumers a, NHANES 2013–2018.
Table 5. Distribution of retail and other sources of barley, buckwheat and quinoa among consumers a, NHANES 2013–2018.
Retail and Other Acquisition SourcesProportion of Occurrence (%)
Barley, buckwheat and quinoa
Grocery store/supermarket86.1
Restaurant/fast food joint5.2
From someone else/gift3.8
Mail order purchase 2.1
Convenience store1.1
Cafeteria not in a K-12 school1.1
Child/adult home care0.4
Community food program 0.4
NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. a Includes consumers aged 3 years or older.
Table 6. Cost, in US Dollars, of barley, buckwheat, quinoa, brown rice and white rice, based on Purchase to Plate National Average Prices 2017–2018.
Table 6. Cost, in US Dollars, of barley, buckwheat, quinoa, brown rice and white rice, based on Purchase to Plate National Average Prices 2017–2018.
FoodPrice per 100 GramsCost per oz eq aCost per 100 kcal a
Barley, no added fat0.10850.08970.0877
Buckwheat groats, no added fat0.35610.29500.3864
Quinoa, no added fat0.39340.32510.3278
Brown rice, NS as to fat b0.23120.19040.1888
White rice, no added fat0.08960.07340.0694
NS, not specified; oz eq, ounce equivalents. a Calculated using information on ‘Buckwheat groats, NS as to fat’ from the individual food files. b ‘Brown rice, NS as to fat’ is presented in the place of ‘Brown rice, no added fat’ as the price was more comparable to other brown rice products.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sanjeevi, N.; Stella, S.E.; Monsivais, P. Consumption of Barley, Buckwheat and Quinoa in the United States: Associations with Diet and Metabolic Health. Nutrients 2025, 17, 2335. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17142335

AMA Style

Sanjeevi N, Stella SE, Monsivais P. Consumption of Barley, Buckwheat and Quinoa in the United States: Associations with Diet and Metabolic Health. Nutrients. 2025; 17(14):2335. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17142335

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sanjeevi, Namrata, Sarah Elizabeth Stella, and Pablo Monsivais. 2025. "Consumption of Barley, Buckwheat and Quinoa in the United States: Associations with Diet and Metabolic Health" Nutrients 17, no. 14: 2335. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17142335

APA Style

Sanjeevi, N., Stella, S. E., & Monsivais, P. (2025). Consumption of Barley, Buckwheat and Quinoa in the United States: Associations with Diet and Metabolic Health. Nutrients, 17(14), 2335. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17142335

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop