Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Tartrazine on DNA Methylation, Histone Deacetylation, and Genomic Stability in Human Cell Lines
Next Article in Special Issue
Relationship Between Metabolic Age Determined by Bioimpedance and Insulin Resistance Risk Scales in Spanish Workers
Previous Article in Journal
Developing and Testing a User-Focused, Web GIS-Based Food Asset Map for an Under-Resourced Community in Northeastern Connecticut
Previous Article in Special Issue
Association Between Mediterranean Diet and Other Healthy Habits and Sociodemographic Variables with the Values of Vascular and Heart Age in Spanish Workers
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Dietary Behavioural Preferences of Spanish and German Adults and Their Translation to the Dietary Recommendations of a Personalised Nutrition App in the Framework of the Stance4Health Project

by
Daniel Hinojosa-Nogueira
1,
Beatriz Navajas-Porras
1,
Silvia Pastoriza
1,
Adriana Delgado-Osorio
1,
Ángela Toledano-Marín
1,
Sascha Rohn
2,
José Ángel Rufián-Henares
1,* and
José Javier Quesada-Granados
1
1
Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology, Biomedical Research Centre, Universidad de Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
2
Department of Food Chemistry and Analysis, Institute of Food Technology and Food Chemistry, Technische Universität Berlin, 13355 Berlin, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2025, 17(5), 912; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17050912
Submission received: 18 February 2025 / Revised: 26 February 2025 / Accepted: 4 March 2025 / Published: 6 March 2025

Abstract

:
Background/Objectives: The influence of individual differences in the selection of food portions can have a deep effect on recommendations for personalised nutrition. In addition to typical aspects such us energy density and nutrient composition, portion size is important for dietary recommendations. This study examined the dietary behaviours and portion size selection of 224 subjects in Spain and Germany to use such information to improve dietary adherence to a personalised nutrition app. Methods: An online questionnaire administered to adults in Spain and Germany collected sociodemographic data and dietary habits. The measurement of portion sizes was derived from a classification ranging from XXS to XL across 22 food groups, with assistance from a photographic atlas. Results: Significant differences across dimensions were found. Dietary habits showed that omnivores were the majority in both countries, with significant differences in the consumption of bread, desserts, and beverages. The Mediterranean diet was significantly followed by the Spanish group, reflecting cultural differences. Body mass index (BMI) was slightly higher among Germans, although both populations fell within the normal ranges. Portion size comparisons revealed statistically significant differences in the consumption of various food items between the two countries. Spaniards consumed higher amounts of rice, meat, and legumes, while Germans consumed larger portions of stews, lasagne, and pizza. These variations highlight differing dietary habits influenced by cultural preferences and dietary guidelines. Conclusions: The findings support the development of novel personalised nutrition apps that consider user preferences and enhance dietary adherence, thereby contributing to improved dietary recommendations and health outcomes.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Dietary choices are influenced by a variety of factors, including personal preferences, lifestyle, environment, socioeconomic status, and religious, or philosophical beliefs. These factors influence people’s dietary behaviours [1]. Understanding dietary habits through the identification of factors influencing food selection and the dietary status of individual behaviour is therefore vital [2]. However, maintaining an adequate nutritional status can be complicated. Dietary recommendations are often based on guidelines for large groups of healthy people. Consequently, these recommendations are very general and frequently ignore that different individuals have a wide range of responses to different dietary patterns [3,4]. The heterogeneous nutritional responses of individuals increase the need for the development of precision or personalised nutrition (PN). In recent years, advances in nutrition and food sciences have aided in the analysis and comprehension of the specific needs and dietary behaviours of each individual [5,6].
PN has great potential, particularly when combined with the power and accessibility of new technologies [7]. New dietary evaluation tools are being developed and validated using web-based tools [8]. Some examples are ASA-24 [9], or INTAKE24, which introduces additional features such as home measurements or pictures of food rations [8]. Mobile applications (apps) have been instrumental in facilitating the accurate estimation of the nutritional value of consumed foods, dietary habits, and food intake, thereby contributing to the enhancement of public health [6]. Currently, it is estimated that there are around 10,000 apps available for nutrition and diet [10]. Speak4Diet is an example of how a mobile application can use technology to empower people to improve their diet by integrating this technology into their daily lives [11]. Apps offer greater versatility and faster feedback, making them a more cost-effective option for improving healthy eating habits [12]. Therefore, apps enable rapid data analysis, which could help improve access to quality nutritional data [13].
In recent years, a proliferation of food and drink options has been observed, precipitating substantial shifts in consumption patterns, encompassing both quality and quantity [2]. As a result, making appropriate food choices is also linked to portion size control [14]. Food portion size is traditionally measured in terms of weight or volume. Although weight can be determined accurately using a scale, it is time-consuming and requires a high level of motivation from consumers [15]. More convenient would be a fast visualisation method. Several different visual methods are commonly used to estimate food consumption, such as the use of household measurements, where common objects are used to relate their size to the portions consumed [16]. Identical artificial figures of food have also been used [17]. The use of 3D-printing technology has made it more cost-effective for estimating the portion size using 3D-models [2]. Another tool for estimating food portion sizes is the use of standardised photos of food portions. This is a cost-effective and portable method that is widely considered a useful tool for estimating food portion sizes. These photos are grouped into a digital photographic food atlas [2,16,17]. Currently, thanks to new technologies, food portion estimations are continuously improving. For instance, image recognition combined with bioinformatics techniques can provide accurate estimations [6,18]. Other examples could include infrared technology or thermal cameras, which are rapidly evolving [18].
Furthermore, a multitude of additional factors have the capacity to influence dietary decisions in relation to the consumption of particular food items, the size of portions consumed, and also to affect other dietary habits [1]. Nevertheless, the issue of portion sizes remains a significant challenge in estimating and formulating dietary recommendations. In the context of PN, the development of apps to monitor, control, and manage diets has emerged as a significant advancement. However, to ensure the effective implementation of these apps, it is crucial to obtain and use precise estimations of portion sizes.
Based on this evidence, the aim of the present study was to investigate the dietary behaviour of adults from two of the countries (Germany and Spain) involved in the European research project Stance4Health [19]. The results of this study would help to understand and develop more specific tools to help with portion size recommendations and other dietary aspects, in order to improve the accuracy and suitability of the i-Diet app [20], which is the main focus of the aforementioned project.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Participants

This work is part of the Stance4Health project (https://stance4health.com/, accessed on 19 January 2025). The participants were recruited from Spain and Germany, where nutritional interventions were planned to be carried out as part of the overall project goal. No inclusion or exclusion criteria were applied, and the participants solely comprised adults from the general population, aged 18–82 years. The determination of sample size was based on a correlation-based power analysis expecting an effect size of ρ = 0.35, with an α error probability of 0.05 and a desired statistical power (1 − β) of 0.95. With a target population of 200 participants per country, as established in the European S4H project, the finite population correction was applied [21], resulting in a need to recruit approximately 66 people per country. This strategy was developed to optimise the balance between logistical feasibility and the desired accuracy in detecting changes in consumption habits in the Spanish and German populations, serving as a foundation for the subsequent personalised nutrition study. The recruitment process involved an online questionnaire, which was distributed through social media and via the networks of the researchers in charge per country. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Granada (protocol code 1080/CEIH/2020) and all subjects voluntarily participated in the study. The data were processed as specified in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 “General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)”, and the Declaration of Helsinki on research ethics was followed. To ensure participant anonymity, the collected data were anonymised.

2.2. Dietary Behaviours and Questionnaire Construction

The developed questionnaire included personal characteristics such as age, weight, height, and socioeconomic information. Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated using the formula (kg/m2). In addition, the questionnaire asked about dietary behaviours such as eating alone or eating bread with meals or drinking and the type of drinks consumed, among other relevant information. To determine whether the dietary patterns were similar between both populations, the 13-questions questionnaire on adherence to the Mediterranean diet (AMD) was also used, which was a modified version that does not consider alcoholic beverages [22]. Good AMD was defined as a score of 8 points or more [22]. The questionnaire was developed and provided online through Google Forms.
The creation of the questions regarding portion size was conducted through the integration of diverse tools, including food frequency questionnaires, food consumption patterns in Spain and Germany, data from the photographic food atlas, and culinary techniques and portion sizes detailed in recipes [16,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. The standard food sizes were defined according to the methodology established in some photographic food atlases [15,32]. In order to standardise portion sizes, six different images were used. The food photographs were obtained from a previously validated photographic food atlas [17,33,34,35].
Food portions were presented from left to right in the order of size, from small to large, or in the order of weight, from light to heavy. The sizes were assigned ranging from XXS, XS, S, M, L, and XL, obtaining a more understandable methodology for the subjects [36]. Food selection was generalised for the choice of food photos to estimate equivalent food. The study summarised and classified the consumption size images of different food groups and dishes in diverse conditions and with various tableware into 22 categories based on food type and size (Table 1). For instance, a salad with green leaves was used as an example, which can be applied to different types of salads. This allows users to select a portion size for each category according to their preferences.

2.3. Data Statistical Analysis

The collected data comprised both quantitative and qualitative variables. Data were presented as percentages or as means and standard deviations. To explore these categorical variables, specific statistical analyses were used. Tests of association, such as the Chi-square test, were used to assess the relationship between variables. In specific cases, categorical variables were coded, such as part of the MANOVA analysis, which was used to examine differences in multivariate proportions to determine if there were significant differences between groups. For quantitative variables, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to analyse the data, followed by Spearman correlations to assess the associations between the different variables. The statistical differences between the groups were evaluated according to the Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis test. The SPSS 26.0 statistical software was used to analyse the data. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Graphics were generated using the Python 3.7 module. The calculation of statistical power was carried out using G*Power software (version 3.1.9.7).

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Subjects and Dietary Habits

The study comprised a total of 224 participants, with ages ranging from 18 to 80 years in Spain and from 20 to 82 years in Germany (Table 2). The average age was 35.4 years. Of the participants, 38% were Spanish and 62% were from Germany. The study included 77 men and 147 women, 97.3% of whom were European (Spanish or German nationality) and the remaining nationalities residing in Spain or Germany. Of the participants, 18% reported allergies or food intolerances. The most common allergies were towards dairy products and nuts. Some allergies to fruit peel and plant lipid transfer proteins (LTP), or intolerances to additives were also identified among the participants.
A total of 81.3% of surveyed participants completed higher education and 15.6% declared having only secondary education. For the rest, primary education studies were declared. Of those surveyed, 59.8% were employed, with 11.6% working part-time. A total of 36% of the participants were studying, while only 3.6% and 0.9% were retired or unemployed, respectively. The survey results show that 52.7% of the participants were single. Additionally, 37.5% of the participants lived with their family, 28.1% with their partner, and 15.6% lived alone, while 18.3% declared that they lived with friends. In terms of housing, 49.5% of the participants lived in rented accommodation while 42% owned their own home. Furthermore, 74.9% of the participants reported living in urban areas, while the remaining participants reported living in rural areas. In total, 10% of the total population were vegan or vegetarian (all from Germany).
Regarding dietary behaviour, 72% of the participants ate in company. In general, 89.7% used spices, which was significantly higher in the Spanish cohort. Furthermore, 84.4% of the participants preferred a single dish. Significant differences were observed between countries, with only 28% of participants in Spain choosing other options, such as a menu with several dishes, compared to 9% in Germany. In total, 62% of participants eat desserts daily or regularly. In addition, 44% of participants did not consume bread during meals, while close to 95% consumed some kind of drink during meals. When examining data by country, it is interesting to note that in Spain, 81% of participants drank water and only 19% drank other beverages. In Germany, this percentage changes, with 54% drinking water, 29% drinking sparkling water, and the rest reporting other drinks. Related to lifestyle, 76% reported engaging in light or moderate physical activity. On average, the participants had a height of 171 cm and a weight of 70.7 kg, with a mean BMI of 23.8 ± 4.3 (kg/m2). Statistically significant differences were found between BMI in men (24.8 kg/m2) and women (23.3 kg/m2) (p-value: 0.008). The mean score for adherence to the Mediterranean diet (AMD) was 7.4 ± 2.5, indicating generally low adherence (especially among German respondents). Statistically significant differences were found between the AMD of the Spanish and German populations (Figure 1) (p-value: 0.001). Significant correlations between BMI, age, and AMD were found (Figure 2), suggesting that young people in particular had higher AMD and lower BMI.

3.2. Portion Size Results

Table 1 shows the portion size for each food referenced in the survey [36]. According to the type of food, portion sizes of XXS, XS, S, M, L, and XL were assigned and were adapted to the usual weight or volume for that food. Thus, Table 3 shows a summary of the mean results per country found in this study. In general, Spanish participants tend to have a higher average consumption of several food categories compared with the German participants. For instance, Spaniards showed higher average consumption of rice, meat, legumes, and fruit portions. On the other hand, Germans exhibited higher consumption of pizza, lasagne, and stews. Both countries had similar consumption levels for beverages, raw vegetables, breakfast cereals, (green) salads, cooked vegetables, fruits, pasta, fish, soups, and cakes. These results reflect differences in dietary preferences and habits between the populations of Germany and Spain (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.478, p < 0.01), indicating that certain foods are more popular or consumed in larger quantities in one country compared to the other.
The gender distribution revealed a preponderance of female participants in both countries, with a particularly pronounced female representation in Germany. The findings indicated a significant impact of gender on the selection of food portion sizes in total (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.704, p < 0.01) and across different food groups. Figure 3 shows the most frequently selected trends for each group and a mean of the trends by gender, highlighting significant differences. In general, men selected larger portion sizes than women, with the exception of raw vegetables.
In addition, other factors were analysed, but no clear significant differences were found, such as by type of employment or education level.

4. Discussion

4.1. Dietary Behaviour of the Subjects and Comparative Portion Size Estimation

The present study examined the influence of individual differences on food portions selection. These discrepancies can be largely attributed to the presence of similar or distinct attributes within the Spanish and German populations across multiple dimensions, as illustrated in Table 2.
The results obtained demonstrate statistically significant differences between the two genders (Figure 3). This difference may be due to men having a higher energy demand than women, or to the fact that for some food groups such as meat, these women consume less but consume more vegetables than men [37]. In addition, women were more frequently able to estimate the correct portion size from images than men [29], which is in line with other studies were men had more difficulties estimating the correct portion size [38].
The cohort from Spain was significantly younger (average age of 26.3 years) than that from Germany (average age of 40.8 years), which may have influenced other variables such as habits and living conditions [39]. The results indicated significant variations in the selection of food portion sizes depending on the consumer’s age. This may be because younger people consume more ultra-processed foods [40], or that young people have a greater ability to estimate portion size than older adults [39].
Table 2 illustrates the differences in body mass index (BMI) between the two groups. While both groups had an average BMI within the normal range, the German cohort exhibited a slightly higher BMI than the Spanish cohort. The statistically significant differences observed in BMI values suggest that there are variations that may be influenced, and this should be taken into account when evaluating the choice of food portion size [38]. Studies suggest that factors such as BMI, the perceived healthiness, or the energy density of the product may play a significant role. For example, foods that are perceived to be satiating were chosen in larger portions, whereas in some cases foods that are perceived to be more energy-dense were chosen in smaller portions, in line with the idea that portion size is important for weight maintenance or even loss [38]. The results of this study are consistent with the above, showing that in some cases BMI is a relevant factor in the selection of some food groups, such as vegetables. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that factors such as low income and rural origin have a significant impact on disparities. However, these factors do not attain statistical significance in the present study. In these cases, food photographs presented in standardised portion sizes are essential for a correct estimation [41].
As shown in Table 3, a comparison of food consumption between German and Spanish groups revealed several statistically significant differences in portion sizes for various food items. In Germany, the average consumption of rice was (127.43 ± 60.96 g), while in Spain it was higher (165.42 ± 83.85 g). Similarly, meat consumption was higher in the Spanish cohort (202.90 ± 81.65 g) compared to the German one (175.66 ± 75.77 g). Notably, Germans had a statistically significant higher portion size for stews (372.79 ± 127.04 g) and lasagne (402.66 ± 89.62 g) than Spaniards (318.64 ± 123.26 g) and (350.80 ± 112.04 g), respectively. On the other hand, Spanish participants had a higher intake of legumes (314.88 ± 112.03 g) compared to Germans (243.48 ± 105.75 g). Additionally, Germans ate significantly larger portions of pizza (481.39 ± 174.19 g) compared to Spaniards (353.23 ± 171.75 g), and similarly for sliced fruit (160.14 ± 48.72 g) in Germany vs. (176.91 ± 33.36 g) in Spain. These differences highlight varying dietary habits between the two countries, with some foods consumed at larger quantities in one country than in the other. These disparities may be influenced by cultural preferences, dietary guidelines, and lifestyle factors specific to each country [42]. Considering the differences in food choices between countries (Figure 4), the results showed that German subjects chose larger portion sizes for dishes such as stews and potatoes, which could be explained by their traditional food consumption [31].
The German population also tended to consume more ultra-processed products, which could explain why larger sizes of foods such as lasagne or pizza are chosen [43]. In contrast, individuals in Spain tended to consume larger portions of fruits and vegetables, which may be attributed to their adherence to a Mediterranean dietary pattern [42]. Consistent with other studies, the Spanish cohort exhibited significantly higher adherence to the Mediterranean diet compared to the German participants (Figure 1) [42]. Significant differences were observed in populations with high adherence to the Mediterranean diet in terms of larger portion sizes for foods such as various fruits and legumes, which can be attributed to the fact that these foods constitute the fundamental elements of the Mediterranean diet [22]. In terms of dietary habits, omnivores comprise the majority of the participants, with frequent use of spices, especially in Germany. Bread and dessert consumption varied, with bread consumption more frequent in Spain and non-dessert consumption more common in Germany. Water was the preferred beverage in both countries, with notable consumption of sparkling water in Germany. The results of this selection are indicative of a cultural phenomenon and an evolution of dietary habits [31].
In general, intermediate portion sizes were the most frequently chosen, which were designed to align with typical consumption sizes [23,27,29]. This trend was not followed by raw vegetables, nuts, and cakes (Figure 3). This is consistent with validation studies of the photographic atlas, where participants selected the image of the correct or adjacent portion size [29]. This confirms that the assigned average portion sizes and images were appropriate, except for some of the foods.
Possible explanations exist for why some groups did not follow the trend. For instance, smaller portion sizes are often overestimated [29], or there is often a decrease in portion sizes of unhealthy foods [44]. For example, this was reflected in cakes or pies, where poor concordance results were obtained, which could justify the findings of the present results [29]. Although some studies claim that plate size does not affect estimation, in some cases, when the large plate size was used, subjects increased their vegetable portion [38]. Furthermore, external factors have been demonstrated to exert influence over the selection and consumption of food portions. Such factors include the price-quality ratio, mindless eating, and biases. To illustrate this point, the bias of considering a food as a unit can lead to consuming a portion regardless of food size. Similarly, dividing food into smaller units has been found to reduce the amount of food that people could eat [38].
In recent years, there has been a global increase in the size of food portions, particularly in high-calorie foods. This phenomenon highlights a certain complicity on the part of the food industry [38]. This trend is also visible in home-cooked meals, as evidenced by the evolution of cookbooks and restaurant menus [38]. In the context of food portion classification, the terms ‘XXL’ and ‘S’ typically refer to extra-large and small portion sizes, respectively. In the food sector, these portion classifications are frequently employed to standardise portion sizes and assist consumers in selecting more practical portion sizes [38,45]. For example, in the context of fast food or restaurant meals, this is frequently observed [38,45]. Therefore, the same methodology as used in the Vietnamese atlas was chosen, allowing recipes to be tabulated with portion sizes for each meal: (XXS–XL). This study involved six portions, because research has shown that using an impartial number of portions can cause respondents to be biased towards the intermediate portion [33]. The results suggest that, in general, the tendencies of each subject tend to be similar and that people who choose large sizes will choose most products. This may help to create a tool that provides appropriate sizes for each subject. Smaller sizes were chosen as the study focuses on healthy nutrition and larger sizes are not recommended. Additionally, smaller sizes could be useful for extrapolation to the child population [32,35].

4.2. Essential Features to Enhance the Usability and Accuracy of the i-Diet App

The application of new technologies has resulted in notable advancements in dietary research, demonstrating that their efficacy is comparable or superior to that of traditional methods [12]. In recent years, mobile applications have become a useful tool for recording dietary intake. Speak4Diet is an example of such an application, which uses artificial intelligence to analyse and track dietary habits. However, mobile app-based dietary monitoring and recommendations have limitations. Users may find it tedious and adherence might be low [11]. Considering food preferences in a personalised nutrition app becomes essential. The study’s findings will contribute to the development of modules and tools designed to enhance the user experience in terms of personalisation, with a particular emphasis on portion size.
Based on the results obtained, being able to choose the bread and beverage consumption and choice separately on the menu proposed by the i-Diet app could help increase dietary adherence [20]. The same could be applied to the choice of one or more dishes, or the decision to eat a dessert or not. Depending on the country or other factors, the decisions may vary, so offering free choice to the user will play a key role in the use of a personalised nutrition app, contributing to the user’s empowerment and autonomy [46]. In the culinary context, spices have been observed to be utilised in a variety of ways, suggesting a potential for their incorporation into novel culinary preparations. However, it should be noted that recipes are typically predetermined, thereby diminishing their relevance in relation to other variables in the context of a more precise personalisation. Therefore, specific modules or shortcuts were incorporated into the app to take into account user behaviour and offer a more personalised experience.
Considering allergies and intolerances is critical due to their potential adverse effects; thus, in addition to the commonly reported allergens, an “allergies” category was also added to i-Diet to allow the user to exclude other foods from the menu generation process [20]. In view of the findings, it is recommended that specific categories, such as additives, LTP, or further well-known, controversially discussed compounds, be introduced to facilitate the process for users.
The Mediterranean diet was proposed as a basis due to its health properties and the results obtained. Usually, Spanish people have a higher adherence to the Mediterranean diet, but in Germany there were people who used olive oil frequently and adopted certain Mediterranean eating habits. Consequently, the application was developed on the basis of this fundamental dietary model, proposing culinary creations that would enhance adherence to the Mediterranean diet while preserving the distinct characteristics of the country in which the application is implemented.
The study results allowed for a comparison with estimated typical food consumption and provided a more precise average range for classifying portion sizes for each subject. The study results showed that some food groups, such as cakes, vegetables, and nuts, did not meet the expected average portion sizes. Additionally, in some groups, there were clear differences between countries, ages, and genders. In fact, the simple indication of portion sizes, widely used in other food concepts, showed positive results and the use of XXS–XL sizes now consolidated in the i-Diet app [20]. This information will help to minimise portion size issues associated with the use of the app. Furthermore, the results facilitated the integration of a module into the project’s app, enabling subjects to select their portion size range (from S to XL, including food photographs from the previously validated photographic food atlas) more quickly and accurately. This should help to improve future dietary recommendations based on these portion size ranges.

4.3. Study Limitations

The present study is subject to some limitations that must be taken into consideration. Firstly, the sample, although composed of 224 participants, is not designed to establish generalisations about the findings for both countries; rather, it is intended to be used as a starting point for the development of more precise nutrition strategies. Secondly, despite efforts to make the population groups as homogeneous as possible, it only collected responses from a limited group of people, and there are demographic differences between the two groups, with the Spanish sample having an average age that is notably younger. Furthermore, it is important to note that additional factors, such as physiological status and economic viability, may also influence dietary intake and portion sizes. However, the present study is specifically focused on the influence of geographic location, gender, age, and weight on dietary habits. The employment of an online questionnaire, though widely utilised and validated, is susceptible to self-report bias. The visual perception of food portions is subject to variation, and the methodology provides only an instantaneous assessment of eating habits, lacking longitudinal follow-up.

5. Conclusions

Significant differences in dietary behaviour and portion size selection between the studied populations of Spain and Germany were observed. The Spanish cohort was younger and showed a higher incidence of other intolerances, whereas the German cohort had a higher employment rate and more married individuals. In both countries, most people were omnivores, although bread and dessert consumption were more common in Spanish participants. The Mediterranean diet was mostly followed in the Spanish group, reflecting cultural differences in eating habits. The body mass index (BMI) was slightly higher in Germans, although it was within normal ranges. Portion size comparisons revealed significant differences in the consumption of various foods between the two countries. The Spanish participants consumed more rice, meat, and legumes, while Germans had larger portions of stews, lasagne, and pizza. These differences highlight distinct dietary habits influenced by cultural preferences and dietary guidelines. The findings of this study demonstrate the potential for the development of personalised nutrition apps that take into account user preferences, with the objective of increasing dietary adherence. Consequently, this will facilitate more accurate dietary recommendations and improve health outcomes. The study provided detailed information on the dietary habits and preferences of the adult population in Spain and Germany, which has enabled the optimisation of the i-Diet app. The findings of this study have enabled the i-Diet app to offer users greater choice and empower them in their decision-making processes, thereby facilitating improved adherence to the dietary recommendations set out in the project’s intervention study. Therefore, this methodology could be useful in a general context, reflecting the diversity of people who could use a personalised nutrition app.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.R. and J.Á.R.-H.; methodology, B.N.-P., S.P., A.D.-O. and J.J.Q.-G.; software, D.H.-N.; validation, D.H.-N., B.N.-P. and J.J.Q.-G.; formal analysis, D.H.-N. and Á.T.-M.; investigation, D.H.-N., B.N.-P., S.P., A.D.-O., Á.T.-M. and J.Á.R.-H.; data curation, Á.T.-M. and J.J.Q.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, D.H.-N.; writing—review and editing, S.R., J.Á.R.-H. and J.J.Q.-G.; visualisation, J.Á.R.-H.; supervision, J.J.Q.-G.; project administration, J.Á.R.-H.; funding acquisition, J.Á.R.-H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the European Research Commission (Research Executive Agency) under the research project Stance4Health (Grant Contract No. 816303) to José Á. Rufián-Henares.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved in Spain by the Ethics Committee of the University of Granada (Date 10 June 2020, Decision number 1080/CEIH/2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request.

Acknowledgments

This work will be a part of the doctoral thesis of Daniel Hinojosa-Nogueira conducted within the context of the ‘Program of Nutrition and Food Sciences’ at the University of Granada.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Gracia-Arnaiz, M. Eating Issues in a Time of Crisis: Re-Thinking the New Food Trends and Challenges in Spain. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 116, 1179–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bradley, J.; Rowland, M.K.; Matthews, J.N.S.; Adamson, A.J.; Spence, S. A Comparison of Food Portion Size Estimation Methods among 11–12 Year Olds: 3D Food Models vs. an Online Tool Using Food Portion Photos (Intake24). BMC Nutr. 2021, 7, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lillford, P.; Hermansson, A.-M. Global Missions and the Critical Needs of Food Science and Technology. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 111, 800–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ververis, E.; Ackerl, R.; Azzollini, D.; Colombo, P.A.; de Sesmaisons, A.; Dumas, C.; Fernandez-Dumont, A.; da Costa, L.F.; Germini, A.; Goumperis, T. Novel Foods in the European Union: Scientific Requirements and Challenges of the Risk Assessment Process by the European Food Safety Authority. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Alabduljabbar, S.; Zaidan, S.A.; Lakshmanan, A.P.; Terranegra, A. Personalized Nutrition Approach in Pregnancy and Early Life to Tackle Childhood and Adult Non-Communicable Diseases. Life 2021, 11, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Torres, N.; Tovar, A.R. The Present and Future of Personalized Nutrition. Rev. Investig. Clín. 2021, 73, 321–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sempionatto, J.R.; Montiel, V.R.-V.; Vargas, E.; Teymourian, H.; Wang, J. Wearable and Mobile Sensors for Personalized Nutrition. ACS Sens. 2021, 6, 1745–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Conrad, J.; Koch, S.A.; Nöthlings, U. New Approaches in Assessing Food Intake in Epidemiology. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care 2018, 21, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bailey, R.L. Overview of Dietary Assessment Methods for Measuring Intakes of Foods, Beverages, and Dietary Supplements in Research Studies. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2021, 70, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vasiloglou, M.F.; Christodoulidis, S.; Reber, E.; Stathopoulou, T.; Lu, Y.; Stanga, Z.; Mougiakakou, S. Perspectives and Preferences of Adult Smartphone Users Regarding Nutrition and Diet Apps: Web-Based Survey Study. JMIR MHealth UHealth 2021, 9, e27885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Suryadevara, C.K. Revolutionizing Dietary Monitoring: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Innovative Mobile App for Tracking Dietary Composition. Int. J. Innov. Eng. Res. Technol. 2023, 10, 9. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cunha, C.A.S.; Duarte, R.P. Multi-Device Nutrition Control. Sensors 2022, 22, 2617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kusuma, J.D.; Yang, H.-L.; Yang, Y.-L.; Chen, Z.-F.; Shiao, S.-Y.P.K. Validating Accuracy of a Mobile Application against Food Frequency Questionnaire on Key Nutrients with Modern Diets for mHealth Era. Nutrients 2022, 14, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Yuan, D.; Hu, X.; Zhang, H.; Jia, W.; Mao, Z.-H.; Sun, M. An Automatic Electronic Instrument for Accurate Measurements of Food Volume and Density. Public Health Nutr. 2021, 24, 1248–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shinozaki, N.; Murakami, K.; Asakura, K.; Masayasu, S.; Sasaki, S. Development of a Digital Photographic Food Atlas as a Portion Size Estimation Aid in Japan. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Villena-esponera, M.P.; Moreno-rojas, R.; Mateos-marcos, S.; Salazar-donoso, M.V.; Molina-Recio, G. Validation of a Photographic Atlas of Food Portions Designed as a Tool to Visually Estimate Food Amounts in Ecuador. Nutr. Hosp. 2018, 36, 363–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Al Marzooqi, H.M.; Burke, S.J.; Al Ghazali, M.R.; Duffy, E.; Yousuf, M.H.S.A. The Development of a Food Atlas of Portion Sizes for the United Arab Emirates. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2015, 43, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chapman, S.; Rawcliffe, A.; Smith, L.; Izard, R.; Roberts, J. Evaluation of the Current Methods Used for Assessing Dietary Intake in Military Research Settings: A Scoping Review. BMJ Mil. Health 2021, 167, 126–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dello Russo, M.; Russo, P.; Rufián-Henares, J.Á.; Hinojosa-Nogueira, D.; Pérez-Burillo, S.; de la Cueva, S.P.; Rohn, S.; Fatouros, A.; Douros, K.; González-Vigil, V. The Stance4Health Project: Evaluating a Smart Personalised Nutrition Service for Gut Microbiota Modulation in Normal-and Overweight Adults and Children with Obesity, Gluten-Related Disorders or Allergy/Intolerance to Cow’s Milk. Foods 2022, 11, 1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hinojosa-Nogueira, D.; Ortiz-Viso, B.; Navajas-Porras, B.; Pérez-Burillo, S.; González-Vigil, V.; de la Cueva, S.P.; Rufián-Henares, J.Á. Stance4Health Nutritional APP: A Path to Personalized Smart Nutrition. Nutrients 2023, 15, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Remiro-Azócar, A.; Heath, A.; Baio, G. Methods for Population Adjustment with Limited Access to Individual Patient Data: A Review and Simulation Study. Res. Synth. Methods 2021, 12, 750–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jiménez Lorente, C.P.; Pineda Morales, J.; Lama Herrera, C.; Rodríguez Martínez, P.; Escudero Uribe, M.L.; Melo Salor, J.A.; Arrabal Martín, A.; Cravioto Manrique, I.; Muñoz Alonso, A.; Hernández Cubero, P. Recomendaciones Sobre Hábitos Saludables En Atención Primaria: Modelo de Atención Para Promover La Actividad Física y La Alimentación Equilibrada En El Sistema Sanitario Público de Andalucía; Junta de Andalucia: Sevilla, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  23. Safefood. Consumer Understanding of Food Portion Sizes; Safefood: Little Island, Ireland, 2014; ISBN 978-1-905767-46-5. Available online: https://www.safefood.net/admin/getmedia/fe9482e5-1108-44d4-9f50-0361eae38931/portion-size-report_final201114.aspx?ext=.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2025).
  24. Benhammou, S.; Heras-González, L.; Ibáñez-Peinado, D.; Barceló, C.; Hamdan, M.; Rivas, A.; Mariscal-Arcas, M.; Olea-Serrano, F.; Monteagudo, C. Comparison of Mediterranean Diet Compliance between European and Non-European Populations in the Mediterranean Basin. Appetite 2016, 107, 521–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Haftenberger, M.; Heuer, T.; Heidemann, C.; Kube, F.; Krems, C.; Mensink, G.B. Relative Validation of a Food Frequency Questionnaire for National Health and Nutrition Monitoring. Nutr. J. 2010, 9, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Keller, K.; Rodríguez López, S.; Carmenate Moreno, M.M.; Acevedo Cantero, P. Associations between Food Consumption Habits with Meal Intake Behaviour in Spanish Adults. Appetite 2014, 83, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lyons, J.; Giltinan, M. The Irish Food Portion Sizes Database; Irish Universities Nutrition Alliance at University College Cork: Cork, Ireland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  28. Probst, Y.; Jones, H.; Sampson, G.; Smith, K. Development of Australian Portion Size Photographs to Enhance Self-administered Online Dietary Assessments for Adults. Nutr. Diet. 2010, 67, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Salvesen, L.; Engeset, D.; Øverby, N.C.; Medin, A.C. Development and Evaluation of Image-Series for Portion Size Estimation in Dietary Assessment among Adults. J. Nutr. Sci. 2021, 10, e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Staudigel, M.; Brandl, B.; Roosen, J.; Kiesswetter, E.; Siebentritt, H.M.; Wawro, N.; Linseisen, J.; Skurk, T.; Volkert, D.; Hauner, H. Association of Eating Motives with Anthropometry, Body Composition, and Dietary Intake in Healthy German Adults. Appetite 2022, 170, 105865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Weichselbaum, E.; Benelam, B.; Soares Costa, H. Traditional Foods in Europe; EuroFIR: Brussels, Belgium, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  32. Foster, E.; Hawkins, A.; Barton, K.L.; Stamp, E.; Matthews, J.N.S.; Adamson, A.J. Development of Food Photographs for Use with Children Aged 18 Months to 16 Years: Comparison against Weighed Food Diaries—The Young Person’s Food Atlas (UK). PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0169084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Folson, G.; Bannerman, B.; Ador, G.; Atadze, V.; Akoto, S.; Asante, S.; Abbeyquaye, J.; Anang-Tetteh, A.; Guri, E.; Ibrahim, G.; et al. A Photographic Food Atlas with Portion Sizes of Commonly Consumed Foods in Accra, Ghana; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  34. Nelson, M.; Haraldsdóttir, J. Food Photographs: Practical Guidelines II. Development and Use of Photographic Atlases for Assessing Food Portion Size. Public Health Nutr. 1998, 1, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Walsh, H. Development of a Photographic Food Atlas to Support Food Portion Estimation Among Children and Adolescents Aged 9–14 Years in Nairobi, Kenya. Master’s Thesis, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  36. Nguyen, P.H.; Tran, L.M.; Hoang, N.T.; Trương, D.T.; Tran, T.H.; Huynh, P.N.; Koch, B.; McCloskey, P.; Gangupantulu, R.; Hughes, D.; et al. A Photographic Food Atlas with Portion Sizes of Commonly Consumed Foods in Thai Nguyen, Viet Nam; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  37. Jalil, A.J.; Tasoff, J.; Bustamante, A.V. Eating to Save the Planet: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial Using Individual-Level Food Purchase Data. Food Policy 2020, 95, 101950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Steenhuis, I.; Poelman, M. Portion Size: Latest Developments and Interventions. Curr. Obes. Rep. 2017, 6, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Timon, C.M.; Cooper, S.E.; Barker, M.E.; Astell, A.J.; Adlam, T.; Hwang, F.; Williams, E.A. A Comparison of Food Portion Size Estimation by Older Adults, Young Adults and Nutritionists. J. Nutr. Health Aging 2018, 22, 230–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lauria, F.; Dello Russo, M.; Formisano, A.; De Henauw, S.; Hebestreit, A.; Hunsberger, M.; Krogh, V.; Intemann, T.; Lissner, L.; Molnar, D.; et al. Ultra-Processed Foods Consumption and Diet Quality of European Children, Adolescents and Adults: Results from the I.Family Study. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2021, 31, 3031–3043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lazarte, C.E.; Encinas, M.E.; Alegre, C.; Granfeldt, Y. Validation of Digital Photographs, as a Tool in 24-h Recall, for the Improvement of Dietary Assessment among Rural Populations in Developing Countries. Nutr. J. 2012, 11, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Grams, L.; Nelius, A.-K.; Pastor, G.G.; Sillero-Quintana, M.; Veiga, Ó.L.; Homeyer, D.; Kück, M. Comparison of Adherence to Mediterranean Diet between Spanish and German School-Children and Influence of Gender, Overweight, and Physical Activity. Nutrients 2022, 14, 4697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Mertens, E.; Colizzi, C.; Peñalvo, J.L. Ultra-Processed Food Consumption in Adults across Europe. Eur. J. Nutr. 2022, 61, 1521–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Westenbrink, S.; Van Der Vossen-Wijmenga, W.; Toxopeus, I.; Milder, I.; Ocké, M. LEDA, the Branded Food Database in the Netherlands: Data Challenges and Opportunities. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2021, 102, 104044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. He, J.; Mao, R.; Shao, Z.; Wright, J.L.; Kerr, D.A.; Boushey, C.J.; Zhu, F. An End-to-End Food Image Analysis System. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2102.00645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jakob, R.; Harperink, S.; Rudolf, A.M.; Fleisch, E.; Haug, S.; Mair, J.L.; Salamanca-Sanabria, A.; Kowatsch, T. Factors Influencing Adherence to mHealth Apps for Prevention or Management of Noncommunicable Diseases: Systematic Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2022, 24, e35371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Adherence to the Mediterranean diet (AMD) by country. A score of 8 or higher indicates high AMD. Differences between Spanish and German samples. ** Significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Figure 1. Adherence to the Mediterranean diet (AMD) by country. A score of 8 or higher indicates high AMD. Differences between Spanish and German samples. ** Significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Nutrients 17 00912 g001
Figure 2. Heat map showing significant Spearman correlations between BMI, age, and adherence to the Mediterranean diet (AMD). ** Correlation significant at p < 0.05 level.
Figure 2. Heat map showing significant Spearman correlations between BMI, age, and adherence to the Mediterranean diet (AMD). ** Correlation significant at p < 0.05 level.
Nutrients 17 00912 g002
Figure 3. Differences in food size choices by gender and most preferred sizes. Circle size is proportional to frequency. Differences between gender. ** Significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Figure 3. Differences in food size choices by gender and most preferred sizes. Circle size is proportional to frequency. Differences between gender. ** Significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Nutrients 17 00912 g003
Figure 4. Differences in food size choices by country. Circle size is proportional to frequency. Differences between country. ** Significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Figure 4. Differences in food size choices by country. Circle size is proportional to frequency. Differences between country. ** Significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Nutrients 17 00912 g004
Table 1. Food categories and the range of portion sizes.
Table 1. Food categories and the range of portion sizes.
Type of Food XXSXSSMLXL
Portion Range
Rices (g)3985131224316362
Beverages (mL)100200300400500600
Raw vegetables (g)324967101136153
Meat (g)56108168246308400
Breakfast cereals (g)162331456067
Salad (g)88150213338463525
Nuts (g)154982116183250
Stew dish (g)93158222352481546
Bread (g)2234486394126
Lasagne (g)135187238341444496
Legumes dish (g)80140200320440500
Fruit salad (g)396489139189214
Cooked vegetables (g)265685145204234
Fruit portion (g)5383166266376532
Pasta (g)55108161266372425
Potatoes (g)6197131204275311
Fish (g)435882245345560
Pizza (g)4284168335502670
Cheese (g)132536608395
Sliced fruit (g)285683139194222
Soup dish (mL)3389145257369425
Cakes (g)678398129160176
Table 2. Characteristics of the surveyed populations.
Table 2. Characteristics of the surveyed populations.
Feature SpainGermanyTotal
Population 84140224
Age (years)Average ± SD26.3 ± 10.240.8 ± 14.935.4 ± 15.1
GenderMale314677
Female5394147
OriginAsian011
European80138218
Latin415
Allergies and IntolerancesNo64116180
Nuts088
Dairy5914
Others15318
EducationPrimary437
Secondary102535
Higher70112182
EmploymentUnemployed112
Employed1890108
working part-time81826
Studying552681
Retired257
Marital statusMarried65460
Divorced066
Other43640
Single7444118
Share homeWith friends251641
With family434184
With partner85563
Other101
Alone72835
HousingRented3675111
Owned346094
Other14519
Living inUrban areas66102168
Rural areas183856
Eating habitsVegetarians02323
Omnivores98103201
Dietary behaviourEat in company61100161
Alone234063
Use spicesSometimes14317
Never516
Always65136201
Dishes during mealsOther5611
Single dish61128189
First and second dish18624
Eat dessertSometimes186381
Never206686
Always461157
Bread consumptionSometimes244367
Never287199
Always322658
Drink during mealWater6975144
Sparkling water14142
Beer/Wine437
Never6612
Other055
Soft drink426
Juices088
AMDAverage ± SD9.63 ± 1.726.09 ± 1.997.42 ± 2.56
Physical activityIntense (>5 times/week)131730
Light (walking)264874
Moderate (3 times/week)395796
Very intense (2 h/day)415
Very light21719
BMI (kg/m2)Average ± SD23.07 ± 3.9224.23 ± 4.4323.79 ± 4.27
Table 3. Average food consumption by country according to surveys.
Table 3. Average food consumption by country according to surveys.
FoodCountryAverage ± SDPortion Size Groupp < 0.05 *
Rices (g)Germany127.43 ± 60.96S0.0003
Spain165.42 ± 83.85M
Beverages (mL)Germany355.40 ± 138.40M0.4067
Spain328.57 ± 193.62M
Raw vegetables (g)Germany121.36 ± 33.38L0.7752
Spain121.19 ± 35.53L
Meat (g)Germany175.66 ± 75.77M0.0123
Spain202.90± 81.65M
Breakfast cereals (g)Germany29.30 ± 11.12S0.2453
Spain27.92 ± 12.64S
Salad (g)Germany287.36 ± 119.60M0.1556
Spain264.88 ± 109.29M
Nuts (g)Germany52.17 ± 39.51S0.4533
Spain52.38 ± 46.91S
Stew dish (g)Germany372.79 ± 127.04L0.0021
Spain318.64 ± 123.26M
Bread (g)Germany62.43 ± 34.18M0.0001
Spain35.12 ± 27.52S
Lasagne (g)Germany402.66 ± 89.62L0.0005
Spain350.80 ± 112.04L
Legumes dish (g)Germany243.48 ± 105.75M0.0001
Spain314.88 ± 112.03L
Fruit salad (g)Germany147.93 ± 47.10M0.0198
Spain163.43 ± 42.77M
Cooked vegetables (g)Germany141.55 ± 48.20L0.8939
Spain142.07 ± 49.35L
Fruit portion (g)Germany284.60 ± 165.06L0.1463
Spain315.48 ± 176.33L
Pasta (g)Germany227.11 ± 76.05M0.8626
Spain229.70 ± 76.24M
Potatoes (g)Germany159.04 ± 65.14M0.0033
Spain135.62 ± 51.37M
Fish (g)Germany136.83 ± 94.33M0.1700
Spain164.94 ± 114.80M
Pizza (g)Germany481.39 ± 174.19L0.0001
Spain353.23 ± 171.75M
Cheese (g)Germany49.68 ± 22.53M0.0258
Spain42.76 ± 21.83M
Sliced fruit (g)Germany160.14 ± 48.72M0.0288
Spain176.91 ± 33.36L
Soup dish (mL)Germany296.36 ± 86.22L0.9097
Spain297.63 ± 90.79L
Cakes (g)Germany102.46 ± 31.02M0.2586
Spain97.30 ± 29.55M
* Bold numbers denote statistically significant differences.
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

Hinojosa-Nogueira, D.; Navajas-Porras, B.; Pastoriza, S.; Delgado-Osorio, A.; Toledano-Marín, Á.; Rohn, S.; Rufián-Henares, J.Á.; Quesada-Granados, J.J. Dietary Behavioural Preferences of Spanish and German Adults and Their Translation to the Dietary Recommendations of a Personalised Nutrition App in the Framework of the Stance4Health Project. Nutrients 2025, 17, 912. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17050912

AMA Style

Hinojosa-Nogueira D, Navajas-Porras B, Pastoriza S, Delgado-Osorio A, Toledano-Marín Á, Rohn S, Rufián-Henares JÁ, Quesada-Granados JJ. Dietary Behavioural Preferences of Spanish and German Adults and Their Translation to the Dietary Recommendations of a Personalised Nutrition App in the Framework of the Stance4Health Project. Nutrients. 2025; 17(5):912. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17050912

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hinojosa-Nogueira, Daniel, Beatriz Navajas-Porras, Silvia Pastoriza, Adriana Delgado-Osorio, Ángela Toledano-Marín, Sascha Rohn, José Ángel Rufián-Henares, and José Javier Quesada-Granados. 2025. "Dietary Behavioural Preferences of Spanish and German Adults and Their Translation to the Dietary Recommendations of a Personalised Nutrition App in the Framework of the Stance4Health Project" Nutrients 17, no. 5: 912. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17050912

APA Style

Hinojosa-Nogueira, D., Navajas-Porras, B., Pastoriza, S., Delgado-Osorio, A., Toledano-Marín, Á., Rohn, S., Rufián-Henares, J. Á., & Quesada-Granados, J. J. (2025). Dietary Behavioural Preferences of Spanish and German Adults and Their Translation to the Dietary Recommendations of a Personalised Nutrition App in the Framework of the Stance4Health Project. Nutrients, 17(5), 912. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17050912

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