The Healthy Eater’s Idea and Related Behavior of a Healthy Diet—A Case Study with Kombucha Drinkers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Kombucha
1.2. Stage-of-Change
1.3. Healthy Eating
1.4. Label and Ingredient
1.5. Objectives
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Consumer Survey
2.2. Survey Questionnaire
2.3. Consumer Segmentation Groups
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Stage-of-Change
3.2. Healthy Eating
3.2.1. Is Kombucha Healthy
3.2.2. Healthy Eating
3.3. Kombucha Label and Ingredient
3.3.1. Label Information
3.3.2. Ingredient Information
3.4. Limitations and Suggestions
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Question | Data Type |
---|---|
[A] HEALTHY EATING | |
What is considered eating healthy? | CATA a |
eating fewer calories | |
eating healthier protein sources | |
eating less “junk” and fast food | |
eating less carbohydrates | |
eating less unhealthy fats | |
eating more fresh, organic, less processed food | |
eating more fruits and vegetables | |
eating smaller portions or fewer unnecessary snacks | |
limiting sugar intake | |
switching to a vegetarian or vegan diet | |
watching and paying more attention to what you eat | |
Does kombucha fit into your view of a healthy diet? | Categorical |
Yes | |
No | |
[B] LABEL & INGREDIENTS | |
Please choose all the label information of kombucha that you check | CATA |
added sugar | |
calorie | |
fat content | |
live culture | |
probiotic content of live cells | |
probiotic strain (s) | |
protein content | |
serving size | |
sugar content | |
others, please specify | |
none above | |
protein content | |
Please choose all the ingredient factors of Kombucha that you check | CATA |
artificial coloring | |
artificial flavoring | |
artificial sweetener-stevia, erythritol | |
kombucha content | |
live culture | |
organic or natural | |
natural coloring | |
natural flavoring | |
type of tea-black tea, green tea, white tea, yerba mate | |
type of water-sparkling water, carbonated water | |
others, please specify | |
none above | |
QUESTION | DATA TYPE |
[C] PSYCHOGRAPHIC-STAGE-OF-CHANGE | |
Q1. Do you think you usually eat healthy diet overall? | Categorical |
Yes, I do. → go to Q2-2 | |
No, I do not. | |
Q2-1. Do you plan to change your diet to be healthier? | Categorical |
Yes, I am considering changing my overall diet in the next month to be more healthful. → ‘Preparation’ | |
Yes, I am considering changing my overall diet in the next 6 months to be more healthful. → ‘Contemplation’ | |
No, I have no plans to change my overall diet to increase its healthfulness. → ‘Precontemplation’ | |
Q2-2. How long ago did you change and start eating a healthier diet overall? | Categorical |
I made serious changes in my overall diet to be more healthful in the past 6 months → ‘Action’ | |
I made changes to a more healthful diet and have eaten that way for 6 months or more. → ‘Maintenance’ | |
[D] DEMOGRAPHIC | |
Please indicate your gender. | Categorical |
Female | |
Male | |
What is your year of birth? → used to generate a new variable ‘generation’ | Numeric |
Millennial (1981 ≤ Year of Birth < 1997) | (Categorical) b |
Gen X (1965 ≤ Year of Birth < 1981) | |
Boomers (Year of Birth < 1965) | |
What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree you have received? | Categorical |
Up to High school | |
Some college | |
College degree (Associates/Bachelors) | |
Graduate school (Masters/MD/Ph.D.) | |
→ used to generate a new variable ‘education | |
Up to some college-up to high school, some college | (Categorical) |
College degree | |
Graduate school | |
Would you please give the best guess of your household income? Please indicate the answer that includes your entire household income in (previous year) before taxes. | Categorical |
Less than $19,999 | |
$20,000 to $39,999 | |
$40,000 to $59,999 | |
$60,000 to $79,999 | |
$80,000 to $99,999 | |
$100,000 to $149,999 | |
$150,000 or more | |
→ used to generate a new variable ‘income’ | |
Income-low-Less than $19,999 to $79,999 | (Categorical) |
Income-high-$80,000 to $150,000 or more | |
[E] GEOGRAPHIC | |
In which region of the U.S. do you currently reside? | Categorical |
Midwest | |
Northeast | |
South | |
West |
References
- Dufresne, C.; Farnworth, E. Tea, kombucha, and health: A review. Food Res. Int. 2000, 33, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenwalt, C.J.; Steinkraus, K.H.; Ledford, R.A. Kombucha, the fermented tea: Microbiology, composition, and claimed health effects. J. Food Prot. 2000, 63, 976–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jayabalan, R.; Marimuthu, S.; Swaminathan, K. Changes in content of organic acids and tea polyphenols during kombucha tea fermentation. Food Chem. 2007, 102, 392–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lobo, R.O.; Dias, F.O.; Shenoy, C.K. Kombucha for healthy living: Evaluation of antioxidant potential and bioactive compounds. Int. Food Res. J. 2017, 24, 541–546. [Google Scholar]
- Back, A. The Year of Fancy Water and Kombucha. Available online: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-year-of-fancy-water-and-kombucha-11546269901 (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- Kombucha Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Flavor (Original, Flavored), By Distribution Channel (Supermarkets, Health Stores, Online Stores), By Region, And Segment Forecasts, 2020–2027: Report Summary. Available online: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/kombucha-market (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- Kombucha Market Size 2020 | Global Business Strategies, Growing CAGR of 28.9%, Industry Revenue, Opportunities, Future Trends, Leading Players Update, Market Share, Analysis and Forecast by 2026. Available online: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/07/28/2068398/0/en/Kombucha-Market-Size-2020-Global-Business-Strategies-Growing-CAGR-of-28-9-Industry-Revenue-Opportunities-Future-Trends-Leading-Players-Update-Market-Share-Analysis-and-Forecast-by-.html (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- Kim, J.; Adhikari, K. Current trends in kombucha: Marketing perspectives and the need for improved sensory research. Beverages 2020, 6, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- PepsiCo Announces Definitive Agreement to Acquire KeVita, a Leader in Fermented Probiotic Beverages. Available online: http://www.pepsico.com/news/press-release/pepsico-announces-definitive-agreement-to-acquire-kevita-a-leader-in-fermented-p11222016 (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- PepsiCo, Inc. Annual Report 2017. Available online: https://www.pepsico.com/docs/album/ets-testing-dont-delete-docs/pepsico-inc-2017-annual-report.pdf?sfvrsn=c6508fb3_2 (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- Prochaska, J.O.; DiClemente, C.C. Stages of change in the modification of problem behaviors. Prog. Behav. Modif. 1992, 28, 183–218. [Google Scholar]
- Prochaska, J.O.; Velicer, W.F. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am. J. Health Promot. 1997, 12, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, L.M.S.; Cassady, D.L. Making healthy food choices using nutrition facts panels. The roles of knowledge, motivation, dietary modifications goals, and age. Appetite 2012, 59, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yen, W.C.; Shariff, Z.M.; Kandiah, M.; Taib, M.N.M. Stages of change to increase fruit and vegetable intake and its relationships with fruit and vegetable intake and related psychosocial factors. Nutr. Res. Pract. 2014, 8, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Greene, G.W.; Fey-Yensan, N.; Padula, C.; Rossi, S.; Rossi, J.S.; Clark, P.G. Differences in psychosocial variables by stage of change for fruits and vegetables in older adults. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2004, 104, 1236–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horacek, T.M.; White, A.; Betts, N.M.; Hoerr, S.; Georgiou, C.; Nitzke, S.; Greene, G. Self-efficacy, perceived benefits, and weight satisfaction discriminate among stages of change for fruit and vegetable intakes for young men and women. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2002, 102, 1466–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, A.; Petty, S.; Drake, T. Applying the transtheoretical model to nutrition facts label use among college students. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2018, 50, S116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glanz, K.; Patterson, R.E.; Kristal, A.R.; DiClemente, C.C.; Heimendinger, J.; Linnan, L.; McLerran, D.F. Stages of change in adopting healthy diets: Fat, fiber, and correlates of nutrient intake. Health Educ. Q. 1994, 21, 499–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Norcross, J.C.; Krebs, P.M.; Prochaska, J.O. Stages of change. J. Clin. Psychol. 2011, 67, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prochaska, J.O.; Norcross, J.C. Stages of change. Psychotherapy 2001, 38, 443–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 8th Edition. December 2015. Available online: https://health.gov/our-work/food-nutrition/previous-dietary-guidelines/2015 (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025. 9th Edition. December 2020. Available online: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- 2019 Food and Health Survey. Available online: https://foodinsight.org/2019-food-and-health-survey (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- Margetts, B.M.; Martinez, J.A.; Saba, A.; Holm, L.; Kearney, M.; Moles, A. Definitions of ‘healthy’ eating: A pan-EU survey of consumer attitudes to food, nutrition and health. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1997, 51, S23–S29. [Google Scholar]
- Paquette, M. Perceptions of healthy eating: State of knowledge and research gaps. Can. J. Public Health 2005, 96 (Suppl. 3), S15–S19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Food & Drug Administration. CFR—Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 Part 101 Food Labeling. Available online: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=101&showFR=1 (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation Food & Health Survey: Consumer Attitudes toward Food, Nutrition & Health. Available online: https://foodinsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/2006foodandhealthsurvey.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- Ollberding, N.J.; Wolf, R.L.; Contento, I. Food label use and its relation to dietary intake among US adults. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2001, 111, S47–S51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wills, J.M.; Schmidt, D.B.; Pillo-Blocka, F.; Cairns, G. Exploring global consumer attitudes toward nutrition information on food labels. Nutr. Rev. 2009, 67 (Suppl. 1), S102–S106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christoph, M.J.; Larson, N.; Laska, M.N.; Neumark-Sztainer, D. Nutrition facts panels: Who uses them, what do they use, and how does use relate to dietary intake? J. Acad. Nutr. Diet 2018, 118, 217–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.J.; Lee, J.; Yen, S.T. Do dietary intakes affect search for nutrient information on food labels? Soc. Sci. 2004, 59, 1955–1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/changes-nutrition-facts-label (accessed on 10 April 2022).
- Grebitus, C.; Davis, G.C. Change is good!? Analyzing the relationship between attention and nutrition facts panel modifications. Food Policy 2017, 73, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neuhofer, Z.; McFadden, B.R.; Rihn, A.; Wei, X.; Khachatryan, H.; House, L. Can the updated nutrition facts label decrease sugar-sweetened beverage consumption? Econ. Hum. Biol. 2020, 37, 100867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khandpur, N.; Graham, D.J.; Roberto, C.A. Simplifying mental math: Changing how added sugars are displayed on the nutrition facts label can improve consumer understanding. Appetite 2017, 114, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asioli, D.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Caputo, V.; Vecchio, R.; Annunziata, A.; Næs, T.; Varela, P. Making sense of the “clean label” trends: A review of consumer food choice behavior and discussion of industry implications. Food Res. Int. 2017, 99, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, T.; Junghans, A.F.; Dijksterhuis, G.B.; Kroese, F.; Johansson, P.; Hall, L.; De Ridder, D. Consumers’ choice-blindness to ingredient information. Appetite 2016, 106, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gelski, J. Consumers Not Clear on Clean Label Definition. Available online: https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/7407-consumers-not-clear-on-clean-label-definition (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- Hemmerling, S.; Canavari, M.; Spiller, A. Preference for naturalness of European organic consumers. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 2287–2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roman, S.; Sánchez-Siles, L.M.; Siegrist, M. The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 67, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soontrunnarudrungsri, A. Development and Validation of Screening Tools for Classification Consumers of Food Products Based on Eating Healthy Criteria. Ph.D. Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA, 2011. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2097/12132 (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- Horneffer-Ginter, K. Stages of change and possible selves: 2 tools for promoting college health. J. Am. Coll. Health 2008, 56, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerend, M.A. Does calorie information promote lower calorie fast food choices among college students? J. Adolesc. Health 2009, 44, 84–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brownbill, A.L.; Miller, C.L.; Braunack-Mayer, A.J. Industry use of ‘better-for-you’ features on labels of sugar-containing beverages. Public Health Nutr. 2018, 21, 3335–3343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Brownbill, A.L.; Braunack-Mayer, A.J.; Miller, C.L. What makes a beverage healthy? A qualitative study of young adults’ conceptualisation of sugar-containing beverage healthfulness. Appetite 2020, 150, 104675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Graham, D.J.; Jeffery, R.W. Location, location, location: Eye-tracking evidence that consumers preferentially view prominently positioned nutrition information. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 2011, 111, 1704–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bucher, T.; Siegrist, M. Children’s and parents’ health perception of different soft drinks. Br. J. Nutr. 2015, 113, 526–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rampersaud, G.C.; Kim, H.; Gao, Z.; House, L.A. Knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors of adults concerning nonalcoholic beverages suggest some lack of comprehension related to sugars. Nutr. Res. 2014, 34, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conklin, M.T.; Cranage, D.A.; Lambert, C.U. College students’ use of point of selection nutrition information. Top. Clin. Nutr. 2005, 20, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banovic, M.; Arvola, A.; Pennanen, K.; Duta, D.E.; Brückner-Gühmann, M.; Lähteenmäki, L.; Grunert, K.G. Foods with increased protein content: A qualitative study on european consumer preferences and perceptions. Appetite 2018, 125, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt, C. The Rise of Protein in Global Health and Wellness. Available online: https://foodproteins.globalfoodforums.com/food-protein-articles/the-rise-of-protein-in-the-global-health-and-wellness-and-supplement-arenas (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- Harwood, W.S.; Drake, M. Understanding implicit and explicit consumer desires for protein bars, powders, and beverages. J. Sens. Stud. 2019, 34, e12493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- We Are What We Eat: Healthy Eating Trends Around The World. Available online: https://www.nielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/04/january-2015-global-health-and-wellness-report.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- Murley, T.; Chambers, E. The influence of colorants, flavorants and product identity on perceptions of naturalness. Foods 2019, 8, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, L.M.S.; Cassady, D.L. The effects of nutrition knowledge on food label use. A review of the literature. Appetite 2015, 92, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Segmentation Groups | Consumer Number (n = 296) |
---|---|
Demographic | |
Gender | |
Female | 170 (57.4%) |
Male | 126 (42.6%) |
Generation | |
Millennials (1981 ≤ YOB < 1997) | 135 (45.6%) |
Gen X (1965 ≤ YOB < 1981) | 96 (32.4%) |
Boomers (YOB < 1965) | 65 (21.7%) |
Education | |
Up to some college | 74 (25.0%) |
College degree | 130 (43.9%) |
Graduate school | 92 (31.1%) |
Income | |
Income—low (entire household income less than USD 19,999 to USD 79,999) | 136 (45.9%) |
Income—high (entire household income from USD 80,000 to USD 150,000 or more) | 160 (54.1%) |
Geographic | |
Region | |
Midwest | 54 (18.2%) |
Northeast | 72 (24.3%) |
South | 82 (27.7%) |
West | 88 (29.7%) |
Psychographic | |
Stage-of-change | |
Maintenance | 142 (48.0%) |
Action | 122 (41.2%) |
Non-action 1 | 32 (10.8%) |
Segment Groups and Subgroups | Non-Action | Action | Maintenance | df N χ2 |
---|---|---|---|---|
n (%) a | n (%) | n (%) | ||
Total (n = 296) | 32 (10.8) | 122 (41.2) | 142 (48) | |
Gender | ||||
Female (n = 170) | 15 (8.8) | 61 (35.9) | 94 (55.3) | 2 |
Male (n = 126) | 17 (13.5) | 61 (48.4) | 48 (38.1) | 296 |
8.7 * | ||||
Generation | ||||
Millennials (n = 135) | 15 (11.1) | 57 (42.2) | 63 (46.7) | 4 |
Gen X (n = 96) | 14 (14.6) | 46 (47.9) | 36 (37.5) | 296 |
Boomers (n = 65) | 3 (4.6) | 19 (29.2) | 43 (66.2) | 13.6 ** |
Region | ||||
West (n = 88) | 1 (1.1) | 29 (33) | 58 (65.9) | 6 |
South (n = 82) | 12 (14.6) | 36 (43.9) | 34 (41.5) | 296 |
Northeast (n = 72) | 9 (12.5) | 36 (50) | 27 (37.5) | 23.5 *** |
Midwest (n = 54) | 10 (18.5) | 21 (38.9) | 23 (42.6) | |
Education | ||||
Up to some college (n = 74) | 12 (16.2) | 23 (31.1) | 39 (52.7) | 4 |
College degree (n = 130) | 8 (6.2) | 50 (38.5) | 72 (55.4) | 296 |
Graduate school (n = 92) | 12 (13) | 49 (53.3) | 31 (33.7) | 16.1 ** |
Income | ||||
Income low (n = 136) | 17 (12.5) | 49 (36) | 70 (51.5) | 2 |
Income high (n = 160) | 15 (9.4) | 73 (45.6) | 72 (45) | 296 |
2.9 |
Total | Gender | Generation | Region | Education | Income | Stage-of-Change | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total (n = 296) | Female (n = 170) | Male (n = 126) | Millennials (n = 135) | Gen X (n = 96) | Boomers (n = 65) | West (n = 88) | South (n = 82) | Northeast (n = 72) | Midwest (n = 54) | Some College (n = 74) | College Degree (n = 130) | Graduate School (n=92) | Income Low (n = 136) | Income High (n = 160) | Pre-Action (n = 32) | Action (n = 122) | Maint-enance (n = 142) | |
n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
Health Eating | ||||||||||||||||||
eating more fruits and vegetables | 227 (76.7) | 138 (81.2) | 89 (70.6) | 96 (71.1) | 74 (77.1) | 57 (87.7) | 68 (77.3) | 60 (73.2) | 58 (80.6) | 41 (75.9) | 54 (73) | 108 (83.1) | 65 (70.7) | 103 (75.7) | 124 (77.5) | 27 (84.4) | 80 (65.6) | 120 (84.5) |
eating less “junk” and fast food | 218 (73.6) | 133 (78.2) | 85 (67.5) | 93 (68.9) | 69 (71.9) | 56 (86.2) | 68 (77.3) | 59 (72) | 55 (76.4) | 36 (66.7) | 53 (71.6) | 104 (80) | 61 (66.3) | 102 (75) | 116 (72.5) | 19 (59.4) | 81 (66.4) | 118 (83.1) |
limiting sugar intake | 203 (68.6) | 126 (74.1) | 77 (61.1) | 84 (62.2) | 67 (69.8) | 52 (80) | 62 (70.5) | 54 (65.9) | 55 (76.4) | 32 (59.3) | 56 (75.7) | 92 (70.8) | 55 (59.8) | 95 (69.9) | 108 (67.5) | 26 (81.3) | 65 (53.3) | 112 (78.9) |
eating more fresh | 201 (67.9) | 126 (74.1) | 75 (59.5) | 86 (63.7) | 65 (67.7) | 50 (76.9) | 62 (70.5) | 53 (64.6) | 52 (72.2) | 34 (63) | 49 (66.2) | 91 (70) | 61 (66.3) | 91 (66.9) | 110 (68.8) | 18 (56.3) | 72 (59) | 111 (78.2) |
eating healthier protein sources | 194 (65.5) | 115 (67.6) | 79 (62.7) | 82 (60.7) | 64 (66.7) | 48 (73.8) | 59 (67) | 55 (67.1) | 48 (66.7) | 32 (59.3) | 48 (64.9) | 87 (66.9) | 59 (64.1) | 88 (64.7) | 106 (66.3) | 19 (59.4) | 78 (63.9) | 97 (68.3) |
watching and paying more attention to what you eat | 173 (58.4) | 112 (65.9) | 61 (48.4) | 74 (54.8) | 54 (56.3) | 45 (69.2) | 51 (58) | 46 (56.1) | 43 (59.7) | 33 (61.1) | 41 (55.4) | 79 (60.8) | 53 (57.6) | 75 (55.1) | 98 (61.3) | 15 (46.9) | 66 (54.1) | 92 (64.8) |
eating less unhealthy fats | 167 (56.4) | 105 (61.8) | 62 (49.2) | 64 (47.4) | 57 (59.4) | 46 (70.8) | 52 (59.1) | 45 (54.9) | 41 (56.9) | 29 (53.7) | 41 (55.4) | 80 (61.5) | 46 (50) | 74 (54.4) | 93 (58.1) | 18 (56.3) | 55 (45.1) | 94 (66.2) |
eating smaller portions or fewer unnecessary snacks | 136 (45.9) | 87 (51.2) | 49 (38.9) | 60 (44.4) | 37 (38.5) | 39 (60) | 34 (38.6) | 39 (47.6) | 35 (48.6) | 28 (51.9) | 43 (58.1) | 63 (48.5) | 30 (32.6) | 74 (54.4) | 62 (38.8) | 17 (53.1) | 51 (41.8) | 68 (47.9) |
eating less carbohydrates | 113 (38.2) | 73 (42.9) | 40 (31.7) | 44 (32.6) | 35 (36.5) | 34 (52.3) | 33 (37.5) | 30 (36.6) | 28 (38.9) | 22 (40.7) | 36 (48.6) | 50 (38.5) | 27 (29.3) | 50 (36.8) | 63 (39.4) | 13 (40.6) | 43 (35.2) | 57 (40.1) |
eating fewer calories | 98 (33.1) | 45 (26.5) * | 53 (42.1) * | 42 (31.1) | 34 (35.4) | 22 (33.8) | 34 (38.6) | 22 (26.8) | 25 (34.7) | 17 (31.5) | 20 (27) | 45 (34.6) | 33 (35.9) | 42 (30.9) | 56 (35) | 11 (34.4) | 34 (27.9) | 53 (37.3) |
switching to a vegetarian or vegan diet | 55 (18.6) | 31 (18.2) | 24 (19) | 18 (13.3) | 20 (20.8) | 17 (26.2) | 20 (22.7) | 12 (14.6) | 8 (11.1) | 15 (27.8) | 14 (18.9) | 26 (20) | 15 (16.3) | 28 (20.6) | 27 (16.9) | 7 (21.9) | 22 (18) | 26 (18.3) |
Total | Gender | Generation | Region | Education | Income | Stage-of-Change | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total (n = 296) | Female (n = 170) | Male (n = 126) | Millennials (n = 135) | Gen X (n = 96) | Boomers (n = 65) | West (n = 88) | South (n = 82) | Northeast (n = 72) | Midwest (n = 54) | Some College (n = 74) | College Degree (n = 130) | Graduate School (n=92) | Income Low (n = 136) | Income High (n = 160) | Pre-Action (n = 32) | Action (n = 122) | Maint-enance (n = 142) | |
n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
Label | ||||||||||||||||||
sugar content | 164 (55.4) | 95 (55.9) | 69 (54.8) | 69 (51.1) | 55 (57.3) | 40 (61.5) | 50 (56.8) | 38 (46.3) | 46 (63.9) | 30 (55.6) | 44 (59.5) | 66 (50.8) | 54 (58.7) | 69 (50.7) | 95 (59.4) | 15 (46.9) | 54 (44.3) | 95 (66.9) |
calorie | 152 (51.4) | 95 (55.9) | 57 (45.2) | 62 (45.9) | 52 (54.2) | 38 (58.5) | 47 (53.4) | 40 (48.8) | 42 (58.3) | 23 (42.6) | 32 (43.2) | 69 (53.1) | 51 (55.4) | 64 (47.1) | 88 (55) | 15 (46.9) | 51 (41.8) | 86 (60.6) |
serving size | 135 (45.6) | 78 (45.9) | 57 (45.2) | 60 (44.4) | 43 (44.8) | 32 (49.2) | 44 (50) | 32 (39) | 38 (52.8) | 21 (38.9) | 32 (43.2) | 59 (45.4) | 44 (47.8) | 56 (41.2) | 79 (49.4) | 16 (50) | 54 (44.3) | 65 (45.8) |
probiotic strain (s) | 123 (41.6) | 75 (44.1) | 48 (38.1) | 46 (34.1) | 45 (46.9) | 32 (49.2) | 46 (52.3) | 34 (41.5) | 29 (40.3) | 14 (25.9) | 31 (41.9) | 51 (39.2) | 41 (44.6) | 48 (35.3) | 75 (46.9) | 9 (28.1) | 51 (41.8) | 63 (44.4) |
live culture | 121 (40.9) | 82 (48.2) | 39 (31) | 46 (34.1) | 40 (41.7) | 35 (53.8) | 41 (46.6) | 32 (39) | 27 (37.5) | 21 (38.9) | 30 (40.5) | 52 (40) | 39 (42.4) | 47 (34.6) | 74 (46.3) | 11 (34.4) | 39 (32) | 71 (50) |
probiotic content of live cells | 119 (40.2) | 72 (42.4) | 47 (37.3) | 48 (35.6) | 40 (41.7) | 31 (47.7) | 41 (46.6) | 29 (35.4) | 32 (44.4) | 17 (31.5) | 28 (37.8) | 47 (36.2) | 44 (47.8) | 47 (34.6) | 72 (45) | 9 (28.1) | 54 (44.3) | 56 (39.4) |
added sugar | 113 (38.2) | 71 (41.8) | 42 (33.3) | 54 (40) | 33 (34.4) | 26 (40) | 34 (38.6) | 26 (31.7) | 29 (40.3) | 24 (44.4) | 30 (40.5) | 50 (38.5) | 33 (35.9) | 43 (31.6) | 70 (43.8) | 12 (37.5) | 38 (31.1) | 63 (44.4) |
protein content | 108 (36.5) | 54 (31.8) * | 54 (42.9) * | 49 (36.3) | 38 (39.6) | 21 (32.3) | 32 (36.4) | 31 (37.8) | 26 (36.1) | 19 (35.2) | 23 (31.1) | 42 (32.3) | 43 (46.7) | 40 (29.4) | 68 (42.5) | 10 (31.3) * | 59 (48.4) * | 39 (27.5) * |
fat content | 63 (21.3) | 28 (16.5) * | 35 (27.8) * | 20 (14.8) * | 30 (31.3) * | 13 (20) * | 21 (23.9) | 15 (18.3) | 15 (20.8) | 12 (22.2) | 12 (16.2) | 27 (20.8) | 24 (26.1) | 22 (16.2) | 41 (25.6) | 8 (25) | 26 (21.3) | 29 (20.4) |
none above | 18 (6.1) | 10 (5.9) | 8 (6.3) | 12 (8.9) | 2 (2.1) | 4 (6.2) | 2 (2.3) | 6 (7.3) | 4 (5.6) | 6 (11.1) | 9 (12.2) | 7 (5.4) | 2 (2.2) | 13 (9.6) | 5 (3.1) | 6 (18.8) | 4 (3.3) | 8 (5.6) |
others | 2 (0.7) | 2 (1.2) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.7) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 2 (2.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (2.7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (1.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (1.4) |
Total | Gender | Generation | Region | Education | Income | Stage-of-Change | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total (n = 296) | Female (n = 170) | Male (n = 126) | Millennials (n = 135) | Gen X (n = 96) | Boomers (n = 65) | West (n = 88) | South (n = 82) | Northeast (n = 72) | Midwest (n = 54) | Some College (n = 74) | College Degree (n = 130) | Graduate School (n=92) | Income Low (n = 136) | Income High (n = 160) | Pre-Action (n = 32) | Action (n = 122) | Maint-enance (n = 142) | |
n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
Ingredient | ||||||||||||||||||
organic or natural | 166 (56.1) | 97 (57.1) | 69 (54.8) | 58 (43) | 62 (64.6) | 46 (70.8) | 53 (60.2) | 45 (54.9) | 41 (56.9) | 27 (50) | 37 (50) | 72 (55.4) | 57 (62) | 62 (45.6) | 104 (65) | 16 (50) | 60 (49.2) | 90 (63.4) |
natural flavoring | 139 (47) | 75 (44.1) | 64 (50.8) | 55 (40.7) | 50 (52.1) | 34 (52.3) | 44 (50) | 32 (39) | 36 (50) | 27 (50) | 36 (48.6) | 56 (43.1) | 47 (51.1) | 51 (37.5) | 88 (55) | 13 (40.6) | 51 (41.8) | 75 (52.8) |
kombucha content | 136 (45.9) | 68 (40) | 68 (54) | 53 (39.3) | 55 (57.3) | 28 (43.1) | 43 (48.9) | 34 (41.5) | 36 (50) | 23 (42.6) | 35 (47.3) | 51 (39.2) | 50 (54.3) | 57 (41.9) | 79 (49.4) | 14 (43.8) | 58 (47.5) | 64 (45.1) |
type of tea | 119 (40.2) | 73 (42.9) | 46 (36.5) | 49 (36.3) | 38 (39.6) | 32 (49.2) | 39 (44.3) | 25 (30.5) | 30 (41.7) | 25 (46.3) | 34 (45.9) | 51 (39.2) | 34 (37) | 54 (39.7) | 65 (40.6) | 13 (40.6) | 38 (31.1) | 68 (47.9) |
live culture | 111 (37.5) | 73 (42.9) | 38 (30.2) | 43 (31.9) | 38 (39.6) | 30 (46.2) | 31 (35.2) | 31 (37.8) | 27 (37.5) | 22 (40.7) | 29 (39.2) | 46 (35.4) | 36 (39.1) | 46 (33.8) | 65 (40.6) | 14 (43.8) | 33 (27) | 64 (45.1) |
natural coloring | 106 (35.8) | 61 (35.9) | 45 (35.7) | 41 (30.4) | 44 (45.8) | 21 (32.3) | 37 (42) | 26 (31.7) | 20 (27.8) | 23 (42.6) | 31 (41.9) | 41 (31.5) | 34 (37) | 38 (27.9) | 68 (42.5) | 11 (34.4) | 47 (38.5) | 48 (33.8) |
artificial sweetener | 92 (31.1) | 58 (34.1) | 34 (27) | 40 (29.6) | 28 (29.2) | 24 (36.9) | 29 (33) | 27 (32.9) | 19 (26.4) | 17 (31.5) | 26 (35.1) | 35 (26.9) | 31 (33.7) | 40 (29.4) | 52 (32.5) | 12 (37.5) | 32 (26.2) | 48 (33.8) |
artificial coloring | 89 (30.1) | 50 (29.4) | 39 (31) | 33 (24.4) | 33 (34.4) | 23 (35.4) | 31 (35.2) | 23 (28) | 19 (26.4) | 16 (29.6) | 17 (23) | 40 (30.8) | 32 (34.8) | 35 (25.7) | 54 (33.8) | 7 (21.9) | 33 (27) | 49 (34.5) |
artificial flavoring | 87 (29.4) | 51 (30) | 36 (28.6) | 36 (26.7) | 30 (31.3) | 21 (32.3) | 27 (30.7) | 26 (31.7) | 22 (30.6) | 12 (22.2) | 22 (29.7) | 37 (28.5) | 28 (30.4) | 36 (26.5) | 51 (31.9) | 3 (9.4) | 35 (28.7) | 49 (34.5) |
type of water | 69 (23.3) | 39 (22.9) | 30 (23.8) | 28 (20.7) | 26 (27.1) | 15 (23.1) | 20 (22.7) | 15 (18.3) | 17 (23.6) | 17 (31.5) | 16 (21.6) | 31 (23.8) | 22 (23.9) | 32 (23.5) | 37 (23.1) | 6 (18.8) | 29 (23.8) | 34 (23.9) |
none above | 20 (6.8) | 14 (8.2) | 6 (4.8) | 11 (8.1) | 3 (3.1) | 6 (9.2) | 6 (6.8) | 8 (9.8) | 3 (4.2) | 3 (5.6) | 6 (8.1) | 11 (8.5) | 3 (3.3) | 11 (8.1) | 9 (5.6) | 4 (12.5) | 2 (1.6) | 14 (9.9) |
others | 4 (1.4) | 3 (1.8) | 1 (0.8) | 1 (0.7) | 1 (1) | 2 (3.1) | 2 (2.3) | 0 (0) | 1 (1.4) | 1 (1.9) | 2 (2.7) | 2 (1.5) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.7) | 3 (1.9) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.8) | 3 (2.1) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kim, J.; Bhattarai, U.; Adhikari, K. The Healthy Eater’s Idea and Related Behavior of a Healthy Diet—A Case Study with Kombucha Drinkers. Beverages 2022, 8, 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages8020025
Kim J, Bhattarai U, Adhikari K. The Healthy Eater’s Idea and Related Behavior of a Healthy Diet—A Case Study with Kombucha Drinkers. Beverages. 2022; 8(2):25. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages8020025
Chicago/Turabian StyleKim, Juyoung, Uttam Bhattarai, and Koushik Adhikari. 2022. "The Healthy Eater’s Idea and Related Behavior of a Healthy Diet—A Case Study with Kombucha Drinkers" Beverages 8, no. 2: 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages8020025
APA StyleKim, J., Bhattarai, U., & Adhikari, K. (2022). The Healthy Eater’s Idea and Related Behavior of a Healthy Diet—A Case Study with Kombucha Drinkers. Beverages, 8(2), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages8020025