Skip to main content

Discrepancy in socioeconomic status does not fully explain the variation in diet quality between consumers of different coffee types

European Journal of Nutrition volume 57, pages 2123–2131 (2018)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

Habitual consumers of different coffee types may vary in socioeconomic status (SES), which is an important determinant of diet quality. Nonetheless, research on diet quality among coffee consumers was scarce. We aimed to compare the diet quality of coffee consumers with different preferences towards coffee type and additive usage.

Methods

In this cross-sectional analysis, intake data of food, coffee, and additive usage from the adult respondents of the 2011–2012 Australian Health Survey were used. Participants were grouped according to the type of coffee (espresso and ground coffee, E&G; coffee made from coffee mixes and instant coffee, M&I; non-consumers, NC) and additives (milk, sugar, and intense sweetener) consumed. Adjusted food group intake was compared between consumption groups using general linear model.

Results

E&G drinkers had better SES than M&I and NC. After adjusting for covariates, the mean dairy intake of E&G drinkers was 22.2% higher than M&I drinkers (p < 0.001) and 33.1% higher than NC (p < 0.001). Mean discretionary food intake of E&G drinkers was 12.1% lower than M&I (p = 0.003) and 12.3% lower than NC (p = 0.001). In terms of additive usage, non-users of coffee additive had the lowest dairy food intake and the highest discretionary food intake.

Conclusions

Coffee consumers’ different preferences towards coffee type and additive usages reflected significant variations in their diet quality, even after adjustment of SES. Therefore, future epidemiological studies should consider separating coffee drinkers according to their habitual consumption of different types of coffee.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Abbreviations

SES:

Socioeconomic status

T2DM:

Type 2 diabetes mellitus

E&G:

Espresso and ground coffee

M&I:

Mixed and instant coffee

References

  1. Ding M, Bhupathiraju SN, Chen M, van Dam RM, Hu FB (2014) Caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and a dose-response meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 37(2):569–586. doi:10.2337/dc13-1203

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Jiang X, Zhang D, Jiang W (2014) Coffee and caffeine intake and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Eur J Nutr 53(1):25–38. doi:10.1007/s00394-013-0603-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ding M, Bhupathiraju SN, Satija A, van Dam RM, Hu FB (2014) Long-term coffee consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Circulation 129(6):643–659. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.113.005925

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Crippa A, Discacciati A, Larsson SC, Wolk A, Orsini N (2014) Coffee consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 180(8):763–775

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mesas AE, Leon-Muñoz LM, Rodriguez-Artalejo F, Lopez-Garcia E (2011) The effect of coffee on blood pressure and cardiovascular disease in hypertensive individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 94(4):1113–1126. doi:10.3945/ajcn.111.016667

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Grioni S, Agnoli C, Sieri S, Pala V, Ricceri F, Masala G, Saieva C, Panico S, Mattiello A, Chiodini P (2015) Espresso coffee consumption and risk of coronary heart disease in a large Italian cohort. PLoS One 10(5):e0126550

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2013) Coffee in the United States: sustainability trends. Market indicator report, AAFC No. 11965E. International Markets Bureau, ON, Canada

  8. Pampel FC, Krueger PM, Denney JT (2010) Socioeconomic disparities in health behaviors. Annu Rev Sociol 36:349

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Galobardes B, Morabia A, Bernstein MS (2001) Diet and socioeconomic position: does the use of different indicators matter? Int J Epidemiol 30(2):334–340

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Drewnowski A, Rehm CD (2014) Consumption of low-calorie sweeteners among US adults is associated with higher healthy eating index (HEI 2005) scores and more physical activity. Nutrients 6(10):4389–4403

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Gyntelberg F, Hein HO, Suadicani P, For the Copenhagen Male Study (2009) Sugar in coffee or tea and risk of obesity: a neglected issue. Int J Food Sci Nutr 60(sup3):56–64

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bouchard DR, Ross R, Janssen I (2010) Coffee, tea and their additives: association with BMI and waist circumference. Obes Facts 3(6):345–352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rayner M, Scarborough P (2005) The burden of food related ill health in the UK. J Epidemiol Community Health 59(12):1054–1057. doi:10.1136/jech.2005.036491

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Food standards Australia New Zealand (2014) AUSNUT 2013—Australian food composition tables. FSANZ, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  15. Harttig U, Haubrock J, Knüppel S, Boeing H (2011) The MSM program: web-based statistics package for estimating usual dietary intake using the multiple source method. Eur J Clin Nutr 65:S87–S91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011) Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC), cat. no. 1216.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra

  17. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011) Census of population and housing: socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA), cat. no. 2033.0.55.001. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra

  18. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013) Australian health survey: users’ guide, 2011–13, cat. no. 4363.0.55.001. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra

  19. Rennie KL, Coward A, Jebb SA (2007) Estimating under-reporting of energy intake in dietary surveys using an individualised method. Br J Nutr 97(06):1169–1176

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. National Health and Medical Research Council (2013) Australian dietary guidelines. National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  21. Thompson FE, Kirkpatrick SI, Subar AF, Reedy J, Schap TE, Wilson MM, Krebs-Smith SM (2015) The National Cancer Institute’s Dietary Assessment Primer: a resource for diet research. J Acad Nutr Diet 115(12):1986–1995. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2015.08.016

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim H-J, Cho S, Jacobs DR, Park K (2014) Instant coffee consumption may be associated with higher risk of metabolic syndrome in Korean adults. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 106(1):145–153

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Smith GD, Bartley M, Blane D (1990) The black report on socioeconomic inequalities in health 10 years on. BMJ Br Med J 301(6748):373–377

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Van Dam RM, Feskens EJ (2002) Coffee consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Lancet 360(9344):1477–1478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. An R (2016) Beverage consumption in relation to discretionary food intake and diet quality among us adults, 2003 to 2012. J Acad Nutr Diet 116(1):28–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Heuer T, Krems C, Moon K, Brombach C, Hoffmann I (2015) Food consumption of adults in Germany: results of the German National Nutrition Survey II based on diet history interviews. Br J Nutr 113(10):1603–1614

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Kant AK, Schatzkin A, Graubard BI, Schairer C (2000) A prospective study of diet quality and mortality in women. JAMA 283(16):2109–2115. doi:10.1001/jama.283.16.2109

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. O’Connor L, Imamura F, Lentjes MA, Khaw K-T, Wareham NJ, Forouhi NG (2015) Prospective associations and population impact of sweet beverage intake and type 2 diabetes, and effects of substitutions with alternative beverages. Diabetologia 58(7):1474–1483

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Drewnowski A (2004) Obesity and the food environment: dietary energy density and diet costs. Am J Prev Med 27(3):154–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Australian Bureau of Statistics for permission to use the 2011-12 NNPAS data.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Science, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, 5S-14 Kadoorie Biological Sciences Building, 1 Pokfulam Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China

    Tommy Hon Ting Wong & Jimmy Chun Yu Louie

  2. Charles Perkins Centre, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia

    Zhixian Sui, Anna Rangan & Jimmy Chun Yu Louie

Authors
  1. Tommy Hon Ting Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhixian Sui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Rangan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jimmy Chun Yu Louie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

THTW, ZS and JCYL were responsible for data analysis, and together with AR interpreted the data and wrote the manuscript. JCYL has the primary responsibility for the final content of this manuscript. The Australian Bureau of Statistics is not responsible for the current secondary analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jimmy Chun Yu Louie.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval for the NNPAS was granted by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing Departmental Ethics Committee in 2011. Ethics approval was not required for the current secondary data analysis.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflict of interest

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. The authors declare that there are no competing interests.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 23 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wong, T.H.T., Sui, Z., Rangan, A. et al. Discrepancy in socioeconomic status does not fully explain the variation in diet quality between consumers of different coffee types. Eur J Nutr 57, 2123–2131 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-017-1488-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-017-1488-x

Keywords

  • Coffee type
  • Diet quality
  • Sugar
  • Australia
  • Coffee additive
  • Coffee