The slow rise of sourdough: a nutrition audit of the bread category highlights whole grain.

The popularity of sourdough bread has increased, however, traditional methods and ingredients may not always be used. This study compared the Australian bread category (October 2019 and 2021), examining nutrition and health issues with a specific focus on sourdough products. Data from Sydney supermarkets (Aldi, Coles, IGA, Woolworths) and a bakery franchise (Bakers Delight) collected ingredients, nutrition information and on-pack claims. Product numbers increased 20% between time points (n = 669 v n = 800), led by flatbread (+100%). Sourdough (14%) grew +50% ahead of traditional white wheat (+35%), gluten-free (+12%), wholemeal (+5%) and multigrain bread (-31%). Half of all products (n = 408) met the Healthy Food Partnership sodium reformulation targets. Fermentation claims increased by 86% although products included non-traditional ingredients. Whole grain varieties (25%) remain the most nutritious choice within the category. Without a definition, fermentation claims may distract consumers, creating a "health halo" for sourdough products although health benefits are yet to be substantiated.

Fortification of grain foods and NOVA: the potential for altered nutrient intakes while avoiding ultra-processed foods.

PURPOSE: NOVA is a food classification system describing a hierarchy from minimally processed to ultra-processed foods (UPF). Research has associated intake of UPF with chronic diseases. In Australia, the primary sources of grains, both refined and whole, are breads and breakfast cereals, which are typically fortified. Most are classified as UPF, yet are recommended core foods according to the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG). This research aimed to identify if avoidance of ultra-processed grain foods would alter nutrient intakes in an Australian population and whether sample diets using substitute (non-UPF) foods would be likely to meet nutrient requirements. METHODS: Quantitative analysis of usual nutrient intake from the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey 2011-12 (n = 12,153) for all foods including and excluding UPF. Dietary modelling examined the nutritional adequacy of sample diets aligned with the ADG and another containing replacements for UPF. We particularly focused on grain foods and meeting whole-grain intake targets. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease (all p < 0.05) in modelled intake of key nutrients when UPF were excluded, specifically, thiamin, folate and iodine, as substitutions are rarely fortified. Diets with no UPF, where substitutes are carefully chosen, have the potential to meet Nutrient Reference Values, but deviation from customary food choices may mean adoption of substitutes is unlikely. CONCLUSIONS: Exclusion of UPF may result in lowered intakes of key nutrients of particular concern for at risk groups (including women of child-bearing age), negating gains made by public health policy of fortification. Substitutions may not be realistic in these at-risk populations.

Development and validation of a Food Choices Score for use in weight-loss interventions.

Weight loss results from an energy deficit, although the quality of food choices making up the diet may also be important. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate a diet quality tool based on food categories to monitor dietary change in clinical weight-loss settings. The Food Choices Score (FCS) was based on seventeen food categories, each scoring up to five points, totalling 85. In addition to content validity, the tool was validated using (1) two energy-deficit diet models (6500 and 7400 kJ) assuring nutrient and food-group targets and (2) dietary data from two weight-loss trials (n 189). First, the diet models confirmed that an optimal score of 85 was achievable. Second, change in scores was compared with weight loss achieved at 3 months. The trial data produced a mean FCS of 42·6 (sd 8·6), increasing to 49·1 (sd 7·6) by 3 months. Participants who lost weight achieved a higher FCS at 3 months than those who did not (P= 0·027), and there was an even greater improvement in the FCS (P= 0·024) in participants losing ≥ 5 % body weight than in those losing < 5 %. A greater change in the FCS (Δ ≥ 7) resulted in a greater change in BMI (P =0·044), and score change was correlated with weight change (P= 0·023). Participants with the highest scores ( ≥ 56 v. ≤ 44/85) consumed more fruit (P< 0·001) and low-fat dairy foods (P =0·004), less fatty meat (P< 0·001), non-whole-grain cereals (P< 0·001), non-core foods and drinks (NCFD) (P< 0·001), less energy (P =0·018), less dietary fat (P< 0·001) and more dietary fibre (P= 0·013). Weight loss was 35·5 % less likely to be achieved with every increase in the serves of NCFD (P =0·004) in the study sample. The FCS is a valid tool for assessing diet quality in clinical weight-loss settings.

Cereal grains, legumes, and weight management: a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence.

There is strong evidence that a diet high in whole grains is associated with lower body mass index, smaller waist circumference, and reduced risk of being overweight; that a diet high in whole grains and legumes can help reduce weight gain; and that significant weight loss is achievable with energy-controlled diets that are high in cereals and legumes. There is weak evidence that high intakes of refined grains may cause small increases in waist circumference in women. There is no evidence that low-carbohydrate diets that restrict cereal intakes offer long-term advantages for sustained weight loss. There is insufficient evidence to make clear conclusions about the protective effect of legumes on weight.