Advice and the Reality of Snacking Habits: a Worldwide Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Snacking patterns and increased consumption of high fat/sugar food items (HFS) have been proposed as components of an adverse food environment; yet again no clear guidance is available to define their 'optimal' intake. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify existing recommendations on the consumption of HFS food items and snacks as well as reports documenting the actual consumption patterns in various countries worldwide. Nutritionists from 10 countries were also contacted to provide with a translation of recommendations published in languages other than English. Results: Overall, recommendations on snacking and HFS food items were available in 30 countries. Advice on the consumption of snacks was available in 9 countries suggesting they provide 10‐30% of energy intake (EI). Epidemiological data, on the other hand, shows that currently the percentage of energy obtained from snacks differs substantially between countries and is in the majority of the cases higher than recommended (17.4‐39.8%). Energy contribution of snacks Country Recommendation Target population Reported intake Population Spain 10‐15% EI General Sweden 20% EI General United Kingdom 20% EI General 17.4‐22.7% EI (15.7‐29.6% EI) Adults (Children) Brazil 15% EI General 21% EI General Chile 20% EI Adults USA 10% EI Children 18.4‐20.3% EI (17.0‐23.8% EI) Adults (Children) Italy 10‐14% EI Children Mexico 30% EI Children Canada ‐ ‐ 16.6‐26.5% EI (26.2‐29.6%EI) Adults (Children) Australia ‐ ‐ 28%EI Adults Belgium ‐ ‐ 20‐24% EI General Estonia ‐ ‐ 7% EI Children Finland ‐ ‐ 36.1‐39.8% EI Adults HFS food items were referred to in 25 recommendations but were rarely expressed quantitatively and if so they were highly variable. Consumption patterns are highly different among countries (7‐30.3%) with inconsistencies in the definition of HFS food items being one of the sources of heterogeneity. Energy contribution of HFS food items Country Recommendation Target population Reported intake Population Spain &9occasionally&9 General ‐ ‐ Sweden 13‐14% EI Adults ‐ ‐ United Kingdom &9small amounts&9 General 12.8‐16.2% EI Children Brazil &9avoid&9 General 7% EI General* USA 120‐330Kcal (100‐500 Kcal) General (Children) 11% EI Children Italy <jats
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".