Main meal quality in Brazil and United Kingdom: Similarities and differences.

Consumption of fast food and ready-to-eat meals has been positively associated with obesity. In the UK, ready-made meals are more often consumed than in Brazil, a country in which nutrition transition is relatively low. This study aimed to compare the nutritional quality of the main meal consumed by adults in Brazil and UK. Food record data was obtained from representative samples from UK and Brazil databases. The Main Meal Quality Index (MMQI) was applied to estimate the quality of the main meal consumed in Brazil and UK. Differences in food groups consumed in the main meal in Brazil and UK were observed using classification decision tree. Meals with higher average energy content were lunch for Brazil, and dinner for the UK. On average, the Brazilian main meal had better nutritional quality (4.42 times higher), independently of sex, age, family income, nutritional status and energy consumed, with higher scores of fiber, carbohydrate, total fat, saturated fat and energy density. However, UK's main meal included more fruits and vegetables. Food preparations combined with rice and beans were classified as Brazilian main meal, while combinations with fast food items, as fried potatoes, sandwiches and sugary beverages, were classified as UK main meals. In Brazil, the main meal quality was lower among women and obese individuals, presenting significant positive association with age, and negative association with energy intake and family income; while in UK, only age was positively associated with MMQI. Although main meals in Brazil had higher nutritional quality compared to the UK, main meals consumed in both countries need nutritional improvement.

Indices for the assessment of nutritional quality of meals: a systematic review.

This systematic review aimed to synthesise information on indices developed to evaluate nutritional quality of meals. A strategy for systematic search of the literature was developed using keywords related to assessment of meal quality. Databases searched included ScienceDirect, PubMed, Lilacs, SciELO, Scopus, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar. The literature search resulted in seven different meal quality indices. Each article was analysed in order to identify the following items: authors, country, year, study design, population characteristics, type of meal evaluated, dietary assessment method, characteristics evaluated (nutrients or food items), score range, index components, nutritional references, correlations performed, validation and relationship with an outcome (if existing). Two studies developed instruments to assess the quality of breakfast, three analysed lunch, one evaluated dinner and one was applied to all types of meals and snacks. All meal quality indices reviewed were based on the evaluation of presence or absence of food groups and relative contributions of nutrients, according to food-based guidelines or nutrient references, adapting the daily dietary recommendations to one specific meal. Most of the indices included three items as components for meal quality assessment: (I) total fat or some specific type of fat, (II) fruits and vegetables and (III) cereals or whole grains. This systematic review indicates aspects that need further research, particularly the numerous approaches to assessing meals considering different foods and nutrients, and the need for validation studies of meal indices.