Abstract
Background/objective
Studies that address dietary intake theme during pregnancy are generally centered on specific nutrients or on dietary patterns. However, the maternal dietary profile according to the degree of food processing is poorly understood. The purpose of the present study was to describe the dietary profile of high-risk pregnant women according to the degree of food processing.
Materials and methods
A prospective cohort study was conducted at Prof. Dr. Jose Aristodemo Pinotti Women’s Hospital (CAISM), University of Campinas, Brazil, with high-risk pregnant women in the third trimester of gestation.
Results
Data from 125 high-risk pregnant women were collected between September 2017 and April 2019. The mean total energy intake (EI) was 1778.3 ± 495.79 kcal/day and the majority of the calories was from unprocessed foods (52.42%), followed by ultra-processed foods (25.46%). The consumption of free sugar and sodium exceeded recommendations, while the consumption of fiber, calcium, folate and iron was below recommendations. The ultra-processed foods intake affects dietary patterns negatively.
Conclusion
More than 50% of the EI of high-risk pregnant women is from unprocessed or minimally processed foods, but it is insufficient for meeting dairy fiber, iron, folate and calcium recommendations.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the research group Reproductive Health and Healthy Habits (SAR3HAS) for the valuable discussions. We are grateful to Maitê Vasconcelos Luz and Letícia Tavares Faustino, students at University of Campinas, for their help with data collection. We are also grateful to Helymar da Costa Machado for statistical analyses. The current manuscript was part of the PhD thesis “Health-related behaviors in the perspective of obstetric care” by Daiane Sofia de Morais Paulino under the tutorial of Professor Dra Fernanda Garanhani Surita and presented to the Postgraduate Program of Obstetrics and Gynecology from the School of Medical Sciences of the University of Campinas.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).