2021
DOI: 10.3390/nu13072270
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Use of the Spectroscopy-Based Veggie Meter® to Objectively Assess Fruit and Vegetable Intake in Low-Income Adults

Abstract: Reflection spectroscopy is an emerging approach for noninvasively assessing dermal carotenoids as a biomarker of fruit and vegetable (FV) intake. This study sought to profile and identify determinants of scores from a reflection spectroscopy device (the Veggie Meter (VM)®) among 297 urban, primarily Hispanic low-income adults served by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). The repeatability of the scores and bi- and multivariate relationships between VM scores, self… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
(142 reference statements)
1
8
1
Order By: Relevance
“…While dietary intake was only assessed by proxy using the Veggie Meter ® , this was by design, as the Veggie Meter ® has been previously validated against several different criteria [43], and it was critical to determine if it can be successfully implemented in lowincome schools despite the logistical challenges that accompany working in this setting. Overall, this study supports the growing body of literature that suggests that the Veggie Meter ® is an appropriate tool for measuring change in fruit and vegetable consumption by proxy in the school setting, especially in a low-income school setting [24][25][26].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…While dietary intake was only assessed by proxy using the Veggie Meter ® , this was by design, as the Veggie Meter ® has been previously validated against several different criteria [43], and it was critical to determine if it can be successfully implemented in lowincome schools despite the logistical challenges that accompany working in this setting. Overall, this study supports the growing body of literature that suggests that the Veggie Meter ® is an appropriate tool for measuring change in fruit and vegetable consumption by proxy in the school setting, especially in a low-income school setting [24][25][26].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…With these considerations in mind, reflection spectroscopy has emerged as a relatively low-cost, non-invasive, and most-importantly, objective method of detecting changes in dietary behavior, specifically consumption of carotenoid-containing fruits and vegetables [24][25][26][27]. When consumed, carotenoids are deposited in the skin; greater consumption of fruits and vegetables is associated with higher amounts of detectable skin carotenoids [28].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contrasts between self-reported FV consumption and objectively measured skin carotenoids suggest that two-item self-report of FV may be inflated in this sample. Each 100 units in the RS score corresponds to approximately one serving of FV consumed per day [47], suggesting that FV intake was somewhat more than 3 cups per day in this sample of FM shoppers. Interpretations of FV consumption should consider this measurement bias.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…It was difficult to acquire precise methodologies because many articles did not state the specific procedures used when operating the device. Because the Current Practices Survey was conducted in the spring of 2020, it should be acknowledged that an updated review of more recently published literature using the Veggie Meter ® was performed, confirming that procedural discrepancies still persisted in more recent literature ( 39 50 ). This finding emphasizes the importance of establishing a standardized protocol for the use of the Veggie Meter ® in the research setting to ensure consistency among users moving forward, which will allow for comparisons between studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%