Nutrient scores are allocated based on the content of 100 grams of each snack.
The program computes nutrient scores by multiplying the relative frequency of consumption of each food item by its nutrient content of the standard portion size.
Pearson correlation coefficients (adjusted for total energy intake) illustrating the comparison of nutrient scores estimated from the food-frequency questionnaire and from the diet records were 0.39 and 0.53 for dietary fibers, 0.56 and 0.48 for iron, and 0.37 and 0.14 for meat for men and women, respectively [ 43, 44].
Pearson correlation coefficients (adjusted for total energy intake) illustrating the comparison of nutrient scores estimated from the food-frequency questionnaire and from weighed diet records were 0.39 and 0.53 for dietary fibre and 0.37 and 0.14 for meat for men and women, respectively [ 48, 49].
Dietary quality indices (theoretical dietary patterns) are typically defined relative to expert dietary guidelines or composite nutrient scores; conversely, empirically-derived patterns define habitual food intake and are derived by cluster and factor analysis or reduced rank regression (Moeller et al., 2007).
Each individual's diet was characterized by both a nutrient dense score and an energy dense score.
In Method 2, the nutritional quality of different diets was considered by calculating their nutrient density score, and the environmental impact was then expressed per nutrient density score.
Finally, higher milk consumption and greater use of calcium supplements was associated with a higher nutrient dense score and longer sedentary time was associated with a higher energy dense score.
Comparisons based on nutrient density scores depended on the score used, but the current and LCHF diets had more impact than the recommended diet (less livestock products) for all but one score.
There is limited value in reducing results to a low number of indicators that are easy to read, but difficult to interpret, e.g. nutrient density score.
