Table 3.
Sample characteristics by soy milk consumption status: NHANES 2017–2020.
| Soy Milk: Consumers n = 187 |
Soy Milk: Non-Consumers n = 8324 |
p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | p = 0.048 b | ||
| Male | 36.55% (5.33) e | 48.09% (0.80) | |
| Female | 63.45% (5.33) e | 51.91% (0. 80) | |
| Age (years) | 50.26 (2.05) | 48.37 (0.56) | p = 0.373 c |
| Race/ethnicity | p < 0.001 b | ||
| Mexican American | 16.40% (4.68) | 8.21% (1.12) | |
| Other Hispanic | 12.01% (3.41) | 7.40% (0.68) | |
| Non-Hispanic White | 34.55% (5.71) e | 63.69% (2.44) | |
| Non-Hispanic Black | 14.77% (3.22) | 11.24% (1.43) | |
| Non-Hispanic Asian | 18.52% (2.92) e | 5.52% (0.84) | |
| Other Race a | 3.75% (1.60) f | 3.95% (1.60) | |
| Marital status | p = 0.430 b | ||
| Married/Living with Partner | 56.74% (3.62) | 61.82% (1.34) | |
| Widowed/Divorced/Separated | 23.05% (4.07) | 18.92% (0.76) | |
| Never married | 20.21% (3.92) | 19.26% (1.09) | |
| Education Level | p = 0.080 b | ||
| Less than 9th grade | 5.81% (1.29) f | 3.64% (0.36) | |
| 9–11th grade | 6.95% (1.82) | 7.12% (0.33) | |
| High school graduate/GED d | 16.01% (3.61) e | 27.10% (1.38) | |
| Some college or AA degree | 32.09% (5.44) | 30.56% (0.92) | |
| College graduate or above | 39.13% (4.84) | 31.57% (2.14) | |
| Food security category | p = 0.304 b | ||
| Full food security | 65.45% (4.41) | 72.22% (1.14) | |
| Marginal food security | 14.61% (2.98) | 10.73% (0.58) | |
| Low food security | 11.70% (2.31) | 10.45% (0.61) | |
| Very low food security | 8.24% (2.13) | 6.59% (0.48) | |
| General health condition | p = 0.285 b | ||
| Excellent | 17.43% (3.79) | 13.94% (1.05) | |
| Very good | 24.71% (4.84) | 32.34% (0.87) | |
| Good | 40.38% (3.95) | 35.15% (0.96) | |
| Fair | 13.77% (3.40) | 16.01% (0.74) | |
| Poor | 3.70% (1.14) f | 2.57% (0.15) | |
| Ratio of family income to poverty | p = 0.443 b | ||
| <1 | 11.68% (2.24) | 11.82% (0.84) | |
| ≥1 and <2 | 19.61% (3.91) | 17.86% (0.87) | |
| ≥2 and <3 | 18.48% (3.44) | 14.19% (0.80) | |
| ≥3 | 50.23% (5.60) | 56.12% (1.57) | |
| Diabetes status | p = 0.289 b | ||
| Yes | 15.11% (2.96) | 11.61% (0.42) | |
| No | 81.86% (2.95) | 85.90% (0.41) | |
| Borderline | 3.03% (0.92) f | 2.49% (0.29) | |
| Smoking status | p = 0.010 b | ||
| Yes | 29.22% (4.25) e | 42.59% (1.22) | |
| No | 70.78% (4.25) e | 57.41% (1.22) | |
| Moderate recreational activities | p = 0.009 b | ||
| Yes | 58.62% (4.21) e | 46.64% (1.17) | |
| No | 41.38% (4.21) e | 53.36% (1.17) |
Weighted proportions. Total number of unweighted observations: n = 8511. Continuous variables shown as mean (standard error). Categorical variables shown as weighted proportion (standard error). a = includes multi-racial; b = based on Stata’s design-adjusted Rao–Scott test, c = based on regression analyses followed by adjusted Wald tests, d = or equivalent, e = indicates significant differences in the weighted proportions, f = weighted proportions to be considered unreliable, as peer recent NCHS Guidelines. Column percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.