Abstract
Although most US children do not meet recommendations for choline intake, there are also no data available assessing usual egg intake in younger children and choline adequacy. Therefore, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2001–2018 were analyzed to identify usual egg intake in infants (birth to 1 y; N = 4770) and young children (2–5 y; N = 6930) and to determine mean percentage of infants and children above the Adequate Intake (AI) for daily choline intake. The percent of infants above the AI when consuming the lowest usual egg intake level (<0.25 oz eq) was 33.4 ± 1.3. When comparing 0.25–0.5, 0.5–0.75, 0.75–1.0, and ≥1.0 oz eq to <0.25 oz eq of usual egg intake, the percent of infants above the AI for choline was 67.4 ± 1.6, 84.9 ± 2.1, 93.2 ± 1.5, and 98.1 ± 1.3, respectively (all P < 0.0001). The percent of children above the AI when consuming the lowest usual egg intake level (<0.25 oz eq) was 22.31. Comparing 0.25– 0.5, 0.5–0.75, 0.75–1.0, and ≥1.0 oz eq to <0.25 oz eq of usual egg intake demonstrated significant increases in the percent of toddlers above the AI for choline, such that 51.41%, 72.57%, and 84.94% and 92.57%, respectively, were above the recommended daily intake for choline (all P < 0.0001). Similar findings were seen when assessing infants and children of different socioeconomic status. Overall, the percent of infants and children above the AI was higher with each increasing level of usual egg intake. Given the association of higher choline intakes with egg consumption, increasing usual egg intake in infants and young children may help elevate the percentage meeting the established AI for choline intake and thus, improve choline adequacy in childhood.
Keywords: usual intake, eggs, choline, children, NHANES
Introduction
The inclusion of eggs within American dietary pattern recommendations has been inconsistent over the last half of the century, with conventional scientific rationale around egg consumption routinely being associated with adverse health outcomes [1,2]. Limiting eggs within a healthy diet can be traced to the AHA guidance from the late 1960s to reduce egg consumption to <3 eggs per week to lower risk of CVD [3]. Recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans [4,5] as well as reviews [[6], [7], [8]] have re-examined and questioned previously established evidence around egg consumption and health and have proposed that previous dietary recommendations are no longer supported by current science and were predominantly based on misinterpreted and/or substandard scientific evidence. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (2020–2025) released food and nutrition recommendations for infants and toddlers that specifically recommended eggs as a first food in this age group, in addition to recommending eggs for preadolescents, adolescents, and pregnant and lactating women [9]. Eggs have also been identified as a cost-efficient source of dietary protein, choline, iron, zinc, riboflavin, and vitamin B12 while also contributing ∼140 kcal/100 g intake [10].
Recent analyses using data from the US NHANES demonstrate several nutrient intake benefits associated with egg consumption in the infant population. Egg consumption was significantly associated with higher intakes of protein, DHA, α-linolenic acid, lutein/zeaxanthin, total choline, and vitamin B12 in infant egg consumers compared with infant nonconsumers [11]. Similarly, NHANES data in children and adolescents showed positive associations with egg consumption and usual nutrient intakes, such that inclusion of eggs within dietary patterns was related to higher protein, total choline, potassium, selenium, phosphorus, DHA, α-linolenic acid, lutein and zeaxanthin, riboflavin, vitamin A, vitamin D, and vitamin E intakes, and lower total and added sugar intake, in comparison to children and adolescents avoiding eggs in dietary patterns [12].
Dietary guidance supports and encourages numerous protein-rich foods, including eggs, with the caveat that these foods be consumed with minimal added sugar, sodium, and solid fat [4,5]. The nutrient-dense attributes of eggs are well-documented, with one 50 g serving of egg providing numerous bioavailable nutrients [2,13], including being an important food source of choline, an underconsumed nutrient in the American population as indicated by the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee [14]. Recent work examining usual intakes of choline in US children of various age groups exhibited that both younger and older children do not meet authoritative guidance for dietary choline recommendations. Indeed, an NHANES modeling analysis showed that eggs play a substantial role in helping children meet choline recommendations, while in contrast, elimination of eggs from dietary patterns lowered dietary choline intake in all age groups, leading to fewer children above the established AI for choline [15].
With previous studies reporting higher intakes of choline in egg consumers, it was hypothesized that higher usual egg intakes would be associated with a higher percentage of US infants and younger children meeting choline intake recommendations, ultimately leading to an improvement in choline adequacy. Therefore, the objective of the current analysis was to determine association of usual intake of eggs with the percent of infants and younger children above the AI for choline intake. A secondary objective included assessing the primary objective in children of differing socioeconomic status.
Methods
Data source: US NHANES
Data for the current analysis were provided from the US NHANES data set, a cross-sectional survey designed to evaluate the nutritional and health in the free-living population. NHANES is a part of the NCHS, which is administered by the CDC [16]. All ethics protocols, including all proceedures mandated to obtain study consent from participants, have formerly been gathered and verified by the ethics committee of the CDC. Nine data sets were amalgamated for the study, including NHANES 2001–2002, 2003–2004, 2005–2006, 2007–2008, 2009–2010, 2011–2012, 2013–2014, 2015–2016, and 2017–2018 for children from birth to 5 y [17]. Egg consumption and choline intake data examined were from the relevant USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies database for NHANES [18]. The Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies is used to determine nutrient intakes in What We Eat in America [19]. The What We Eat in America collection of data uses the Automated Multiple Pass Method, which has been recognized and documented as a valid, accurate, efficient, and evidence-based procedure for nationally representative dietary surveys [20]. As the present analysis considered dietary recalls in children aged <5 y, dietary recall information was gathered from a parent and/or guardian who was responsible for providing care. For the current research, the analysis focused on reliable and complete 24-h dietary recall data from day 1 (ie, in-person interview) and day 2 (ie, offsite follow-up interview via a telephone call) [21].
Study participants and egg definitions
The analysis pooled data for all male and female children consuming eggs (birth to 1 y, N = 4770; 2 to 5 y, N = 6,930), in addition to conducting separate analyses for male and female participants dependent on socioeconomic status, as assessed by the poverty-income ratio (PIR). The PIR was grouped into 3 categories (<1.35, 1.35 ≤ PIR ≤ 1.85, and >1.85), reflecting the federally established poverty criteria; thus, a PIR of <1.35 equated to being in a lower income family, whereas higher PIR values represented the subject was from a higher income family.
The definition of egg intake focused on children consuming all egg food codes beginning with ‘311’ (ie, eggs, poached eggs, scrambled eggs, and omelets in the dietary recall), as well as the egg component in mixed dishes (ie, egg burritos, egg sandwiches, egg casseroles, egg breads, etc.) Eggs from subgroup 55 ‘Sweet Bakery Products’ (ie, cakes, cookies, pies, brownies, doughnuts, sweet rolls, and pastries) were excluded from the analysis as the egg contribution from these foods was insignificant.
Egg usual intake assessment
Egg usual intake was determined using the methodology developed and validated by the NCI and has previously been described [22]. The study participants’ intake can significantly vary from one day to the next; thus, usual intakes are more appropriate and reflective of true intakes, enhancing accuracy when estimating nutrient adequacy. Assessments of nutrient adequacy using NHANES data are facilitated by statistical adjustment methods and have been previously documented. This method provides an estimate of the distribution of usual intakes from observed intakes, with the condition that >1 d of intake data are available to power the analysis [23]. Thus, both dietary recalls were used to estimate usual egg intake using the NCI model [22]. Subjects were separated into 5 usual egg intake (oz eq) groups:<0.25, 0.25–0.50, 0.50–0.75, 0.75–1.0, and ≥1.0 oz eq. The percent above the AI for dietary choline was determined using the cut-point method to provide a measure of individuals above the recommneded daily choline intake for each usual egg intake group [24].
Statistical methodology
SAS 9.4 software was used to achieve all statistical analyses. Survey weights were incorporated to develop nationally representative estimates for study participants in addition to adjustments to reflect the complex sample design of NHANES [25]. Usual egg intake (oz eq) levels were identified (<0.25, 0.25–0.50, 0.50–0.75, 0.75–1.0, and ≥1.0 oz eq) and compared to the lowest usual egg intake level (ie, <0.25 oz eq). A P value of <0.01 was deemed to represent significance.
Results
Usual egg intake in infants and toddlers
Usual intake and usual egg distribution data are summarized in Table 1 by sex and by combined-sex results. Mean egg usual intake for infants (birth to 1 y) and children (2–5 y) were 0.23 ± 0.01 and 0.34 ± 0.01 oz eq. The median and 90th percentile of usual egg intake were 0.14 ± 0.01 and 0.55 ± 0.03, respectively, in those birth to 1 y and was 0.26 ± 0.01 and 0.69 ± 0.03, respectively in those 2–5 y.
TABLE 1.
Usual intake and usual intake distribution of eggs (oz eq), NHANES 2001–2018, ages birth to 1 y and 2–5 y
| Age, y | Sex | N | Usual intake |
Usual intake percentiles |
||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SE | P5 | SE | P10 | SE | P25 | SE | P50 | SE | P75 | SE | P90 | SE | P95 | SE | |||
| 0–1 | All | 4770 | 0.23 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.002 | 0.02 | 0.003 | 0.04 | 0.005 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 0.31 | 0.02 | 0.55 | 0.03 | 0.76 | 0.04 |
| 0–1 | M | 2461 | 0.24 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.002 | 0.02 | 0.003 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 0.32 | 0.02 | 0.58 | 0.03 | 0.78 | 0.04 |
| 0–1 | F | 2309 | 0.22 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.002 | 0.02 | 0.003 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 0.30 | 0.02 | 0.53 | 0.03 | 0.72 | 0.04 |
| 2–5 | All | 6930 | 0.34 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.01 | 0.26 | 0.01 | 0.44 | 0.01 | 0.69 | 0.03 | 0.89 | 0.04 |
| 2–5 | M | 3491 | 0.36 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.16 | 0.01 | 0.27 | 0.01 | 0.46 | 0.02 | 0.72 | 0.03 | 0.93 | 0.05 |
| 2–5 | F | 3439 | 0.33 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 0.25 | 0.01 | 0.42 | 0.02 | 0.66 | 0.03 | 0.85 | 0.05 |
Abbreviations: F, female; M, male; Mean, least square mean; oz eq, ounce equivalent; P, percentile; SE, standard error.
Percent above the AI for choline intake: ages 0 to 1 y
Table 2 illustrates percent of infants and toddlers meeting total choline recommendations by egg consumption group. In sex-combined infants (birth to 1 y), the percent above the AI increased with each increasing level of usual egg intake. The percent of infants above the AI when consuming a usual egg intake of <0.25 oz eq was 33.4 ± 1.3. When comparing 0.25–0.5, 0.5–0.75, 0.75–1.0, and ≥1.0 oz eq to <0.25 oz eq of usual egg intake, the percent of infants above the AI for choline was 67.4 ± 1.6, 84.9 ± 2.1, 93.2 ± 1.5, and 98.1 ±1.3, respectively (all P <0.0001).
TABLE 2.
Usual egg intake and mean percent above the AI for choline intake, NHANES 2001–2018, ages birth to 1 y and 2–5 y
| Usual egg intake (oz eq) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Age, y | <0.25 oz eq |
0.25–0.5 oz eq |
P | 0.5–0.75 oz eq |
P | 0.75–1 oz eq |
P | ≥1 oz eq |
P | |||||
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | ||||||
| All | 0–1 | 33.38 | 1.3 | 67.40 | 1.6 | <0.0001 | 84.94 | 2.06 | <0.0001 | 93.15 | 1.53 | <0.0001 | 98.05 | 1.27 | <0.0001 |
| All | 2–5 | 22.31 | 1.2 | 51.41 | 1.4 | <0.0001 | 72.57 | 2.14 | <0.0001 | 84.94 | 2.36 | <0.0001 | 92.97 | 1.76 | <0.0001 |
| M | 0–1 | 36.65 | 1.7 | 70.48 | 1.7 | <0.0001 | 86.62 | 2.11 | <0.0001 | 94.58 | 1.75 | <0.0001 | 98.21 | 1.06 | <0.0001 |
| M | 2–5 | 24.71 | 1.7 | 54.46 | 1.7 | <0.0001 | 74.53 | 2.24 | <0.0001 | 87.16 | 2.74 | <0.0001 | 94.24 | 1.66 | <0.0001 |
| F | 0–1 | 29.94 | 1.5 | 64.01 | 2.2 | <0.0001 | 82.90 | 2.43 | <0.0001 | 91.45 | 2.21 | <0.0001 | 97.85 | 2.01 | <0.0001 |
| F | 2–5 | 19.98 | 1.3 | 48.19 | 2.2 | <0.0001 | 70.38 | 2.68 | <0.0001 | 82.28 | 2.89 | <0.0001 | 91.30 | 2.58 | <0.0001 |
Abbreviations: F, female; M, male; Mean, mean percent above Adequate Intake (AI) for choline; oz eq, ounce equivalent; SE, standard error.
Percent above the AI for choline intake: ages 2–5 y
In all children, the percent above the AI increased with each increasing level of usual egg intake. The percent of children above the AI when consuming a usual egg intake of <0.25 oz eq was 22.3. Comparing 0.25–0.5, 0.5–0.75, 0.75–1.0, and ≥1.0 oz eq to < 0.25 oz eq of usual egg intake demonstrated significant increases in the percent of toddlers above the AI for choline, such that 51.4 ± 1.4, 72.6 ± 2.1, 85.0 ± 2.4, and 93.0 ± 1.8, respectively, were above the recommended daily intake for choline (all P < 0.0001).
Percent above the AI for choline intake: ages 0–1 y, PIR < 1.35
Table 3 shows the percent of infants and children meeting total choline recommendations by usual egg consumption group. All usual egg intake levels were compared with the lowest usual egg intake level (ie, <0.25 oz eq). Similar to data presented in Table 2, the percent of children above the AI was greater with each increasing level of usual egg intake. The percent of infants above the AI when consuming a usual egg intake of <0.25 oz eq was 35.1. When comparing 0.25–0.5, 0.5 –0.75, 0.75–1.0, and ≥1.0 oz eq to <0.25 oz eq of usual egg intake, the percent of infants above the AI for choline was 68.5 ± 1.8, 85.8 ± 1.9, 94.1 ±1.3, and 97.5 ± 1.1, respectively (all P < 0.0001).
TABLE 3.
Usual egg intake and mean percent above the AI for choline intake, NHANES 2001–2018, ages birth to 1 y and 2–5 y, PIR < 1.35
| Usual egg intake (oz eq) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Age, y | <0.25 oz eq |
0.25–0.5 oz eq |
P | 0.5–0.75 oz eq |
P | 0.75–1 oz eq |
P | ≥1 oz eq |
P | |||||
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | ||||||
| All | 0–1 | 35.12 | 1.84 | 68.52 | 1.84 | <0.0001 | 85.80 | 1.85 | <0.0001 | 94.09 | 1.33 | <0.0001 | 97.53 | 1.08 | <0.0001 |
| All | 2–5 | 22.83 | 1.62 | 54.84 | 1.47 | <0.0001 | 75.44 | 1.99 | <0.0001 | 87.87 | 2.44 | <0.0001 | 94.30 | 1.75 | <0.0001 |
| M | 0–1 | 39.19 | 2.34 | 72.76 | 2.34 | <0.0001 | 89.24 | 1.68 | <0.0001 | 95.79 | 1.46 | <0.0001 | 98.51 | 0.85 | <0.0001 |
| M | 2–5 | 26.73 | 2.12 | 60.42 | 2.31 | <0.0001 | 79.24 | 2.27 | <0.0001 | 90.60 | 2.63 | <0.0001 | 95.34 | 1.74 | <0.0001 |
| F | 0–1 | 30.64 | 2.12 | 64.12 | 2.28 | <0.0001 | 82.03 | 3.18 | <0.0001 | 92.33 | 1.94 | <0.0001 | 96.46 | 1.76 | <0.0001 |
| F | 2–5 | 18.86 | 1.59 | 49.19 | 1.82 | <0.0001 | 71.51 | 2.27 | <0.0001 | 84.88 | 2.54 | <0.0001 | 93.11 | 1.99 | <0.0001 |
Abbreviations: F, female; M, male; Mean, mean percent above Adequate Intake (AI) for choline; oz eq, ounce equivalent; PIR, poverty-income ratio; SE, standard error.
Percent above the AI for choline intake by age: ages 2–5 y, PIR < 1.35
Choline adequacy was elevated with increasing level of usual egg intake in children from households with PIR <1.35. The percent of children above the AI when consuming a usual egg intake of <0.25 oz eq was 22.8. Comparing 0.25–0.5, 0.5–0.75, 0.75–1.0, and ≥1.0 oz eq to <0.25 oz eq of usual egg intake demonstrated significant increases in the percent of toddlers above the AI for choline, such that 54.8 ± 1.5, 75.4 ± 2.0, 87.9 ± 2.4, and 94.3 ±1.8, respectively, were above the AI for choline intake (all P < 0.0001).
Percent above the AI for choline intake: ages 0 to 1 y, 1.35 ≤ PIR ≤ 1.85
Table 4 shows the percent of infants and children above the AI for total choline by usual egg intake in children from households with 1.35 ≤ PIR ≤ 1.85. All usual egg intake levels were compared with the lowest usual egg intake level (ie, <0.25 oz eq). Similar to data presented in TABLE 2, TABLE 3, the percent of children above the AI was greater with each increasing level of usual egg intake, demonstrating an association between choline adequacy and usual egg intake. The percent of infants above the AI when consuming a usual egg intake of <0.25 oz eq was 34.6. When comparing 0.25–0.5, 0.5–0.75, 0.75–1.0, and ≥1.0 oz eq to < 0.25 oz eq of usual egg intake, the percent of infants above the AI for choline was 60.8 ± 6.7, 77.7 ± 8.1, 87.1 ± 10.7, and 91.8 ± 8.3, respectively (all P < 0.0001).
TABLE 4.
Usual egg intake and mean percent above the AI for choline intake, NHANES 2001–2018, ages birth to 1 y and 2 to 5 y, 1.35 ≤ PIR ≤ 1.85.
| Usual egg intake (oz eq) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Age, y | <0.25 oz eq |
0.25–0.5 oz eq |
P | 0.5–0.75 oz eq |
P | 0.75–1 oz eq |
P | ≥1 oz eq |
P | |||||
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | ||||||
| All | 0–1 | 34.63 | 3.7 | 60.77 | 6.7 | 0.0001 | 77.69 | 8.1 | <0.0001 | 87.07 | 10.7 | <0.0001 | 91.76 | 8.3 | <0.0001 |
| All | 2–5 | 24.84 | 5.3 | 47.53 | 3.8 | 0.0002 | 65.80 | 7.3 | 0.0002 | 74.48 | 8.6 | <0.0001 | 85.25 | 10.1 | <0.0001 |
| M | 0–1 | 38.05 | 5.0 | 64.96 | 7.4 | 0.0003 | 82.46 | 9.1 | 0.0000 | 90.29 | 10.4 | <0.0001 | 90.13 | 8.6 | <0.0001 |
| M | 2–5 | 27.01 | 6.0 | 51.46 | 5.1 | 0.0004 | 69.06 | 7.9 | 0.0001 | 78.47 | 9.1 | <0.0001 | 89.84 | 12.4 | 0.0001 |
| F | 0–1 | 31.50 | 4.1 | 57.15 | 7.2 | 0.0001 | 74.20 | 8.5 | <0.0001 | 84.78 | 11.6 | <0.0001 | 93.33 | 11.0 | <0.0001 |
| F | 2–5 | 22.18 | 5.3 | 43.24 | 4.0 | 0.0004 | 62.48 | 7.5 | 0.0003 | 70.54 | 9.1 | <0.0001 | 80.91 | 11.4 | 0.0001 |
F, female; M, male; Mean, mean percent above Adequate Intake (AI) for choline; oz eq, ounce equivalent; PIR, poverty-income ratio; SE, standard error.
Percent above the AI for choline intake by age and sex: ages 2 to 5 y, 1.35 ≤ PIR ≤ 1.85
Similar to the other age groups examined, choline adequacy was elevated with greater usual egg intake for those from households 1.35 ≤ PIR ≤ 1.85. The percent of children above the AI when consuming a usual egg intake of <0.25 oz eq was 24.8. Comparing 0.25–0.5, 0.5–0.75, 0.75–1.0, and ≥1.0 oz eq to <0.25 oz eq of usual egg intake demonstrated significant increases in the percent of toddlers above the AI for choline, such that 47.5 ± 3.8, 65.8 ± 7.3, 74.5 ± 8.6, and 85.3 ± 10.1, respectively, were above the AI for choline intake (all P < 0.0001).
Percent above the AI for choline intake: ages 0 to 1 y, PIR > 1.85
When considering those from households with a PIR > 1.85, the percent of infants and toddlers above the AI for total choline by usual egg intake is summarized in Table 5. All usual egg intake levels were compared to the lowest usual egg intake level (ie, <0.25 oz eq). The percent of infants above the AI when consuming a usual egg intake of <0.25 oz eq was 32.8. When comparing 0.25–0.5, 0.5–0.75, 0.75–1.0, and ≥1.0 oz eq to <0.25 oz eq of usual egg intake, the percent of infants above the AI for choline was 66.8 ± 3.0, 84.8 ± 4.2, 93.6 ± 3.5, and 97.0 ± 2.5, respectively (all P ≤ 0.0001).
TABLE 5.
Usual egg intake and mean percent above the AI for choline intake, NHANES 2001–2018, ages birth to 1 y and 2 to 5 y, PIR > 1.85.
| Usual egg intake (oz eq) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Age, y | <0.25 oz eq |
0.25–0.5 oz eq |
P | 0.5–0.75 oz eq |
P | 0.75–1 oz eq |
P | ≥1 oz eq |
P | |||||
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | ||||||
| All | 0–1 | 32.78 | 1.8 | 66.79 | 3.0 | <0.0001 | 84.75 | 4.2 | <0.0001 | 93.57 | 3.5 | <0.0001 | 96.96 | 2.5 | <0.0001 |
| All | 2–5 | 21.69 | 2.0 | 49.44 | 2.9 | <0.0001 | 71.43 | 4.5 | <0.0001 | 83.76 | 5.4 | <0.0001 | 92.31 | 4.5 | <0.0001 |
| M | 0–1 | 35.97 | 2.3 | 69.41 | 2.9 | <0.0001 | 86.03 | 4.0 | <0.0001 | 94.61 | 3.1 | <0.0001 | 99.90 | 3.1 | <0.0001 |
| M | 2–5 | 23.76 | 2.7 | 51.34 | 3.2 | <0.0001 | 72.75 | 4.8 | <0.0001 | 82.85 | 6.4 | <0.0001 | 93.51 | 4.6 | <0.0001 |
| F | 0–1 | 29.50 | 2.1 | 63.47 | 4.1 | <0.0001 | 82.82 | 5.3 | <0.0001 | 91.75 | 5.2 | <0.0001 | 91.24 | 9.3 | <0.0001 |
| F | 2–5 | 19.80 | 1.8 | 47.22 | 3.5 | <0.0001 | 69.57 | 4.9 | <0.0001 | 85.36 | 6.5 | <0.0001 | 90.09 | 6.3 | <0.0001 |
F, female; M, male; Mean, mean percent above Adequate Intake (AI) for choline; oz eq, ounce equivalent; PIR, poverty-income ratio; SE, standard error.
Percent above the AI for choline intake: ages 2–5 y, PIR > 1.85
Similar to the other age groups and socioeconomic status examined, choline adequacy was elevated with greater usual egg intake in children from households with PIR >1.85. The percent of children above the AI when consuming a usual egg intake of <0.25 oz eq was 21.7. Comparing 0.25–0.5, 0.5–0.75, 0.75–1.0, and ≥1.0 oz eq to < 0.25 oz eq of usual egg intake demonstrated significant increases in the percent of toddlers above the AI for choline, such that 49.4 ± 2.9, 71.4 ± 4.5, 83.8 ± 5.4, and 92.3 ± 4.5, respectively, were above the AI for choline intake (all P ≤ 0.0002).
Discussion
Certainly, eggs as part of a healthy dietary pattern can be an integral approach to help reduce shortfall gaps in choline intake and improve the likelihood of meeting recommendations in children. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine egg usual intakes in younger American children with associations to choline adequacy. Greater usual egg intake was associated with a greater percentage of children above the AI for total choline intake. The lowest level of usual egg intake (<0.25 oz eq per day) in all infants showed that only ∼33% were above the AI for choline, whereas the mean percent of infants above the AI for choline increased to 98% when usual egg intake was ≥1 oz eq per day. When considering all children aged 2–5 y, regardless of socioeconomic status, increasing egg consumption was associated with a greater percentage above the AI for total choline. The lowest level of usual egg intake (<0.25 oz eq per day) showed that only ∼22% of children had intakes that were above the AI for choline, whereas the mean percent of children above the AI for choline increased to 93% when usual egg intake was ≥1 oz eq per day.
Choline has been recognized as an essential nutrient with significant scientific consensus to support a critical role in various physiologic mechanisms, including cell structure and signaling, neurotransmitter production, gene expression, lipid metabolism, and early brain and neural development [[26], [27], [28], [29]]. A recent randomized clinical trial demonstrated prenatal benefits with dietary choline supplementation. Indeed, choline supplementation in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy significantly improved DHA biomarkers, which play an essential role in fetal brain development [30]. Irrespective of the nutritional value of choline, most American children fall short of the established AI, with only very limited intake data available for infants and toddlers. Further, there is a lack of evidence evaluating choline usual intake within different developmental periods, with emphasis positioned on commencing studies to address research gaps in younger children. Recent work examining choline intake in healthy Canadian toddlers at ages 1 and 2 y showed the majority of subjects examined were not meeting the recommended AI of 200 mg per day, with the highest food contributors of choline being animal-derived (ie, dairy, meats, and eggs) [31]. Estimated total choline intakes per day were similar in previous studies when assessing US toddlers (229 mg/d) [32] and European toddlers (151–210 mg/d) [33].
Previous work from our group showed that modeling the removal of eggs from the diet of infants and younger children substantially lowered dietary choline intake, which translated into a reduced percentage of children above the AI for choline. In contrast, further analyses revealed the addition of 1 egg per week to the current US dietary pattern resulted in nearly 10% more infants above the AI for choline. Similarly, modeling the consumption of 1 egg per day within the current typical dietary pattern showed that nearly 100% of US infants would exceed the AI for choline. In older children, modeling the addition of 1 egg per day to the current dietary pattern resulted in ∼95% of participants surpassing the dietary recommendations for choline [15].
Observational studies similar to the present analysis using NHANES data have limitations inherent within epidemiologic studies and have been reported in earlier research [[34], [35], [36]]. Nevertheless, the use of NHANES to assess nutrition and public health outcomes offers considerable strengths. Indeed, the use of a large, cross-sectional survey like NHANES contributes a distinct advantage in allowing researchers access to a large cross-sectional database that combines refined personal and individual assessments with biochemical, clinical, and anthropometric examinations for various age groups, ethnicities, and socioeconomic status. Shortcomings of the modeling approach using NHANES include recollection bias, which includes the over- or underreporting of foods and beverages consumed. Nonetheless, NHANES has employed protocols that are considered the gold standard for collecting dietary intake data that have been previously documented [37,38]. Although the current study used the AI for choline as established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, it is necessary to state that current AI for choline in children was extrapolated from 1 study in adult males with the primary objective of assessing total choline intake and the prevention of hepatic changes [24]. Thus, it is reasonable to speculate that the inferred choline AI for young children may need to be further investigated due to the high level of growth and development occurring in early childhood. Finally, the current analysis did not verify if subjects younger than 6 mo consumed solid foods.
In conclusion, to our knowledge, our analysis provides the first evidence of associations between usual egg intake in American children and percentage of the population with choline intakes above the AI. The current data further support that eggs, as part of a healthy dietary pattern, can be advantageous in helping reduce shortfall gaps in choline intake in children. Greater usual egg intake was associated with a greater percentage of children above the AI for total choline intake in all ages and socioeconomic levels examined. Public health strategies, school nutrition programs, and authoritative dietary guidance should further consider the nutritional significance of eggs within healthy dietary patterns in children to help achieve choline recommendations.
Funding
Supported by the Egg Nutrition Center. The Egg Nutrition Center did not contribute to any part of the intellectual design, data analysis, concept development, or manuscript drafting of the research study. Furthermore, the Egg Nutrition Center had no role in determining publication of the present findings.
Author disclosures
YP serves as President of Nutritional Strategies and is responsible for partnering with the food, beverage, and vitamin/mineral supplement industry on nutrition- and regulatory affairs-related initiatives. Both VLF and YP routinely work in partnership on nutrition projects encompassing data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. VLF serves as SVP of Nutrition Impact and works with food, beverage, and vitamin/mineral companies to advance nutrition research scientific knowledge.
Data availability
Data described in the manuscript, code book, and analytic code will be made available upon request.
Acknowledgments
The authors’ responsibilities were as follows – YP, VLF: collaborated on the research design, development, and data interpretation of all analyses; VLF: led the statistical analyses; YP: drafted the initial manuscript; VLF, YP: contributed to the final version of the publication; and all authors: read and approved the final manuscript.
References
- 1.McNamara D.J. The fifty year rehabilitation of the egg. Nutrients. 2015;7(10):8716–8722. doi: 10.3390/nu7105429. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Réhault-Godbert S., Guyot N., Nys Y. The golden egg: nutritional value, bioactivities, and emerging benefits for human health. Nutrients. 2019;11(3):684. doi: 10.3390/nu11030684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.American Heart Association, Committee on Nutrition . American Heart Association; Dallas, Texas, USA: 1968. Diet and Heart Disease. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025. 9th Ed. US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health and Human Services; Washington, DC: December 2020. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans_2020-2025.pdf [Internet] [cited 2 February 2023]. Available from: [Google Scholar]
- 5.Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015–2020. 8th Ed. US Department of Health and Human Services and US Department of Agriculture; Washington, DC: 2015. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/2015-2020_Dietary_Guidelines.pdf [Internet] [cited 2 February 2023]. Available from: [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kuang H., Yang F., Zhang Y., Wang T., Chen G. The impact of egg nutrient composition and its consumption on cholesterol homeostasis. Cholesterol. 2018 doi: 10.1155/2018/6303810. 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kovacs-Nolan J., Phillips M., Mine Y. Advances in the value of eggs and egg components for human health. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005;53(22):8421–8431. doi: 10.1021/jf050964f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Gray J., Griffin B. Eggs and dietary cholesterol - dispelling the myth. Nutr. Bull. 2009;34(1):66–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-3010.2008.01735.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Advisory Report to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service; Washington, DC: July 2020. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/ScientificReport_of_the_2020DietaryGuidelinesAdvisoryCommittee_first-print.pdf [Internet] [cited 1 February 2023]. Available from: [Google Scholar]
- 10.Drewnowski A. The nutrient rich foods index helps to identify healthy, affordable foods. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2010;91(4):1095S–1101S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2010.28450D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Papanikolaou Y., Fulgoni V.L. Egg consumption in infants is associated with longer recumbent length and greater intake of several nutrients essential in growth and development. Nutrients. 2018;10(6):719. doi: 10.3390/nu10060719. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Papanikolaou Y., Fulgoni V.L. Egg consumption in U.S. children is associated with greater daily nutrient intakes, including protein, lutein + zeaxanthin, choline, α-linolenic acid, and docosahexanoic acid. Nutrients. 2019;11(5):1137. doi: 10.3390/nu11051137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Agricultural Research Service USDA Food Composition Databases, USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Food Group: Dairy and Egg Products: Reference No. 01123, Egg, Whole, Raw, Fresh. [Internet]. Release 28. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture [released September 2015; revised April 2018; cited 12 February 2023]. Available from: https://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/composition-foods-raw-processed-prepared-usda-national-nutrient-database-standard-reference-release-28-0
- 14.Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service; Washington, DC: 2020. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/2020-advisory-committee-report [Internet] [cited 5 February 2023]. Available from: [Google Scholar]
- 15.Papanikolaou Y., Fulgoni V.L. Modeling the removal and addition of eggs in the current US diet is linked to choline and lutein + zeaxanthin usual intakes in childhood. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2021;5(1) doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzaa181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Survey Methods and Analytic Guidelines. [Internet]. Washington, DC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [cited 30 January 2023]. Available from: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/analyticguidelines.aspx.
- 17.National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Ethics Review Board (ERB) Approval. [Internet]. Washington, DC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [cited 28 January 2023]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/irba98.htm.
- 18.Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (FNDDS) Ag Data Commons, US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service; Washington, DC: 18 December 2017. https://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/food-and-nutrient-database-dietary-studies-fndds [Internet] [updated 1 February 2022; cited 7 January 2023]. Available from: [Google Scholar]
- 19.What We Eat in America, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Overview: Data Collection. [Internet]. Beltsville, MD: US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Food Service Research Group [cited on 2 January 2023]. Available from: https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeast-area/beltsville-md-bhnrc/beltsville-human-nutrition-research-center/food-surveys-research-group/docs/wweianhanes-overview/.
- 20.Moshfegh A.J., Rhodes D.G., Baer D.J., Murayi T., Clemens J.C., Rumpler W.V., et al. The US Department of Agriculture Automated Multiple-Pass Method reduces bias in the collection of energy intakes. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008;88(2):324–332. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/88.2.324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Raper N., Perloff B., Ingwersen L., Steinfeldt L., Anand J. An overview of USDA’s dietary intake data system. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2004;17(3–4):545–555. doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2004.02.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Usual Dietary Intakes: The NCI Method. [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences [cited 3 January 2023]. Available from: https://epi.grants.cancer.gov/diet/usualintakes/method.html.
- 23.Institute of Medicine (US) Subcommittee on Interpretation and Uses of Dietary Reference Intakes . National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 2003. Institute of Medicine (US) Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, Dietary Reference Intakes: Applications in Dietary Planning. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.United States Institute of Medicine Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes . National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 1998. Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenic Acid, Biotin, and Choline. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.NHANES Survey Methods and Analytic Guidelines. [Internet]. Hyattsville, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics [cited 3 January 2023]. Available from: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/analyticguidelines.aspx.
- 26.Zeisel S.H., da Costa K.A. Choline: an essential nutrient for public health. Nutr. Rev. 2009;67(11):615–623. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00246.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Wiedeman A.M., Barr S.I., Green T.J., Xu Z., Innis S.M., Kitts D.D. Dietary choline intake: current state of knowledge across the life cycle. Nutrients. 2018;10(10):1513. doi: 10.3390/nu10101513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Derbyshire E., Obeid R. Choline, neurological development and brain function: a systematic review focusing on the first 1000 days. Nutrients. 2020;12(6):1731. doi: 10.3390/nu12061731. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Irvine N., England-Mason G., Field C.J., Dewey D., Aghajafari F. Prenatal folate and choline levels and brain and cognitive development in children: a critical narrative review. Nutrients. 2022;14(2):364. doi: 10.3390/nu14020364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Klatt K.C., McDougall M.Q., Malysheva O.V., Taesuwan S., Loinard-González A.A.P., Nevins J.E.H., et al. Prenatal choline supplementation improves biomarkers of maternal docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) status among pregnant participants consuming supplemental DHA: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2022;116(3):820–832. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqac147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Wiedeman A.M., Chau C.M.Y., Grunau R.E., McCarthy D., Yurko-Mauro K., Dyer R.A., et al. Plasma betaine is positively associated with developmental outcomes in healthy toddlers at age 2 years who are not meeting the recommended adequate intake for dietary choline. J. Nutr. 2018;148(8):1309–1314. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxy108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Strain J.J., McSorley E.M., vanWijngaarden E.M., Kobrosly R.W., Bonham M.P., Mulhern M.S., et al. Choline status and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 5 years of age in the Seychelles Child Development Nutrition Study. Br. J. Nutr. 2013;110(2):330–336. doi: 10.1017/S0007114512005077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Vennemann F.B., Ioannidou S., Valsta L.M., Dumas C., Ocke M.C., Mensink G.B., et al. Dietary intake and food sources of choline in European populations. Br. J. Nutr. 2015;114(2):2046–2055. doi: 10.1017/S0007114515003700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Zipf G., Chiappa M., Porter K., Ostchega Y., Lewis B., Dostal J. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: plans and operations. Vital Health Stat. 2013;56:1–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Grandjean A.C. Dietary intake data collection: challenges and limitations. Nutr. Rev. 2012;70(Suppl 2):S101–S104. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00545.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Ferrari P., Slimani N., Ciampi A., Trichopoulou A., Naska A., Lauria C., et al. Evaluation of under- and overreporting of energy intake in the 24-hour diet recalls in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Public Health Nutr. 2002;5(6B):1329–1345. doi: 10.1079/PHN2002409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Ahluwalia N., Dwyer J., Terry A., Moshfegh A., Johnson C. Update on NHANES dietary data: focus on collection, release, analytical considerations, and uses to inform public policy. Adv. Nutr. 2016;7(1):121–134. doi: 10.3945/an.115.009258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.IOM (Institute of Medicine) National Academy Press; Washington, DC: 2000. Dietary reference intakes: Applications in dietary assessment. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data described in the manuscript, code book, and analytic code will be made available upon request.