Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Nutr Res. 2012 Dec 27;33(1):18–26. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2012.11.009

Table 3. Table 3A The associations of yogurt consumption with diet quality and the intake of potassium and fiber (nutrients excluding supplements).

Nonconsumers (n = 3016) Consumers (n = 3510) Consumers Ptrendb Pcon vs non-conc
Low-intake groupa (n = 1758) High-intake groupa (n = 1752)
Median energy contribution from yogurt (%kcal) 0 2.07 1.11 5.70
DGAI scored 8.05 (7.94, 8.16)f 9.14 (9.02, 9.25) 8.78 (8.64, 8.92) 9.53 (9.39, 9.96)
Potassium (g) Model 1e 2.93 (2.90, 2.96) 3.22 (3.19, 3.25) 3.12 (3.08, 3.15) 3.34 (3.30, 3.38) <.001 <.001
Model 2e 3.08 (3.06, 3.11) 3.20 (3.18, 3.23) 3.15 (3.13, 3.18) 3.26 (3.23, 3.29) <.001 <.001
Fiber (g)g Model 1 15.14 (14.89, 15.39) 17.03 (16.78, 17.28) 16.80 (16.51, 17.10) 17.28 (16.95, 17.61) <.001 <.001
Model 2 16.65 (16.46, 16.85) 16.83 (16.66, 17.01) 17.21 (16.99, 17.42) 16.34 (16.22, 16.65) .002 .11
a Low-intake and high-intake groups were generated using a cut point of 2.07%kcal from yogurt.
b P values for testing the linear trends across yogurt consumption (percentage of energy contribution) groups.
c P values for testing the differences between yogurt consumers and nonconsumers.
d For DGAI score, model adjusted for age, sex, PAI score, smoking status, and BMI.
e For potassium and fiber, model 1 adjusted for age, sex, total energy intake, PAI score, smoking status, BMI, and the use of corresponding dietary supplements (wherever data were available). Model 2 adjusted for covariates in model 1 and DGAI score.
f Means and 95% CI for all such values.
g Geometric means and 95% CI were presented
Table 3B The associations of yogurt consumption with the risk of nutrient inadequacy (nutrients excluding supplements)
Nonconsumers (n = 3016) Consumers (n = 3510) Consumers Ptrendb Pcon vs non-conc
Low-intake groupa (n = 1758) High-intake groupa (n = 1752)
Median energy contribution from yogurt (%kcal) 0 2.07 1.11 5.70
Vitamin B1 Model 1d 1.00 0.60 (0.50, 0.72)e 0.63 (0.51, 0.79) 0.57 (0.46, 0.71) <.001 <.001
Model 2d 1.00 0.86 (0.71, 1.05) 0.79 (0.62, 1.00) 0.96 (0.75, 1.23) .99 .14
Vitamin B2 Model 1 1.00 0.45 (0.34, 0.59) 0.62 (0.44, 0.87) 0.32 (0.23, 0.46) <.001 <.001
Model 2 1.00 0.53 (0.39, 0.70) 0.70 (0.49, 1.01) 0.38 (0.26, 0.56) <.001 <.001
Vitamin B6 Model 1 1.00 0.65 (0.53, 0.80) 0.78 (0.61, 1.01) 0.54 (0.42, 0.70) <.001 <.001
Model 2 1.00 0.94 (0.74, 1.20) 1.01 (0.76, 1.33) 0.87 (0.64, 1.19) .38 .63
Vitamin B12 Model 1 1.00 0.45 (0.33, 0.62) 0.57 (0.39, 0.85) 0.37 (0.25, 0.54) <.001 <.001
Model 2 1.00 0.45 (0.33, 0.61) 0.57 (0.38, 0.84) 0.36 (0.24, 0.54) <.001 <.001
Calcium Model 1 1.00 0.44 (0.39, 0.51) 0.67 (0.57, 0.79) 0.27 (0.23, 0.32) <.001 <.001
Model 2 1.00 0.52 (0.44, 0.60) 0.74 (0.63, 0.88) 0.32 (0.27, 0.38) <.001 <.001
Folate Model 1 1.00 0.62 (0.51, 0.76) 0.72 (0.57, 0.91) 0.53 (0.42, 0.69) <.001 <.001
Model 2 1.00 0.86 (0.69, 1.06) 0.89 (0.70, 1.14) 0.81 (0.62, 1.07) .16 .15
Magnesium Model 1 1.00 0.41 (0.35, 0.48) 0.48 (0.40, 0.58) 0.34 (0.28, 0.41) <.001 <.001
Model 2 1.00 0.62 (0.51, 0.74) 0.60 (0.48, 0.74) 0.64 (0.51, 0.80) .002 <.001
Vitamin C Model 1 1.00 0.58 (0.49, 0.67) 0.63 (0.53, 0.75) 0.52 (0.43, 0.63) <.001 <.001
Model 2 1.00 0.86 (0.72, 1.01) 0.82 (0.68, 1.00) 0.91 (0.73, 1.13) .55 .07
Zinc Model 1 1.00 0.62 (0.51, 0.75) 0.75 (0.59, 0.94) 0.50 (0.40, 0.63) <.001 <.001
Model 2 1.00 0.66 (0.55, 0.80) 0.78 (0.62, 0.98) 0.54 (0.43, 0.69) <.001 <.001
Vitamin A Model 1 1.00 0.54 (0.47, 0.63) 0.55 (0.46, 0.65) 0.54 (0.45, 0.64) <.001 <.001
Model 2 1.00 0.76 (0.65, 0.89) 0.67 (0.56, 0.81) 0.90 (0.74, 1.11) .65 <.001
Vitamin D Model 1 1.00 0.65 (0.53, 0.79) 0.68 (0.54, 0.86) 0.61 (0.48, 0.78) <.001 <.001
Model 2 1.00 0.78 (0.63, 0.96) 0.77 (0.61, 0.97) 0.78 (0.61, 1.01) .17 .02
Vitamin E Model 1 1.00 0.79 (0.64, 0.98) 0.82 (0.64, 1.04) 0.77 (0.60, 0.99) .08 .04
Model 2 1.00 1.03 (0.82, 1.29) 0.98 (0.76, 1.25) 1.09 (0.84, 1.42) .41 .81
a

Low-intake and high-intake groups were generated using a cut point of 2.07%kcal from yogurt.

b

P values for testing the linear trends across yogurt consumption (percentage of energy contribution) groups.

c

P values for testing the differences between yogurt consumers and nonconsumers.

d

Model 1adjusted for age, sex, total energy intake, PAI score, smoking status, BMI, and the use of corresponding dietary supplements (wherever data were available). Model 2 adjusted for covariates in model 1 and DGAI score.

e

Odds ratio (95% CI) for all such values.