Skip to main content
. 2022 Jul 23;6(10):nzac125. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzac125

TABLE 7.

Effects of HFP isocaloric substitutions (individual and cumulative) on MSDP scores1

Isocaloric HFP recipe substitutions HA2 (n = 4452) nHA3 (n = 15,526) P value4
LSM ± SE (95% CI) P value5 LSM ± SE (95% CI) P value5
HFP 1: Strawberry kale salad with olive oil or honey dressing swapped for starchy vegetable 19.11 ± 0.09 (18.94, 19.29) <0.0001 9.23 ± 0.05 (9.14, 9.33) <0.0001 <0.0001
HFP 2: Tabouleh with olive oil or honey swapped for refined grain 19.89 ± 0.09 (19.71, 20.07) <0.0001 9.84 ± 0.05 (9.71, 9.90) <0.0001 <0.0001
HFP 3: Fish with honey marinade swapped for red meat 18.92 ± 0.09) (18.75, 19.10) <0.0001 9.10 ± 0.05 (9.02, 9.20) <0.0001 <0.0001
All 3 HPFs 20.34 ± 0.10 (20.15, 20.54) <0.0001 10.53 ± 0.05 (10.42, 10.63) <0.0001 <0.0001
1

HA compared with nHA in adults 25–65 years in NHANES 2007–2018. The regression models were adjusted for sex, age, race, education, and BMI. HA, high-adherence group; HFP, honey-food pairing; LSM, least square means; MSDP, Mediterranean-style diet pattern; nHA, non-high-adherence group.

2

Presubstitution mean MSDP score, 16.45 (SE 0.09).

3

Presubstitution mean MSDP score, 7.07 (SE 0.04). P < 0.0001 when comparing presubstitution scores between HA and nHA.

4

Between-group (HA compared with nHA) t-test P values compare changes from presubstitution to postsubstitution mean MSDP scores.

5

Within-group paired t-test P values compare presubstitution to postsubstitution MSDP scores.