TABLE 5.
Distribution (n; %) of quintiles of the caloric share of ultra-processed foods (% of total calories) in preschoolers’ diet according to different methods to identify UPF.
| Classic method | Ingredient marker method* | ||||
| Q1 (<37.1%) | Q2 (37.1–47.5%) |
Q3 (47.6–57.1%) |
Q4 (57.2–67.4%) |
Q5 (>67.5%) | |
| Q1 (<30.7%) |
125 (65.1) | 38 (19.8) | 15 (7.8) | 8 (4.2) | 6 (3.1) |
| Q2 (30.7–42.4%) |
59 (30.7) | 87 (45.3) | 22 (11.5) | 16 (8.3) | 8 (4.2) |
| Q3 (42.5–52.1%) |
6 (3.1) | 58 (30.4) | 94 (49.2) | 18 (9.4) | 15 (7.9) |
| Q4 (52.2–64.0%) |
1 (0.5) | 8 (4.2) | 53 (27.6) | 105 (54.7) | 25 (13) |
| Q5 (> 64.1%) |
1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 7 (3.7) | 45 (23.6) | 137 (71.7) |
| Classic method | Food additive method** | ||||
| Q1 (<43.8%) |
Q2 (43.9–54.4%) |
Q3 (54.5–64.0%) |
Q4 (64.1–73.4%) |
Q5 (>73.5%) | |
| Q1 (<30.7%) |
105 (54.7) | 48 (25) | 23 (11.9) | 9 (4.7) | 7 (3.7) |
| Q2 (30.7–42.4%) |
68 (35.4) | 56 (29.2) | 33 (17.2) | 25 (13) | 10 (5.2) |
| Q3 (42.5–52.1%) |
14 (7.3) | 69 (36.1) | 50 (26.2) | 39 (20.4) | 19 (10) |
| Q4 (52.2–64.0%) |
4 (2.1) | 17 (8.9) | 77 (40.1) | 55 (28.6) | 39 (20.3) |
| Q5 (>64.1%) |
1 (0.5) | 2 (1.1) | 8 (4.2) | 64 (33.5) | 116 (60.7) |
Food Environment Chilean Cohort (FECHIC) (n = 958).
*Agreement = 86.1%; Weighted kappa = 0.65.
**Agreement = 80.3%; Weighted kappa = 0.51.
In “classic method,” UPF was identified by using food description; in “ingredient marker method,” by searching for substances not commonly used in traditional recipes and names of functional classes of “cosmetic” additives in the lists of ingredients; and in “food additive method” by searching for UPF ingredient markers, names of functional classes and all individual names of “cosmetic” additives.