The impact of a low-carbohydrate nutrition education program on food preferences: The correspondence between self-report consumption and supermarket purchases

TL;DR

A low-carb nutrition program changed food preferences in women, with self-reports matching actual supermarket purchases.

Contribution

Demonstrates strong correspondence between self-reported and actual food choices after a low-carbohydrate nutrition intervention.

Findings

Treatment group reported 35% lower intake of high-carb foods and 60% higher intake of low-carb foods.

Treatment group was 40% less likely to buy high-carb foods with a supermarket voucher.

Treatment group bought more eggs, organ meat, traditional fats, avocado, and fish but not red meat or chicken.

Abstract

There is reasonable concern that self-reported nutrition assessments do not reflect actual food choices. Yet, a correspondence between both is imperative to evaluate any intervention on food preferences. This paper makes such a comparison. It provides evidence from a low-carbohydrate nutrition education program, which is assessed with both surveys and an incentivized behavioral measure of food choice. The main result is that there is a large correspondence between survey and behavioral measures for our sample of 95 women from two historically underprivileged communities in the Western Cape, South Africa. Compared to the control, the treatment group reported a 35% lower intake from the high-carbohydrate/ ultra-processed food Red List and 60% higher intake from the low-carbohydrate whole foods Green List. The treatment group was also 40% less likely to buy anything from the Red List with a supermarket voucher. In terms of the Green List, the treatment group was significantly more likely to buy eggs, organ meat, traditional fats, avocado and fish but there was no difference in red meat and chicken, non-starchy vegetables and full cream dairy. Low-cost incentivized measures of revealed preferences can be designed to validate subjective habits, increasing confidence in the quality of evidence from nutrition intervention studies.

Figures