Number 395 + May 20, 2008

Healthy Eating Index Scores Among Adults, 60 Years

of Age and Over, by Sociodemographic and Health

Characteristics: United States, 1999–2002

by R. Bethene Ervin, Ph.D., R.D., Division of Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys

Abstract

Objective—This report presents Healthy Eating Index (HEI) scores for adults, 60

years of age and over, from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

(NHANES), 1999–2002, and examines the association between the HEI scores and sex,

age, race and ethnicity, education, smoking status, tooth retention, self-reported health,

and body mass index (BMI).

Methods—The percentage of older adults meeting the recommendations for the HEI

components and dietary quality based on the overall score were estimated. Means and

standard errors were calculated for selected sociodemographic and health characteristics

for the total population and stratified by sex. A two-tailed t-test or analysis of variance

was used to test the effects of the sociodemographic and health characteristics on the

HEI scores. When a characteristic consisted of three levels, the Bonferroni method of

adjustment was used to assess significant differences in the mean scores.

Results—Seventy-two percent of older adults met the guidelines for cholesterol

intake and 56% met the recommendation for diet variety, but less than one-third met the

recommendations for HEI’s five food groups. Only 17% of older adults consumed a

‘‘good’’ quality diet. Males had higher scores for some components, but females had

higher scores for others. Age significantly influenced several HEI components, but not

in a consistent fashion. Non-Hispanic white persons usually had the highest scores and

non-Hispanic black persons had the lowest scores. Adults with more years of education

usually had higher scores but smokers usually had lower scores. Edentulous persons and

those who rated their health as fair or poor generally ate fewer servings of fruits and

vegetables, ate a less varied diet, and had a poorer quality diet than persons with teeth

or who rated their health higher. Females with a BMI of 30 or higher ate fewer servings

of dairy products, consumed a higher percentage of calories from total and saturated fat,

and had a lower quality diet than those whose BMI was less than 30.

Conclusions—This research demonstrates that many older adults’ diets need

improvement, and that many sociodemographic and health characteristics were

associated with their intake of food and nutrient groups and overall dietary quality.

Keywords: Healthy Eating Index c diet quality c older adults c National Health and

Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)

Introduction

Diet and nutrition play important

roles in maintaining health and

preventing disease (1,2). This is

especially important for older adults

where proper nutrition plays a crucial

role in helping them maintain good

health and functioning. Between 1997

and 2005, 5 out of the 10 leading

chronic conditions in adults 65 years of

age and over were hypertension, all

types of heart disease, coronary heart

disease, any cancer, and diabetes (3). A

healthful diet may reduce the risk of

developing these diseases. Furthermore,

many older adults are at increased

nutritional risk due to inadequate dietary

intakes of energy and nutrients. Some

other risk factors for poor nutrition

include disease, physical limitations and

chewing difficulties, polypharmacy,

living alone, lack of transportation, and

limited income (4,5). The presence of

these and other risk factors may lead to

subclinical malnutrition, which could

result in more rapid deterioration of

health and early death (6,7).

The Healthy Eating Index (HEI) is

a tool developed by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)

Center for Nutrition Policy and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Center for Health Statistics 
2 Advance Data No. 395 + May 20, 2008

Promotion (CNPP) to assess the overall

quality of a person’s diet. HEI is based

on a 10-component system composed of

five food groups, four nutrients, and a

measure of variety in food intake (8).

HEI provides an overall picture of the

type and quantity of foods people eat,

their compliance with specific dietary

recommendations, and the variety in

their diets (9).

Basiotis et al (9) and Juan et al (10)

have presented HEI scores from the

National Health and Nutrition

Examination Survey (NHANES),

1999–2000. Basiotis et al (9) reported

mean HEI component and overall scores

based on selected demographic and

socioeconomic characteristics for the

population as a whole, while Juan et al

(10) reported mean HEI component and

overall scores for older Americans, in

general, and the overall HEI score by

poverty status. This report presents HEI

scores for adults, 60 years of age and

over, from NHANES 1999–2002. In

addition to examining sociodemographic

characteristics, this report also examines

the relationships between smoking

status, tooth retention, self-reported

health, body mass index (BMI), and

HEI scores in older adults.

Methods

Sample population

NHANES is a cross-sectional

nationally representative health and

nutrition examination survey conducted

by the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, National Center for Health

Statistics (NCHS). The survey design is

a complex, stratified, multistage

probability sample of the civilian,

noninstitutionalized U.S. population. In

1999–2002, adults 60 years of age and

over were oversampled to improve the

precision of the estimates for this age

group.

A total of 4,976 adults, 60 years of

age and over, were eligible to participate

in NHANES 1999–2002. The survey

includes an interview conducted in the

home and a subsequent health

examination performed at a mobile

examination center (MEC). Of the

eligible sample, 3,706 adults 60 years of

age and over, or 74%, participated in the

household interview. Approximately

87% (3,234) of them also participated in

the MEC exam.

Only adults 60 years of age and

over who participated in both the

household interview and the oral health

examination in the MEC were included

in the analytic sample (n=3,234). In

addition, 173 participants were excluded

because they had missing HEI scores;

and one person was excluded because of

incomplete information on tooth

retention. The final analytic sample

consisted of 3,060 adults 60 years of

age and over.

Dietary data

Trained interviewers conducted

dietary recall interviews using

automated data collection systems

during the MEC examination. In

1999–2001 the NHANES computerassisted dietary interview system

(CADI) was used. A description of the

CADI system can be found at the

NHANES 1999–2000 exam files

website under the documentation for the

dietary interview components [http://

www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/

exam99_00.htm]. Beginning in 2002,

USDA’s Continuing Survey of Food

Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) and

NHANES were integrated. USDA’s

Automated Multiple-Pass Method

(AMPM) was used to collect dietary

recall data for the integrated dietary

component. A description of the AMPM

system can be found at the USDA Food

Surveys Research Group website under

‘‘Automated Multiple-Pass Method’’

[http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/

site_main.htm?modecode=12–35-50–00].

Collection and processing procedures for

the two approaches were similar.

Detailed descriptions of the 1999–2000

and 2001–2002 dietary interview and

data processing procedures can be found

under the dietary interview components

at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/

nhanes/exam99_00.htm and http://

www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/

exam01_02.htm, respectively.

One 24-hour dietary recall was used

to estimate intakes from foods and

beverages. USDA calculated HEI

component and overall scores from

these recalls for individuals with

complete food intake records. Prior

research has indicated that food intake

data based on 1-day dietary recalls are

reliable measures of usual intakes of

population groups (11). Data files for

HEI 1999–2000 and 2001–2002 were

downloaded from the USDA Center for

Nutrition Policy and Promotion website

[http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/

HealthyEatingIndex.htm].

Structure of Healthy Eating

Index

The overall HEI score is the sum of

10 dietary components, weighted

equally. Each component of the index

has a maximum score of 10 and a

minimum score of zero. The maximum

overall HEI score is 100. High

component scores indicate intakes close

to the recommended ranges or amounts;

low component scores indicate less

compliance with the recommended

ranges or amounts (9). Table A presents

the components and scoring system for

adults 51 years of age and over. The 10

components are:

+	 Components 1–5 measure the degree

to which a person’s diet conforms to

the recommended number of servings

for the five major food groups of the

Food Guide Pyramid: meat, dairy,

fruits, vegetables, and grains.

+	 Component 6 measures total fat

consumption as a percentage of total

food energy (calorie) intake.

+	 Component 7 measures saturated fat

consumption as a percentage of total

food energy intake.

+	 Component 8 measures total

cholesterol intake.

+	 Component 9 measures total sodium

intake.

+	 Component 10 examines variety in a

person’s diet (9).

Food group components of the

Food Guide Pyramid

The Food Guide Pyramid translates

recommendations from the Dietary

Guidelines for Americans (12) into types

and amounts of foods people can eat to

have a healthful diet. The recommended

number of pyramid servings for the five

food groups depends on a person’s

caloric requirement (9). USDA estimated
Advance Data No. 395 + May 20, 2008 3

Table A. Components of the Healthy Eating Index scoring system for adults 51 years of age

and over1

Criteria for Criteria for Criteria for

Healthy Eating Index minimum score maximum score of 10 maximum score

components of zero for males of 10 for females

Food group:

Meat ................ 0 servings 2.5 servings2,3 2.2 servings2,3

Dairy ................ 0 servings 2.0 servings 2.0 servings

Fruits ................ 0 servings 3.2 servings 2.5 servings

Vegetables ............ 0 servings 4.2 servings 3.5 servings

Grains ............... 0 servings 9.1 servings 7.4 servings

Nutrient and variety:

Total fat .............. ≥45% of energy ≤30% of energy ≤30% of energy

Saturated fat ........... ≥15% of energy <10% of energy <10% of energy

Cholesterol ............ ≥450 mg ≤300 mg ≤300 mg

Sodium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ≥4,800 mg ≤2,400 mg ≤2,400 mg

Dietary variety .......... ≤3 different ≥8 different ≥8 different

items in a day items in a day items in a day

1

The scoring range for each of the 10 components is 0 to 10.
 2

The number of servings per day for meat, dairy, fruits, vegetables, and grains depend on the recommended energy allowance
 

specified in the Food Guide Pyramid (9,12). The recommended energy allowance for males, 51 years of age and over, is 2,300
 

Kcal and the recommended energy allowance for females is 1,900 Kcal.
 3

One serving of meat equals 2.5 ounces of lean meat.

the recommended number of servings

for the five food groups for males and

females, 51 years of age and over, based

on their recommended energy

allowance. The recommended energy

allowance for males, 51 years of age

and over, is 2,300 kilocalories and the

recommended energy allowance for

females is 1,900 kilocalories (9,13).

Table A lists the recommended number

of servings for each of the food groups.

One serving of meat equals 2.5 ounces

of lean meat. If a person’s diet met or

exceeded the recommended number of

servings for a food group that person

was awarded a score of 10 points. If a

person did not eat any item from the

food group a score of zero was

assigned. Intermediate scores were

calculated proportionately to the number

of servings or partial servings that a

person consumed. For example, if eight

servings are recommended for a food

group and a person only consumed four

servings then the component score

would be 5 points (9).

Nutrient and variety components

The nutrient and variety

components were scored differently

(Table A). If a person’s total fat intake

was less than or equal to 30% of total

calories per day that person received a

score of 10 points. If fat intake was

equal to or greater than 45% of total

calories per day that person received a

score of zero, and fat intakes between

30% and 45% were scored

proportionately (9).

If a person’s saturated fat intake

was less than 10% of total calories per

day that person received a score of 10

points (Table A). If their saturated fat

intake was equal to or greater than 15%

of total calories per day that person

received a score of zero. Intermediate

saturated fat intakes were scored

proportionately (9).

If a person’s cholesterol intake was

300 milligrams or less per day that

person received a score of 10 points

(Table A). If their cholesterol intake was

450 milligrams or more per day that

person received a score of zero, and

intakes between 300 and 450 milligrams

were scored proportionately (9).

If a person’s sodium intake was

2,400 milligrams or less per day that

person received a score of 10 points

(Table A). If their sodium intake was

4,800 milligrams or more per day that

person received a score of zero, and

intakes between 2,400 and 4,800

milligrams were scored proportionately

(9).

USDA calculated the variety score

by totaling the number of different

foods an individual ate in a day in

amounts sufficient to contribute at least

one-half of a serving in a food group

(Table A). A person received a score of

10 points if he or she consumed at least

half a serving of eight or more different

types of foods in a day. A person

received a score of zero if he or she

consumed at least half a serving of three

or fewer different foods in a day.

Intermediate scores were calculated

proportionately (9).

The overall or total HEI score is a

summary measure of the overall quality

of a person’s diet. It is calculated by

summing each of the 10 component

scores. The maximum overall score for

the 10 components combined is 100. An

HEI over 80 implies a ‘‘good’’ diet, an

HEI score between 51 and 80 implies a

diet that ‘‘needs improvement,’’ and an

HEI score less than 51 implies a ‘‘poor’’

diet (9). A more detailed description

about the coding system can be found in

Basiotis et al (9).

Sociodemographic and health

characteristics

Sociodemographic and health

characteristic data came from the

household interview questionnaire and

the health examination at the MEC.

Trained interviewers administered the

household interview questionnaire and

the dietary recall. Trained dentists

conducted the dental examinations at the

MEC. Additional information on the

oral health examination, including the

quality of the tooth retention data, is

described elsewhere (14).

Age was categorized into three

groups: 60–69 years old, 70–79 years

old, and 80 years of age or over.

Analyses were performed on nonHispanic white persons, non-Hispanic

black persons, and Mexican-American

persons. Participants who did not

identify themselves as belonging to one

of these categories were not analyzed

separately but were included in the total

sample results. Education was

categorized into three groups: less than

high school, high school diploma

including a General Education

Development high school equivalency

degree (GED), or more than high

school. The smoking status variable was

based on cigarette smoking only.

Participants who never smoked or

smoked less than 100 cigarettes in their

lifetime were labeled ‘‘never smokers,’’
4 Advance Data No. 395 + May 20, 2008

participants who smoked at least 100

cigarettes in their lifetime, but were not

currently smoking were labeled ‘‘former

smokers,’’ and participants who had

smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their

lifetime and currently smoked some

days or everyday were labeled ‘‘current

smokers.’’

Tooth retention was calculated

based on a count of the number of

permanent teeth that were present. The

12 anterior and 16 posterior teeth

excluding third molars were used for

this count. Dental implants were

considered to be equivalent to natural

teeth and were counted as if the

replaced permanent tooth was present.

Participants who had no remaining

natural permanent teeth or implants

were defined as edentulous. Edentulous

participants may have used removable

dental prostheses (dentures), but the

impact of denture use was not assessed.

The remaining two tooth retention

categories were 1–20 natural teeth and

21 or more natural teeth.

Body mass index (BMI) measures

relative weight for height and is used to

assess overweight and obesity. Weight

and height were measured in the MEC

using standardized techniques and

equipment. BMI was calculated by

dividing weight in kilograms by the

square of height in meters (kg/m2

). The

National Heart, Lung, and Blood

Institute classifies overweight as a BMI

of 25.0 to 29.9, obesity as a BMI of

30.0 to 39.9, and extreme obesity as a

BMI of 40.0 or more. A BMI of 18.5 to

24.9 represents normal weight and a

BMI of less than 18.5 represents

underweight (15). Underweight and

extreme obesity were not examined

separately in this report. Instead

underweight was combined with normal

weight and extreme obesity was

combined with obesity.

Data analyses

Estimates are presented for the

percentage of older adults meeting the

dietary recommendations for the 10 HEI

components. The mean overall HEI

score and the diet quality ratings (good,

needs improvement, or poor) are

presented for the total population.

Means and standard errors for all the

HEI scores are presented by selected

sociodemographic and health

characteristics for the total population

and stratified by sex. The standard

errors were estimated using the Taylor

series linearization, a method that

incorporates the sample weights and

accounts for the sample design (16).

These estimates were weighted using the

NHANES 4-year MEC exam weights to

produce national estimates. The sample

weights incorporate the differential

probabilities of selection and include

adjustments for oversampling of certain

populations and nonresponse to the

household interview and MEC

examination. The relative standard error

(RSE) is the statistical criterion used to

determine the reliability of the estimates

and is calculated as the ratio of the

standard error of the mean to the mean

multiplied by 100. The larger the RSE,

the less reliable the estimates are. A

RSE greater than 30% is often

recommended to define estimates that

are not reliable (17). All of the estimates

presented in these tables have RSEs less

than 15% and are considered to be

statistically reliable. All data were

analyzed using SAS for Windows

(release 9.1; SAS Institute Inc, Cary,

N.C.) and SUDAAN (release 9.0;

Research Triangle Institute Inc, Research

Triangle Park, N.C.).

Age-adjusted estimates were also

calculated for the 10 component and

overall HEI scores using the direct

method of adjustment and the U.S.

Census population estimates for the year

2000 (18). The difference between mean

age-adjusted and crude component

scores ranged from 0.1 to 0.7 and the

difference between mean age-adjusted

and crude overall HEI scores ranged

from 0.1 to 1.5, but usually the

difference was less than 0.4 for all of

the HEI scores. Since the age-adjusted

and crude scores were quite similar,

age-adjusted estimates have not been

presented in the main body of this paper

but are available in the ‘‘Technical

Notes.’’

A two-tailed t-test or analysis of

variance was used to test the effects of

the selected sociodemographic and

health characteristics on the HEI scores.

P-values were based on two-sided tests

with a critical value of 0.05. The

Bonferroni method of adjusting for the

family of pairwise comparisons was

used when assessing significant

differences in mean HEI scores across

the levels of each of the

sociodemographic variables and health

characteristics (19). All differences

described in this paper are statistically

significant.

Results

Healthy Eating Index

component and overall scores

The largest percentages of older

adults meeting any of the dietary

recommendations were for cholesterol

and diet variety. Seventy-two percent

consumed no more than 300 milligrams

of cholesterol per day, and 56%

consumed eight or more different types

of foods per day (Figure 1). Consistent

with these results, the highest

component scores were for the

cholesterol and diet variety components

(8.0 and 7.8, respectively) (Table 1).

Forty-two percent consumed no more

than 2,400 milligrams of sodium per

day, and 47% consumed less than 10%

of energy from saturated fat (Figure 1).

Thirty-two percent and 34% met the

dietary recommendations for vegetables

and total fat intake, respectively, and

between 23% and 27% met the

recommendations for meats, dairy, and

fruits. Only 18% met the dietary

recommendation for grains.

The overall HEI score is a summary

measure of the overall quality of a

person’s diet. The mean overall HEI

score for older adults in this sample was

66.6 (Table 1). Seventeen percent of

these older adults had a ‘‘good’’ quality

diet, 14% had a ‘‘poor’’ diet, and 68%

had a diet that ‘‘needs improvement.’’

Healthy Eating Index scores by

sociodemographic and health

characteristics

HEI scores varied by all of the

sociodemographic and health

characteristics examined. Each

characteristic will be discussed

separately.
100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Meat Diary Fruit Vegetable Grain Total Saturated Cholesterol Sodium Diet

fat fat variety

26%

23%

27%

32%

18%

34%

47%

72%

42%

56%

Figure 1. Percentage of adults 60 years of age and over meeting the dietary recommendations for the Healthy Eating Index components:

United States, 1999–2002

Advance Data No. 395 + May 20, 2008 5

Gender

+ Males had higher scores than females

for the meat, dairy, and diet variety

components, but females had higher

scores than males for the fruit,

cholesterol, and sodium components,

and the overall HEI score (Table 1).

Because there were a number of

differences by sex, the remaining

results will be discussed for males

and females separately.

Age

+ Males and females in their sixties had

higher average meat and vegetable

component scores than adults 80

years of age and over (Tables 2 and

3). In addition, males in their sixties

had a higher average meat score than

males in their seventies (Table 2).

Females 60–69 years old also had a

slightly higher average diet variety

score than the older two age groups

(Table 3).

+ In contrast, males 80 years and over

and females 70 years and over had

higher average sodium component

scores than those 60–69 years old.

Those 80 years and over also had

higher average fruit component scores

for males and total fat component

scores for females than the same sex

60–69 years old (Tables 2 and 3).

Race and ethnicity

+	 Non-Hispanic white males and

females had higher average dairy,

fruit, vegetable, grain, and diet

variety component scores and higher

overall HEI scores than non-Hispanic

black males and females. In addition,

Non-Hispanic white males had higher

average dairy, vegetable, cholesterol,

and diet variety component scores

than Mexican-American males

(Tables 2 and 3).

+	 In contrast, non-Hispanic black and

Mexican-American males had higher

average saturated fat scores than

non-Hispanic white males, but only

non-Hispanic black females had a

higher average saturated fat score

than non-Hispanic white females.

Conversely, non-Hispanic black and

Mexican-American females had

higher average sodium scores than

non-Hispanic white females, but only

Mexican-American males had a

higher average sodium score than

non-Hispanic white males. In

addition, non-Hispanic black females

had a higher average meat score than

Non-Hispanic white females

(Tables 2 and 3).

ducation

	 Males with a high school diploma or

more education had higher mean

grain and diet variety scores than

those with less than a high school

diploma. Males with more than a

high school diploma had higher mean

fruit and overall HEI scores than

those with a high school diploma or

less education. Also, those with more

than a high school diploma had

higher average dairy and vegetable

scores than those with less than a

high school diploma (Table 2).

E

+
6 Advance Data No. 395 + May 20, 2008

+ Females with a high school diploma

or more education had higher mean

dairy, fruit, vegetable, diet variety,

and overall HEI scores than those

with less than a high school diploma.

Also, those with a high school

diploma had a higher average grain

score than those with less than a high

school diploma (Table 3).

+ In contrast, males with less than a

high school education had a higher

mean sodium score than those with a

high school diploma or more

education, while females with less

than a high school education had a

higher mean sodium score than those

with more than a high school

education (Tables 2 and 3).

Smoking status

+ Males who did not currently smoke

had higher mean fruit, vegetable,

grain, diet variety, and overall HEI

scores than males who currently

smoked and females had higher mean

total and saturated fat scores and the

overall HEI score than females who

currently smoked.

+ Males who never smoked had a

higher mean score for total fat than

former smokers, a higher mean score

for dairy than current smokers, and a

higher mean score for saturated fat

than both former and current smokers

(Table 2). Females who never smoked

had a higher mean fruit component

score than current smokers, and

former smokers had a higher mean

diet variety score than current

smokers (Table 3).

Tooth retention

+ Edentulous males had a lower mean

diet variety score, edentulous females

had a lower mean vegetable score,

and both edentulous males and

females had lower mean fruit and

overall HEI scores than those with

any teeth. Furthermore, males with

1–20 teeth had lower fruit component

and overall HEI scores than males

with 21 or more teeth. This same

pattern was also true for the fruit

component for females (Tables 2 and

3).

+ Edentulous males had lower mean

vegetable scores, and edentulous

females had lower mean diet variety

scores than those with 21 or more

teeth (Tables 2 and 3).

Self-reported health

+	 Older males and females whose

self-reported health ranged from good

to excellent had higher mean

vegetable scores than those who

reported their health was fair or poor.

Older adults who reported their health

was very good or excellent had

higher mean fruit and diet variety

scores than those who reported their

health was fair or poor (Tables 2 and

3).

+	 The overall HEI score for males who

reported their health was very good

or excellent was higher than the HEI

score for males who reported their

health was good, fair, or poor

(Table 2).

BMI

Associations between BMI and HEI

scores were significant for females but

not males.

+	 Females with BMIs less than 30 had

higher mean total fat scores than

those with BMIs of 30 or more.

Those with BMIs less than 25 had

higher mean dairy and overall HEI

scores than those with BMIs of 30 or

more while those with BMIs between

25.0 and 29.9 had a higher saturated

fat score than those with BMIs of 30

or more (Table 3).

+	 In contrast, females with BMIs of 30

or more had a higher average meat

score than those with BMIs less than

30 (Table 3).

Discussion

According to the Third Scientific

Report on Nutrition Monitoring, food

consumption and nutrient intake are

determined not only by the foods

available from the food supply but also

by sociocultural, demographic,

educational, environmental,

physiological, and behavioral influences

(20). In this report we examined the

relationships between selected

sociodemographic factors or health

characteristics and the HEI component

and overall scores for adults 60 years of

age and over. Nearly three out of four

older adults were meeting the National

Research Council’s recommendation to

consume less than 300 milligrams of

cholesterol daily (2). The reason so

many of them were meeting this goal

may be because they are following a

low cholesterol diet prescribed by a

health professional. It may also be a

side effect of the decline in meat intake

with advancing age (discussed later).

Less than one-third of these older adults

were meeting the HEI recommendations

for meats, dairy, fruits, vegetables, and

grains. These foods are good sources of

vitamins, minerals, fiber, and other

substances that are important for good

health. The overall HEI score measures

overall diet quality. Five out of six older

adults in this survey had diets that were

rated as poor or needed improvement.

Gender, age, race and ethnicity,

education, smoking status, tooth

retention, health status, and BMI were

all associated with the HEI component

scores and the overall HEI score. There

was no consistent pattern of differences

across the 10 HEI component scores and

the overall HEI score by gender or age.

Males were closer to the recommended

intakes for the meat and dairy

components than females and had better

dietary variety; but females were closer

to the recommended amounts for fruits,

cholesterol, and sodium, and had a

better dietary quality than males.

Males and females 60–69 years of

age were closer to meeting the Dietary

Guidelines’ recommendations for meat

and vegetables, and females 60–69 years

of age ate a wider variety of foods than

those in the older age groups, especially

those 80 years of age and over. The

decline in meat intake with age did not

appear to be linked to dentition status

since there were no significant

differences in meat scores based on

tooth retention for either sex.

In contrast, males 80 years of age

and over and females 70 of age and

over were closer to meeting the

recommendation for sodium intake than

those 60–69 years old. Also, males 80

years of age and over were closer to

meeting the recommendation for fruit

and females 80 years of age and over

were closer to meeting the

recommendation for total fat than their

counterparts 60–69 years old. Although

males in the oldest age group consumed
Advance Data No. 395 + May 20, 2008 7

more servings of fruits than those in

their sixties, they may not have been

eating a wider variety of fruits since

their dietary variety score did not

improve with age. However, the dietary

variety score is based on the total

number of different foods an individual

ate in a day, not just the fruit

component. The improvement in fat and

sodium scores with age could be the

result of dietary restrictions due to

health issues in this age group.

There were significant differences

in nearly all the HEI component scores

by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic

white persons were closer to meeting

the recommendations for dairy, fruit,

vegetable, grain, and dietary variety and

achieved higher diet quality scores than

non-Hispanic black persons. Also,

Non-Hispanic white males were closer

to meeting the recommendations for

dairy, vegetable, cholesterol, and dietary

variety than Mexican-American males.

On the other hand, non-Hispanic black

or Mexican-American persons were

closer to meeting the recommendations

for saturated fat and sodium than

non-Hispanic white persons, and

non-Hispanic black females were closer

to meeting the meat component

recommendation than non-Hispanic

white females.

Lactose intolerance is common in

the black, Asian, and Middle Eastern

populations (21) and may explain why

non-Hispanic black persons consumed

fewer servings of dairy products than

non-Hispanic white persons. The

differences seen among these racial and

ethnic groups are likely due to a wide

array of sociocultural, educational,

environmental, and behavioral

influences.

Generally, those individuals

completing more years of education had

higher food component, diet variety, and

overall HEI scores than those with less

than a high school diploma. However,

those with less than a high school

education fared better on the sodium

component than those with more than a

high school education and for males

they also fared better than those with a

high school diploma.

Smoking had a broader impact on

HEI scores for males than females.

Smoking status was associated with the

fruit, total and saturated fat, and diet

variety components and the overall HEI

score for both sexes, but it was also

associated with the dairy, vegetable, and

grain components for males. Except for

the total fat intake of males, never

smokers were closer to meeting the HEI

recommendations than current smokers.

The difference in total fat intake

between never and current smokers was

not significant.

Tooth retention and self-reported

health were both associated with fruit,

vegetable and dietary variety scores, and

overall dietary quality. As expected

older adults with some remaining

natural teeth, especially those with 21 or

more teeth, ate more servings of fruits

and vegetables, ate a wider variety of

foods, and had better overall dietary

quality than edentulous adults. Likewise,

older adults who rated their health more

positively consumed more fruits and

vegetables and had more variety in their

diets and older males had a better

overall dietary quality than those who

rated their health more negatively.

BMI was associated with HEI

scores for females but not males. In

general, females with a BMI of 30 or

higher ate fewer servings of dairy

products, consumed a higher percentage

of calories from total and saturated fat,

and had a lower overall quality diet than

those whose BMI was less than 30,

especially those with a BMI less than

25. In contrast, females with a BMI of

30 or higher were closer to meeting the

recommended number of servings of

meat per day than those with a BMI of

less than 30.

Generally our results were

consistent with other analyses of

nationally representative data for older

adults or the total population. Juan et al

(10) examined adults 65 years of age

and over in NHANES 1999–2000 and

reported a similar overall HEI score

compared with our results (67.6 versus

66.6, respectively) and similar

percentages for the overall diet quality

ratings (good, needs improvement, or

poor). For example, 19%–20% of older

adults in their sample had a good

quality diet versus 17% in our sample.

Our results for the highest and lowest

mean component scores and the fact that

less than one-third of the older adults

were meeting the recommendations for

meat, dairy, fruit, vegetable, and grains

matched results from USDA for the total

population 2 years of age and over in

1994–1996 and 1999–2000 as well as

results from Juan et al for older adults

(9,10,22).

Our results corresponded with the

differences in HEI scores by

demographic and socioeconomic

characteristics reported by the USDA

researchers who examined either the

total population 2 years of age and over

(9,22) or the main meal planners or

preparers (23). They showed that

females had higher overall HEI scores

than males and whites had higher

overall HEI scores than blacks (9,22–

23). Bowmen et al (22) and Basiotis et

al (9) reported that blacks had lower

milk scores than whites, and Basiotis et

al (9) found they had lower vegetable

scores than whites. In contrast to our

results, Bowman et al (22) found that

blacks had lower fat component scores

than whites, and Basiotis et al (9)

reported that Mexican Americans had

higher average fruit and sodium

component scores and an overall HEI

score than other race or ethnicity

groups. Bowman et al (22) and Basiotis

et al (9) both reported that HEI scores

increased with increasing levels of

education and income. Juan et al (10)

reported that older people not in poverty

had higher cholesterol component scores

and were more likely to have a good

quality diet than older people in poverty.

Variyam et al (23) found that smokers

had lower overall HEI scores than

nonsmokers, which was similar to our

results; and Bowman et al (22) found

that males and females with better

quality diets (higher overall HEI scores)

had lower BMIs, although we only

observed these results for females.

Using data for main meal planners/

preparers from the sample households in

USDA’s 1989–90 Continuing Survey of

Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) and

the companion Diet and Health

Knowledge Survey (DHKS), Variyam et

al (23) examined the effect of nutrition

information on overall dietary quality as

measured by the overall HEI score.

They found that nutrition information

affected overall dietary quality even

after controlling for an extensive set of
8 Advance Data No. 395 + May 20, 2008

personal and household characteristics

that influence both nutrition information

and the HEI. Individuals with greater

income or education tended to acquire

more nutrition information and used it

to improve the quality of their diets.

Informational differences also

explained the effects of gender, race and

ethnicity, and employment status on

dietary quality. Women tended to have a

higher stock of nutrition information

than men and this was reflected in a

higher average HEI score than men.

Conversely, blacks and Hispanics were

handicapped by relatively low levels of

nutrition information, which reduced

their ability to choose a better quality

diet (23).

In contrast, the effects of age, body

mass, and smoking were almost entirely

due to the different tastes and

preferences associated with these

characteristics and not due to any

informational differences. Dietary

quality tended to improve with age, but

decline with increasing BMI. Also,

smokers tended to prefer a less healthful

diet than nonsmokers and, as a result,

had a lower HEI score than nonsmokers

(23).

A few other studies have examined

the effect of dentition status on food

intake. Sayhoun et al (24) found that

older adults with impaired dentition had

lower overall diet quality scores and

consumed fewer servings of fruit than

those with 5–8 posterior occluding pairs

of teeth. Sheiham and Steele (25) found

that older people with fewer teeth

reported more difficulty eating or could

not eat foods like crusty bread, toast,

tomatoes, raw carrots, sliced cooked

meats and well-done steaks, apples, and

nuts than those with 21 or more teeth.

Other factors more commonly seen

in older adults that could influence food

intake and nutritional status include:

+ Oral health problems, including

difficulties chewing and swallowing,

loose or decayed teeth, poorly fitting

dentures or failure to wear dentures,

decreased saliva flow, changes in

taste and smell perception.

+ Medical problems impeding eating.

+ Increased use of medications that can

adversely affect nutrition, appetite,

hydration, or oral health.

+	 Difficulty shopping for and preparing

food or feeding oneself.

+ Limited income.

+ Loss of appetite or depression (7,26).

The Healthy Eating Index provides

an overall picture of the type and

quantity of foods people eat, their

compliance with specific dietary

recommendations, and the variety in

their diets (9). Our results indicate that

many older Americans consume diets

that need improvement. Age, gender,

race and ethnicity, educational

attainment, smoking status, tooth

retention, self-reported health status, and

BMI were all associated with how

successful they were at eating a healthy

diet. By understanding the factors that

shape dietary patterns, educators can

better target interventions to those

whose diets need improvement.

References

1.	 U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services. The Surgeon

General’s Report on Nutrition and

Health. Washington, DC: Public

Health Service. 1988.

2.	 National Research Council. Food and

Nutrition Board. Committee on Diet

and Health. Diet and health:

Implications for reducing chronic

disease risk. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press. 1989.

3.	 National Health Interview Survey.

National Center for Health Statistics,

Trends in Health and Aging.

Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/

nchs/agingact.htm. Accessed June 5,

2007.

4.	 Garry PJ, Vellas BJ. Aging and

nutrition. In: Present knowledge in

nutrition. 7th ed. Ziegler EE, Filer

LJ, Jr (editors). pp 414–9.

Washington, DC: International Life

Sciences Institute Press. 1996.

5.	 Ausman LM, Russell RM. Nutrition

in the elderly. In: Modern nutrition in

health and disease. 9th ed. Shils ME,

Olson JA, Shike M, Ross AC

(editors). pp 869–81. Baltimore, MD:

Williams and Wilkins. 1999.

6.	 Sahyoun NR, Jacques PF, Dallal GE,

Russell, RM. Nutrition Screening

Initiative checklist may be a better

awareness/educational tool than a

screening one. J Am Diet Assoc

97:760–4. 1997.

7.	 Dwyer JT. Screening older

Americans’ nutritional health:

Current practices and future

possibilities. Executive summary.

Washington, DC: Nutrition Screening

Initiative. 1991.

8.	 Kennedy ET, Ohls J, Carlson S,

Fleming K. The Healthy Eating

Index: Design and applications. J Am

Diet Assoc 95:1103–8. 1995.

9.	 Basiotis PP, Carlson A, Gerrior SA,

Juan WY, Lino M. The Healthy

Eating Index: 1999–2000. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Center

for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.

CNPP-12. 2002.

10. Juan WY, Lino M, Basiotis PP.

Quality of diets of older Americans.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Center for Nutrition Policy and

Promotion. Nutrition Insights 29.

2004.

11. Basiotis PP, Welsh SO, Cronin FJ,

Kelsay JL, Mertz W. Number of days

of food intake records required to

estimate individual and group

nutrient intakes with defined

confidence. J Nutr 117(9):1638–41.

1987.

12. Dietary Guidelines for Americans,

2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture

and U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services. Home and Garden

Bull No 232. 2000.

13. National Research Council.

Subcommittee on the Tenth Edition

of the RDAs. Food and Nutrition

Board. Committee on Diet and

Health. Recommended Dietary

Allowances. 10th ed. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press. 1989.

14. Dye BA, Barker LK, Selwitz RH,

Lewis BG, Wu T, Fryar CD, et al.

Overview and quality assurance for

the National Health and Nutrition

Examination Survey (NHANES) oral

health component, 1999–2002.

Community Dent Oral Epidemiol

35(2):140–51. 2007.

15. National Institutes of Health. Expert

panel. Clinical guidelines on the

identification, evaluation, and

treatment of overweight and obesity

in adults—The evidence report.

Obesity Research 6 Suppl 2:51S–

209S. 1998.

16. Wolter KM. Introduction to variance

estimation. New York, NY: SpringerVerlag. 1985.

17. U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services. The National

Health and Nutrition Examination

Survey (NHANES) analytic and
Advance Data No. 395

+ May 20, 20089

reporting guidelines. 2005. Available

from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/

nhanes/nhanes_03_04/

nhanes_analytic_guidelines_dec_2005.pdf.

Accessed December 1, 2005.

18. Klein RJ, Schoenborn CA. Age

adjustment using the 2000 projected

U.S. population. Healthy People

Statistical Notes, no 20. Hyattsville,

MD: National Center for Health

Statistics. 2001.

19. Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH.

Applied linear statistical models.

Regression, analysis of variance, and

experimental designs. pp 582–4.

Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin,

Inc. 1985.

20. Federation of American Societies for

Experimental Biology. Life Sciences

Research Office. Prepared for the

Interagency Board for Nutrition

Monitoring and Related Research.

Food consumption and nutrient

intake. In: Third report on nutrition

monitoring in the United States: Vol

1, pp 99–158. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office. 1995.

21. Adams EJ, Mahan K. Nutritional

care in food allergy and food

intolerance. In: Food, nutrition and

diet therapy. 7th ed. Krause MV,

Mahan LK (editors). pp 633–53.

Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders

Company. 1984.

22. Bowman SA, Lino M, Gerrior SA,

Basiotis PP. The Healthy Eating

Index: 1994–96. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Center for Nutrition

Policy and Promotion. CNPP-5.

1998.

23. Variyam JN, Blaylock J, Smallwood

D, Basiotis PP. USDA’s Healthy

Eating Index and nutrition

information. Technical bull No 1866.

1998.

24. Sahyoun NR, Chien-Lung L, Krall E.

Nutritional status of the older adult is

associated with dentition status.J Am

Diet Assoc 103:61-6. 2003.

25. Sheiham A, Steele J. Does the

condition of the mouth and teeth

affect the ability to eat certain foods,

nutrient and dietary intake and

nutritional status amongst older

people? Public Health Nutr 4:797–

803. 2001.

26. ChernoffR (editor). Geriatric

nutrition: The health professional’s

handbook. 2nd ed. Gaithersburg,

MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc. 1999.
10

omponent and overall scores for adults 60 years of age and over, by sociodemographic and health characteristics: United States, 1999–2002

Meat Dairy Fruits Vegetables Grains Total fat Saturated fat Cholesterol Sodium Dietary variety Overall HEI

Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and

Sample standard standard standard standard standard standard standard standard standard standard standard

size error error error error error error error error error error error

3,060 6.5 (0.1) 5.4 (0.1) 5.2 (0.1) 6.4 (0.1) 6.4 (0.1) 6.6 (0.1) 7.0 (0.1) 8.0 (0.1) 7.2 (0.1) 7.8 (0.1) 66.6 (0.4) 
 

1,512 7.1 (0.1)a 5.7 (0.1)a 4.7 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.1)a 6.9 (0.1)a 7.4 (0.1)a 6.0 (0.2)a 8.1 (0.1)a 65.3 (0.5)a

1,548 6.0 (0.1)b 5.1 (0.1)b 5.7 (0.2)b 6.4 (0.1)a 6.4 (0.1)a 6.7 (0.1)a 7.2 (0.1)a 8.5 (0.1)b 8.0 (0.1)b 7.6 (0.1)b 67.6 (0.5)b

1,396 7.0 (0.1)a 5.2 (0.1)a 5.0 (0.1)a 6.7 (0.1)a 6.6 (0.1)a 6.3 (0.1)a 6.9 (0.1)a 7.6 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.1)a 8.0 (0.1)a 66.1 (0.4)a

1,003 6.3 (0.1)b 5.6 (0.1)a 5.3 (0.2)a,b 6.2 (0.1)b 6.3 (0.1)a,b 6.8 (0.1)a,b 7.1 (0.1)a 8.4 (0.1)b 7.5 (0.1)b 7.7 (0.1)a 67.1 (0.7)a

661 5.7 (0.1)c 5.3 (0.1)a 5.8 (0.2)b 6.1 (0.2)b 6.2 (0.1)b 7.0 (0.2)b 7.2 (0.2)a 8.3 (0.2)b 7.8 (0.1)b 7.8 (0.2)a 67.3 (0.7)a

1,708 6.5 (0.1)a 5.7 (0.1)a 5.4 (0.1)a 6.6 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.1)a 6.4 (0.1)a 6.9 (0.1)a 8.0 (0.1)a 7.0 (0.1)a 8.0 (0.1)a 67.0 (0.5)a

522 6.9 (0.2)b 3.3 (0.2)b 4.4 (0.2)b 5.6 (0.1)b 5.4 (0.1)b 6.9 (0.2)a 7.6 (0.2)b 7.7 (0.2)a,b 7.9 (0.1)b 6.6 (0.2)b 62.3 (0.8)b

648 6.7 (0.1)a,b 4.6 (0.3)c 4.7 (0.2)b 6.0 (0.2)b 6.6 (0.2)a 6.9 (0.2)a 7.4 (0.2)a,b 7.3 (0.2)b 7.9 (0.2)b 7.5 (0.2)a 65.5 (1.0)a

1,345 6.4 (0.1)a 4.7 (0.1)a 4.3 (0.2)a 5.7 (0.2)a 6.0 (0.1)a 6.7 (0.2)a 7.0 (0.2)a 8.0 (0.1)a 7.7 (0.1)a 6.9 (0.1)a 63.3 (0.7)a

692 6.4 (0.1)a 5.4 (0.2)b 5.4 (0.2)b 6.5 (0.2)b 6.7 (0.1)b 6.4 (0.1)a 6.9 (0.2)a 8.1 (0.1)a 7.2 (0.2)a,b 7.9 (0.2)b 66.9 (0.7)b

1,011 6.7 (0.1)a 5.9 (0.1)c 5.9 (0.2)b 7.0 (0.1)c 6.6 (0.1)b 6.7 (0.2)a 7.2 (0.2)a 7.9 (0.1)a 6.8 (0.1)b 8.5 (0.1)c 69.2 (0.6)c

1,451 6.2 (0.1)a 5.3 (0.1)a 5.8 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.1)a 7.0 (0.1)a 7.4 (0.1)a 8.3 (0.1)a 7.5 (0.1)a 7.9 (0.1)a 68.5 (0.5)a

1,227 6.8 (0.1)b 5.6 (0.1)a 4.9 (0.2)b 6.5 (0.2)a 6.6 (0.1)a 6.4 (0.1)b 7.0 (0.1)a 7.8 (0.1)b 6.7 (0.2)b 8.1 (0.1)a 66.4 (0.5)b

376 6.7 (0.2)a,b 5.1 (0.3)a 3.9 (0.3)c 5.7 (0.2)b 5.8 (0.2)b 5.6 (0.3)c 5.9 (0.3)b 7.6 (0.3)b 7.4 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.2)b 60.4 (0.9)c

670 6.2 (0.1)a 5.0 (0.2)a 4.4 (0.2)a 5.6 (0.2)a 6.2 (0.2)a 6.4 (0.2)a 6.8 (0.2)a 8.1 (0.1)a 7.6 (0.3)a 7.1 (0.2)a 63.4 (0.7)a

1,072 6.5 (0.1)a,b 5.4 (0.1)a,b 5.1 (0.2)b 6.6 (0.1)b 6.4 (0.1)a 6.6 (0.1)a 7.0 (0.1)a 7.9 (0.2)a 7.2 (0.1)a 7.9 (0.1)b 66.5 (0.5)b

1,144 6.7 (0.1)b 5.6 (0.1)b 5.9 (0.1)c 6.7 (0.1)b 6.6 (0.1)a 6.7 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.2)a 8.1 (0.1)a 6.9 (0.1)a 8.3 (0.1)c 68.9 (0.6)c

1,085 6.4 (0.1)a 5.6 (0.1)a 5.6 (0.2)a 5.7 (0.2)a 6.8 (0.1)a 6.7 (0.1)a 7.2 (0.2)a 8.1 (0.1)a 7.0 (0.1)a 8.2 (0.1)a 68.1 (0.5)a

978 6.6 (0.1)a 5.3 (0.1)a 5.2 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.2)b 6.5 (0.2)a 6.4 (0.1)a 6.8 (0.1)a 8.0 (0.2)a 7.1 (0.2)a,b 7.8 (0.1)b 66.2 (0.6)b

994 6.5 (0.1)a 5.1 (0.2)a 4.7 (0.2)b 7.0 (0.1)c 5.7 (0.1)b 6.8 (0.2)a 7.1 (0.1)a 7.9 (0.2)a 7.5 (0.1)b 7.3 (0.1)c 65.0 (0.6)b

827 6.2 (0.1)a 5.7 (0.1)a 5.7 (0.2)a 6.6 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.1)a 7.0 (0.1)a 7.1 (0.1)a 8.3 (0.1)a 7.4 (0.1)a 8.0 (0.1)a 68.6 (0.5)a

1,146 6.5 (0.1)a 5.5 (0.1)a,b 5.2 (0.2)a,b 6.3 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.1)a 6.7 (0.2)a 7.2 (0.1)a 8.1 (0.2)a,b 7.0 (0.1)a 7.9 (0.1)a 66.9 (0.7)a,b

899 6.9 (0.1)b 5.1 (0.1)b 5.0 (0.2)b 6.5 (0.1)a 6.4 (0.1)a 6.1 (0.2)b 6.8 (0.2)a 7.6 (0.2)b 7.0 (0.2)a 7.8 (0.1)a 65.2 (0.6)b

Advance Data No. 395+ May 20, 2008

the family of pairwise comparisons was used when a characteristic was composed of three levels. Means with different letters are significantly different from each other.
 

wn separately and missing or unknown responses for education, smoking status, tooth retention, self-reported health, and BMI.
 

equivalency degree.
 

= weight(kilograms)/height(meters2).
 
11

omponent and overall scores for adult males 60 years of age and over, by sociodemographic and health characteristics: United States,

Meat Dairy Fruits Vegetables Grains Total fat Saturated fat Cholesterol Sodium Dietary variety Overall HEI

Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and

Sample standard standard standard standard standard standard standard standard standard standard standard

size error error error error error error error error error error error

682 7.6 (0.1)a 5.4 (0.2)a 4.4 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.2)a 6.6 (0.2)a 6.3 (0.1)a 6.9 (0.2)a 7.1 (0.2)a 5.5 (0.2)a 8.1 (0.1)a 64.6 (0.6)a

522 6.8 (0.2)b 6.0 (0.2)a 4.8 (0.2)a,b 6.4 (0.2)a,b 6.5 (0.1)a 6.7 (0.2)a 6.8 (0.2)a 7.8 (0.2)a 6.3 (0.2)a,b 8.1 (0.2)a 66.2 (0.7)a

308 6.4 (0.2)b 5.7 (0.2)a 5.4 (0.3)b 5.9 (0.2)b 6.1 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.3)a 7.8 (0.3)a 7.0 (0.2)b 8.2 (0.2)a 65.9 (0.9)a

856 7.1 (0.1)a 6.0 (0.1)a 4.7 (0.2)a 6.6 (0.1)a 6.6 (0.1)a 6.3 (0.1)a 6.7 (0.1)a 7.5 (0.2)a 5.9 (0.2)a 8.3 (0.1)a 65.7 (0.5)a

254 7.3 (0.2)a 3.3 (0.3)b 3.9 (0.3)b 5.3 (0.2)b 5.4 (0.2)b 6.9 (0.2)a 7.4 (0.2)b 7.1 (0.2)a,b 6.7 (0.2)a,b 6.6 (0.2)b 59.8 (0.8)b

319 7.5 (0.2)a 4.5 (0.3)c 4.1 (0.2)a,b 5.7 (0.2)b 6.6 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.3)a 7.4 (0.2)b 6.3 (0.4)b 7.3 (0.2)b 7.7 (0.2)c 63.8 (1.0)a

682 7.0 (0.2)a 5.1 (0.2)a 3.7 (0.3)a 5.8 (0.2)a 6.1 (0.1)a 6.3 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.2)a 7.1 (0.3)a 6.6 (0.3)a 7.1 (0.2)a 61.4 (0.8)a

301 7.3 (0.1)a 5.3 (0.3)a,b 4.6 (0.2)a 6.3 (0.2)a,b 6.6 (0.2)b 6.4 (0.2)a 7.0 (0.2)a 7.4 (0.3)a 5.7 (0.2)b 8.2 (0.2)b 64.9 (0.9)b

523 7.2 (0.1)a 6.2 (0.2)b 5.4 (0.2)b 7.0 (0.2)b 6.7 (0.1)b 6.7 (0.2)a 7.1 (0.2)a 7.6 (0.2)a 5.7 (0.2)b 8.8 (0.1)b 68.4 (0.7)c

490 7.0 (0.2)a 5.9 (0.2)a 5.7 (0.2)a 6.9 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.1)a 7.1 (0.2)a 7.5 (0.2)a 7.6 (0.2)a 5.9 (0.2)a 8.5 (0.1)a 68.6 (0.7)a

792 7.2 (0.1)a 5.7 (0.1)a,b 4.5 (0.2)b 6.5 (0.2)a 6.6 (0.1)a 6.3 (0.1)b 6.8 (0.2)b 7.3 (0.2)a 5.9 (0.2)a 8.3 (0.1)a 65.3 (0.5)b

227 7.2 (0.2)a 4.8 (0.3)b 3.2 (0.4)c 5.4 (0.2)b 5.5 (0.3)b 5.8 (0.5)a,b 5.8 (0.5)b 7.4 (0.5)a 6.6 (0.4)a 6.5 (0.4)b 58.3 (1.7)c

302 6.9 (0.2)a 5.4 (0.3)a 3.5 (0.2)a 5.8 (0.2)a 6.2 (0.2)a 6.3 (0.3)a 6.7 (0.3)a 7.5 (0.3)a 6.5 (0.4)a 7.2 (0.2)a 61.8 (0.7)a

530 7.2 (0.2)a 5.6 (0.2)a 4.5 (0.2)b 6.5 (0.1)a,b 6.4 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.2)a 7.2 (0.3)a 6.2 (0.2)a 8.1 (0.1)b 64.6 (0.6)b

604 7.2 (0.1)a 5.9 (0.2)a 5.4 (0.2)c 6.7 (0.2)b 6.8 (0.2)a 6.6 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.2)a 7.7 (0.2)a 5.7 (0.2)a 8.6 (0.1)b 67.8 (0.7)c

556 7.1 (0.1)a 6.0 (0.2)a 5.1 (0.2)a 6.9 (0.1)a 6.6 (0.1)a 6.6 (0.2)a 7.0 (0.2)a 7.8 (0.2)a 5.8 (0.2)a 8.5 (0.1)a 67.5 (0.7)a

473 7.2 (0.2)a 5.5 (0.2)a 4.5 (0.2)a,b 6.5 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.1)a 6.2 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.2)a 7.1 (0.3)a 5.9 (0.3)a 8.1 (0.2)a,b 64.2 (0.7)b

481 7.2 (0.2)a 5.3 (0.2)a 4.3 (0.3)b 5.7 (0.2)b 6.3 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.2)a 6.9 (0.2)a 7.1 (0.3)a 6.5 (0.3)a 7.5 (0.2)b 63.3 (0.8)b398 7.0 (0.2)a 6.0 (0.2)a 5.1 (0.3)a 6.7 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.2)a 6.9 (0.2)a 6.8 (0.2)a 7.8 (0.2)a 6.2 (0.2)a 8.1 (0.2)a 67.0 (0.7)a636 7.2 (0.1)a 5.6 (0.2)a 4.7 (0.2)a 6.4 (0.1)a 6.6 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.2)a 6.8 (0.2)a 7.6 (0.2)a 5.8 (0.2)a 8.2 (0.1)a 65.5 (0.9)a

383 7.4 (0.2)a 5.6 (0.2)a 4.4 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.2)a 6.4 (0.2)a 6.2 (0.3)a 6.9 (0.3)a 6.9 (0.3)a 5.8 (0.3)a 8.1 (0.2)a 64.1 (1.0)a

the family of pairwise comparisons was used when a characteristic was composed of three levels. Means with different letters are significantly different from each other.
 

equivalency degree.
 

= weight(kilograms)/height(meters2).
 

Advance Data No. 395+ May 20, 2008
12

omponent and overall scores for adult females 60 years of age and over, by sociodemographic and health characteristics: United States, 

Meat Dairy Fruits Vegetables Grains Total fat Saturated fat Cholesterol Sodium Dietary variety Overall HEI

Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and Mean and

Sample standard standard standard standard standard standard standard standard standard standard standard

size error error error error error error error error error error error

714 6.5 (0.1)a 5.1 (0.1)a 5.5 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.2)a 6.6 (0.1)a 6.4 (0.2)a 6.9 (0.2)a 8.1 (0.2)a 7.7 (0.1)a 7.9 (0.2)a 67.4 (0.5)a

481 5.9 (0.2)a,b 5.3 (0.2)a 5.6 (0.3)a 6.1 (0.2)a,b 6.2 (0.2)a 6.8 (0.2)a,b 7.3 (0.2)a 8.8 (0.2)a 8.3 (0.1)b 7.3 (0.2)b 67.7 (0.9)a

353 5.3 (0.1)b 5.1 (0.2)a 6.0 (0.2)a 6.2 (0.3)b 6.2 (0.2)a 7.2 (0.2)b 7.5 (0.2)a 8.6 (0.2)a 8.3 (0.2)b 7.5 (0.2)b 68.0 (0.8)a

852 6.0 (0.1)a 5.5 (0.1)a 5.8 (0.2)a 6.6 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.1)a 7.0 (0.1)a 8.4 (0.1)a 7.9 (0.1)a 7.8 (0.2)a 68.0 (0.6)a

268 6.6 (0.2)b 3.2 (0.2)b 4.7 (0.3)b 5.8 (0.2)b 5.4 (0.2)b 6.9 (0.3)a 7.7 (0.2)b 8.1 (0.2)a 8.8 (0.1)b 6.6 (0.2)b 63.9 (1.0)b

329 6.1 (0.2)a,b 4.7 (0.3)a 5.1 (0.3)a,b 6.2 (0.2)a,b 6.5 (0.3)a 7.1 (0.3)a 7.4 (0.2)a,b 8.1 (0.2)a 8.5 (0.2)b 7.4 (0.3)a,b 67.0 (1.3)a,b

663 5.9 (0.2)a 4.4 (0.2)a 4.7 (0.2)a 5.7 (0.2)a 5.9 (0.2)a 6.3 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.2)a 8.7 (0.2)a 8.4 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.2)a 64.7 (0.8)a

391 5.9 (0.2)a 5.4 (0.2)b 5.9 (0.2)b 6.5 (0.2)b 6.7 (0.2)b 6.4 (0.2)a 6.9 (0.2)a 8.5 (0.2)a 8.0 (0.2)a,b 7.8 (0.2)b 68.0 (0.8)b

488 6.3 (0.1)a 5.6 (0.2)b 6.3 (0.2)b 7.0 (0.1)b 6.5 (0.1)a,b 6.7 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.2)a 8.2 (0.2)a 7.8 (0.2)b 8.3 (0.1)b 69.9 (0.7)b

961 5.9 (0.1)a 5.0 (0.1)a 5.9 (0.2)a 6.4 (0.1)a 6.4 (0.1)a 7.0 (0.1)a 7.3 (0.1)a 8.6 (0.1)a 8.2 (0.1)a 7.6 (0.2)a,b 68.4 (0.5)a
 

435 6.2 (0.2)a 5.3 (0.2)a 5.5 (0.2)a,b 6.6 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.2)a 6.6 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.2)a 8.4 (0.2)a 7.8 (0.2)a 7.8 (0.2)a 67.9 (0.7)a
 

149 6.2 (0.3)a 5.4 (0.3)a 4.6 (0.5)b 6.0 (0.3)a 6.1 (0.3)a 5.4 (0.4)b 5.9 (0.4)b 7.8 (0.4)a 8.1 (0.2)a 7.0 (0.3)b 62.4 (1.2)b
 

368 5.8 (0.2)a 4.8 (0.2)a 4.9 (0.2)a 5.6 (0.3)a 6.2 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.2)a 6.9 (0.3)a 8.5 (0.2)a 8.2 (0.3)a 7.0 (0.3)a 64.4 (0.9)a

542 5.9 (0.1)a 5.3 (0.2)a 5.6 (0.2)b 6.7 (0.1)b 6.4 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.2)a 8.5 (0.2)a 8.0 (0.2)a 7.7 (0.2)a,b 68.0 (0.7)b

540 6.4 (0.2)a 5.4 (0.2)a 6.3 (0.2)c 6.8 (0.2)b 6.5 (0.1)a 6.8 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.2)a 8.5 (0.2)a 7.9 (0.2)a 8.1 (0.2)b 70.0 (0.6)b

529 5.9 (0.2)a 5.2 (0.2)a 6.0 (0.2)a 6.8 (0.1)a 6.4 (0.1)a 6.6 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.2)a 8.3 (0.2)a 7.9 (0.1)a 7.9 (0.1)a 68.5 (0.6)a

505 6.2 (0.1)a 5.2 (0.2)a 5.8 (0.2)a,b 6.5a (0.2)a 6.3 (0.1)a 6.2 (0.2)a 6.9 (0.2)a 8.6 (0.2)a 8.0 (0.2)a 7.7 (0.2)a,b 67.7 (0.7)a

513 6.0 (0.2)a 4.9 (0.2)a 5.0 (0.3)b 5.7 (0.2)b 6.4 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.2)a 8.5 (0.1)a 8.3 (0.2)a 7.2 (0.2)b 66.3 (0.9)a

429 5.7 (0.2)a 5.4 (0.2)a 6.1 (0.3)a 6.6 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.1)a 7.1 (0.2)a 7.4 (0.2)a,b 8.7 (0.2)a 8.1 (0.2)a 7.9 (0.2)a 69.7 (0.8)a510 5.8 (0.2)a 5.3 (0.2)a,b 5.6 (0.2)a 6.3 (0.2)a 6.3 (0.2)a 6.9 (0.2)a 7.5 (0.2)a 8.6 (0.2)a 8.2 (0.1)a 7.6 (0.2)a 68.3 (0.8)a,b

516 6.6 (0.1)b 4.7 (0.2)b 5.4 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.1)a 6.1 (0.2)b 6.6 (0.2)b 8.0 (0.2)a 7.9 (0.2)a 7.6 (0.2)a 66.0 (0.7)b

the family of pairwise comparisons was used when a characteristic was composed of three levels. Means with different letters are significantly different from each other.
 

equivalency degree.
 

= weight(kilograms)/height(meters2).
 

Advance Data No. 395+ May 20, 2008
Advance Data No. 395

+ May 20, 2008 13

Technical Notes

Age-adjusted estimates were

calculated for the 10 components and

overall HEI scores using the direct

method of adjustment and the U.S.

Census population estimates for the year

2000 (18). The difference between mean

age-adjusted and crude component

scores ranged from 0.1 to 0.7 and the

difference between mean age-adjusted

and crude overall HEI scores ranged

from 0.1 to 1.5, but usually the

difference was less than 0.4 for all of

the HEI scores. Because the ageadjusted and crude scores were quite

similar, the crude scores are presented in

the main body of the text in Tables 1–3.

However, the age-adjusted scores are

presented in Tables I–III.
14

ean Healthy Eating Index component and overall scores for adults 60 years of age and over, by sociodemographic and health characteristics:

Meat Dairy Fruits Vegetables Grains Total fat Saturated fat Cholesterol Sodium Dietary variety Overall HEI

ple

e

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

60124808

 

22 48 

45 

92 

11 

51 27 

76 70 

72 44 85 

78 94 27

46

99

6.5 (0.1)

7.1 (0.1)a

6.0 (0.1)b

6.5 (0.1)a

6.8 (0.2)a

6.6 (0.1)a

 6.4 (0.1)a

 6.4 (0.1)a 6.6 (0.1)a 6.3 (0.1)a 6.7 (0.1)b (0.2)a,b 6.46.3 (0.1)a 6.4 (0.1)a 6.7 (0.1)a 6.4 (0.1)a 6.6 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.1)a 6.2 (0.1)a

(0.1)a,b 6.5

6.8 (0.1)b

5.4 (0.1)

5.7 (0.1)a

5.1 (0.1)b5.7 (0.1)a3.2 (0.2)b

4.7 (0.3)c

4.7 (0.1)a5.4 (0.2)b

5.9 (0.1)c

 5.3 (0.1)a

 5.6 (0.1)a 5.1 (0.2)a 5.0 (0.2)a 5.4 (0.1)a,b 5.7 (0.1)b 5.6 (0.1)a 5.3 (0.1)a 5.1 (0.2)a 5.7 (0.1)a

5.5 (0.1)a,b

5.1 (0.1)b

5.3

4.85.75.44.44.64.35.46.05.95.04.2

 4.3 5.1 6.0 5.6 5.3 4.7 5.7

5.25.2

(0.1)

(0.1)a

(0.2)b(0.1)a(0.2)b(0.2)b(0.2)a(0.2)b(0.2)b(0.1)a(0.2)b(0.4)b

 (0.2)a (0.2)b (0.2)c (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)b (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a

6.4 (0.1)

6.4 (0.1)a

6.4 (0.1)a6.6 (0.1)a5.5 (0.2)b5.9 (0.2)b5.8 (0.2)a6.4 (0.2)b6.9 (0.1)b6.5 (0.1)a

6.5 (0.2)a,b

5.8 (0.2)b5.7 (0.2)a6.6 (0.1)b6.7 (0.1)b

 6.8 (0.1)a

 6.5 (0.1)a 5.7 (0.1)b 6.7 (0.1)a 6.3 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.1)a

6.4

6.56.46.55.46.56.06.76.56.56.55.86.26.46.66.56.46.3

 6.5 6.4 6.4

(0.1)

(0.1)a

(0.1)a(0.1)a(0.1)b(0.2)a(0.1)a(0.1)b(0.1)b(0.1)a(0.1)a(0.2)b(0.2)a(0.1)a(0.1)a(0.1)a(0.1)a(0.1)a

 (0.1)a (0.1)a (0.1)a

6.6

6.56.76.46.97.06.76.46.77.06.55.96.46.66.86.76.46.87.06.76.1 

(0.1)

(0.1)a

(0.1)a(0.1)a(0.2)a(0.2)a(0.2)a(0.1)a(0.1)a(0.1)a(0.1)b(0.3)b(0.2)a(0.1)a(0.2)a(0.1)a(0.1)a(0.2)a(0.1)a(0.1)a(0.2)b 

7.0 (0.1)

6.9 (0.1)a

7.2 (0.1)a6.9 (0.1)a7.6 (0.2)b

7.3 (0.2)a,b

7.0 (0.2)a6.9 (0.1)a7.2 (0.1)a7.4 (0.1)a7.0 (0.1)a6.2 (0.3)b6.8 (0.2)a7.0 (0.1)a7.3 (0.2)a7.2 (0.2)a6.8 (0.1)a7.1 (0.1)a7.1 (0.1)a7.2 (0.1)a6.7 (0.2)a 

 

8.0 (0.1)

7.5 (0.1)a

8.5 (0.1)b8.0 (0.1)a

7.7 (0.2)a,b

7.4 (0.2)b8.0 (0.1)a8.1 (0.1)a8.0 (0.1)a8.3 (0.1)a7.8 (0.1)b

7.8 (0.3)a,b

8.1 (0.1)a7.9 (0.2)a8.2 (0.1)a8.1 (0.1)a8.0 (0.2)a7.9 (0.2)a8.3 (0.1)a

8.1 (0.2)a,b

7.6 (0.2)b 

 

7.2 (0.1)

6.1 (0.2)a

8.1 (0.1)b7.0 (0.1)a8.1 (0.1)b8.0 (0.2)b7.7 (0.1)a

7.2 (0.2)a,b

6.9 (0.1)b7.5 (0.1)a6.7 (0.2)b7.4 (0.2)a7.5 (0.3)a7.3 (0.1)a7.0 (0.1)a7.0 (0.1)a

7.2 (0.1)a,b

7.5 (0.1)b7.3 (0.1)a7.0 (0.1)a7.2 (0.2)a 

 

7.8

8.17.68.06.6

7.4

6.97.9

8.5

7.98.16.97.17.9

8.3

8.17.8

7.3

8.07.97.8 

(0.1)

(0.1)a

(0.1)b(0.1)a(0.1)b

(0.2)c

(0.1)a(0.2)b

(0.1)c

(0.1)a(0.1)a(0.2)b(0.2)a(0.1)b

(0.1)c

(0.1)a(0.1)b

(0.1)c

(0.1)a(0.1)a(0.1)a 

66.7 (0.4)

65.4 (0.5)a

67.6 (0.5)b67.1 (0.5)a62.1 (0.8)b

65.4 (1.1)a,b

63.3 (0.7)a67.0 (0.7)b

69.3 (0.6)c

68.5 (0.5)a66.4 (0.5)b

61.6 (0.9)c

63.3 (0.7)a66.6 (0.5)b

69.2 (0.6)c

68.1 (0.5)a66.3 (0.6)b65.0 (0.6)b68.6 (0.5)a

67.0 (0.7)a,b

65.5 (0.7)b 

 


 


 

the family of pairwise comparisons was used when a characteristic was

wn separately and missing or unknown responses for education, smoking

equivalency degree.

= weight(kilograms)/height(meters2).

composed of

status, tooth

three levels. Means with different letters

retention, self-reported health, and BMI.
 

are significantly different from each other.
 

Advance Data No. 395+ May 20, 2008
15

ean Healthy Eating Index component and overall scores for males 60 years of age and over, by sociodemographic and health characteristics:

Meat Dairy Fruits Vegetables Grains Total fat Saturated fat Cholesterol Sodium Dietary variety Overall HEI

ple

e

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

6 4 9 2

 

1 3 0 2 7 2 0 4 6 3 1 8 6 3 7.1 7.2 7.4 6.9 7.3 7.0

 7.0 7.1 6.9 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.2 7.2 (0.1)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.1)a (0.2)a

 (0.1)a (0.3)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.1)a (0.1)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.1)a (0.2)a 6.0 (0.1)a 3.3 (0.3)b 4.6 (0.3)c 5.1 (0.2)a 5.3 (0.3)a 6.3 (0.1)b 5.9 (0.2)a 5.7 (0.1)a,b 5.0 (0.3)b

 5.4 (0.3)a

 5.6 (0.2)a 6.0 (0.1)a 6.1 (0.2)a 5.5 (0.2)a,b 5.2 (0.2)b 6.0 (0.2)a 5.6 (0.2)a 5.6 (0.2)a 4.8 (0.2)a 3.9 (0.3)b 4.2 (0.3)a,b 3.7 (0.3)a 4.6 (0.2)b 5.5 (0.2)c 5.7 (0.2)a 4.6 (0.2)b 3.5 (0.4)b 3.5 (0.2)a 4.5 (0.2)b 5.5 (0.2)c

 5.2 (0.2)a 4.6 (0.2)a,b

 4.3 (0.3)b 5.1 (0.3)a 4.8 (0.2)a 4.6 (0.3)a 6.6 (0.1)a 5.1 (0.2)b 5.6 (0.2)b 5.8 (0.2)a 6.3 (0.2)a,b 6.9 (0.2)b 6.9 (0.2)a 6.4 (0.1)a,b 5.5 (0.3)b 5.8 (0.2)a 6.4 (0.1)a,b 6.7 (0.2)b 6.8 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.2)a 5.7 (0.2)b

 6.7 (0.2)a 6.4 (0.1)a

 6.4 (0.2)a 6.6 5.4 6.6 6.1 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.6 5.7 6.2 6.3 6.7 6.6 6.4 6.3 6.5 6.5 6.3 (0.1)a (0.2)b (0.2)a (0.1)a (0.2)b (0.1)b (0.1)a (0.1)a (0.3)b (0.2)a (0.1)a (0.2)a (0.1)a (0.1)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a 6.3 (0.1)a 6.9 (0.2)a 6.8 (0.2)a 6.3 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.2)a 7.1 (0.2)a 6.4 (0.1)b 6.0 (0.5)a,b 6.3 (0.3)a 6.5 (0.1)a 6.7 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.2)a 6.2 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.2)a 6.9 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.2)a 6.1 (0.3)a 

 6.7 (0.1)a 7.5 (0.2)b 7.3 (0.3)a,b 6.5 (0.2)a 7.0 (0.2)a 7.1 (0.2)a 7.5 (0.2)a 6.8 (0.1)b 5.9 (0.4)b 6.7 (0.3)a 6.5 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.2)a 7.0 (0.2)a 6.6 (0.2)a 6.9 (0.2)a 6.8 (0.2)a 6.8 (0.2)a 6.6 (0.3)a 

 7.5 7.0 6.4 7.1 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.4 7.7 7.5 7.2 7.8 7.9 7.2 7.1 7.8 7.6 7.0 (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.4)a (0.3)a (0.3)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.4)a (0.3)a (0.3)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.3)a (0.3)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.3)a 6.0 6.9 7.4 6.7 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.3 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.6 6.2 5.9 6.0 (0.2)a (0.2)b (0.2)b (0.3)a (0.2)b (0.2)b (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.3)a (0.4)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.1)a (0.3)a (0.3)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.3)a 8.3 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.2)b 7.7 (0.2)a 7.1 (0.2)a 8.2 (0.2)b 8.8 (0.1)b 8.5 (0.1)a 8.3 (0.1)a 6.7 (0.3)b 7.2 (0.2)a 8.1 (0.1)b 8.6 (0.1)c 8.5 (0.1)a 8.1 (0.2)a,b 7.5 (0.2)b 8.1 (0.2)a 8.3 (0.1)a 8.0 (0.2)a 

 65.8 59.7 64.1 61.5 65.0 68.6 68.6 65.4 59.4 61.8 64.7 68.2 67.7 64.3 63.2 67.0 65.6 63.9 (0.5)a (0.9)b (1.1)a (0.8)a (0.9)b (0.6)c (0.7)a (0.5)b (1.7)c (0.8)a (0.5)b (0.7)c (0.7)a (0.7)b (0.8)b (0.7)a (0.8)a (1.2)a 


 


 

the family of pairwise comparisons was

equivalency degree.

= weight(kilograms)/height(meters2).

used when a characteristic was composed of three levels. Means with different letters are significantly different from each other.
 

Advance Data No. 395+ May 20, 2008
16

mean 

2002 Healthy Eating Index component and overall scores for females 60 years of age and over, by sociodemographic and health

Meat Dairy Fruits Vegetables Grains Total fat Saturated fat Cholesterol Sodium Dietary variety Overall HEI

mple

ze

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

Mean and

standard

error

52 68 29 63

 

91 88 61 35 49 68 42 40 29 05 

3 

29 

0 6 6.0 6.5 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.3

 6.0 6.2 6.0 5.9 5.9 6.3 5.9 6.2 6.0 5.7 5.8 6.6 (0.1)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.1)a (0.1)a

 (0.2)a (0.3)a (0.2)a (0.1)a (0.2)a (0.1)a (0.1)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)b 5.5 3.2 4.7 4.3 5.4 5.6 5.0 5.3 5.4

 4.8 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 4.9 5.5 5.3 4.8 (0.1)a (0.2)b (0.3)a (0.2)a (0.2)b (0.2)b (0.1)a (0.2)a (0.4)a (0.2)a

 (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a 5.8 (0.2)a 4.7 (0.2)b 5.0 (0.3)b 4.7 (0.2)a 5.9 (0.2)b 6.4 (0.2)b 5.9 (0.2)a 5.6 (0.2)a 4.8 (0.5)a 4.8 (0.2)a 5.6 (0.2)b 6.4 (0.2)c

 6.0 (0.2)a

 5.8 (0.2)a,b 5.0 (0.3)b 6.1 (0.3)a 5.7 (0.2)a 5.6 (0.2)a 6.6 (0.1)a 5.7 (0.2)b 6.0 (0.2)a,b 5.7 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.2)b 6.9 (0.1)b 6.4 (0.1)a 6.6 (0.2)a 6.0 (0.4)a 5.6 (0.3)a 6.7 (0.1)b 6.8 (0.2)b 6.8 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.2)a 5.7 (0.2)b

 6.7 (0.2)a

 6.3 (0.2)a 6.6 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.1)a 5.3 (0.2)b 6.5 (0.3)a 5.9 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.2)b 6.5 (0.1)a,b 6.4 (0.1)a 6.5 (0.2)a 5.9 (0.2)a 6.3 (0.2)a 6.4 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.1)a 6.4 (0.1)a 6.3 (0.1)a 6.4 (0.2)a 6.6 (0.1)a 6.3 (0.2)a 6.4 (0.1)a 

 6.5 (0.1)a 7.0 (0.2)a 7.1 (0.2)a 7.0 (0.2)a 6.4 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.2)a 7.0 (0.1)a 6.6 (0.2)a,b 5.8 (0.3)b 6.4 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.2)a 6.8 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.2)a 7.0 (0.2)a 7.1 (0.2)a 6.9 (0.2)a 6.1 (0.2)b 

 7.0 (0.1)a 7.7 (0.2)b 7.3 (0.2)a,b 7.3 (0.2)a 6.9 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.1)a 7.3 (0.2)a 6.5 (0.4)a 6.8 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.2)a 6.9 (0.2)a 7.3 (0.2)a 7.4 (0.2)a,b 7.5 (0.2)a 6.7 (0.2)b 

 8.4 8.1 8.2 8.7 8.5 8.3 8.6 8.4 8.0 8.5 8.5 8.6 8.3 8.6 8.5 8.7 8.6 8.0 (0.1)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.1)a (0.2)a (0.4)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a (0.2)a 7.9 (0.1)a 8.8 (0.1)b 8.6 (0.2)b 8.4 (0.2)a 8.0 (0.2)a,b 7.8 (0.2)b 8.2 (0.1)a 7.8 (0.2)a 8.2 (0.3)a 8.1 (0.3)a 8.0 (0.2)a 8.0 (0.2)a 8.0 (0.1)a 8.0 (0.2)a 8.2 (0.2)a 8.1 (0.2)a 8.1 (0.1)a 7.9 (0.2)a 

 7.8 (0.2)a 6.6 (0.2)b 7.1 (0.2)a,b 6.8 (0.2)a 7.8 (0.2)b 8.2 (0.1)b 7.6 (0.2)a 7.8 (0.2)a 7.2 (0.3)a 7.0 (0.2)a 7.6 (0.2)a,b 8.1 (0.2)b 7.8 (0.1)a 7.7 (0.2)a,b 7.2 (0.2)b 8.0 (0.2)a 7.6 (0.2)a 7.6 (0.2)a 

 68.0 (0.6)a 63.7 (0.9)b 66.4 (1.4)a,b 64.7 (0.8)a 68.0 (0.8)b 70.0 (0.7)b 68.4 (0.5)a 67.9 (0.7)a 63.9 (1.2)b 64.2 (0.9)a 68.0 (0.7)b 70.1 (0.7)b 68.5 (0.6)a 67.6 (0.7)a 66.3 (0.9)a 69.7 (0.8)a 68.3 (0.8)a,b 66.4 (0.7)b 

 


 


 

the family of pairwise comparisons was

equivalency degree.

= weight(kilograms)/height(meters2).

used when a characteristic was composed of three levels. Means with different letters are significantly different from each other.
 

Advance Data No. 395+ May 20, 2008
20 Advance Data No. 395 + May 20, 2008

Suggested citation

Ervin RB. Healthy Eating Index scores among

adults, 60 years of age and over, by

sociodemographic and health characteristics:

United States, 1999–2002. Advance data from

vital and health statistics; no 395. Hyattsville,

MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

2008.

Copyright information

All material appearing in this report is in the

public domain and may be reproduced or

copied without permission; citation as to

source, however, is appreciated.

National Center for Health Statistics

Director
 

Edward J. Sondik, Ph.D.
 

Acting Co-Deputy Directors
 

Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D.
 

Michael H. Sadagursky
 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

3311 Toledo Road

Hyattsville, MD 20782

FIRST CLASS
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

CDC/NCHS
 

PERMIT NO. G-284
 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

To receive this publication regularly, contact

the National Center for Health Statistics by

calling 1-800-232-4636

E-mail: nchsquery@cdc.gov

Internet: www.cdc.gov/nchs

CS118375

T31153 (05/2008)

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2008-1250