Skip to main content

Table 2 Regression of nutritional status on education groups, meat consumption, and covariates

From: Potential unexpected effects of meat reduction in diet: Could educational attainment influence meat substitution strategies?

 

BMI (kg/m2)

Overweight/obesity status (= 1)

Meat consumption (kg/month)

− 0.372

− 0.026

(0.374)

(0.032)

Technological or professional diploma (binary)

− 2.014*

− 0.239***

(1.116)

(0.083)

Higher diploma (binary)

− 4.394***

− 0.413***

(1.026)

(0.079)

TechPro*MeatCons

0.383

0.047

(0.419)

(0.040)

HigherDip*MeatCons

0.867**

0.095**

(0.405)

(0.038)

Male (binary)

0.145

0.069*

(0.364)

(0.040)

Aged 45–64 (binary)

1.635***

0.202***

(0.372)

(0.038)

Daily smoking (binary)

− 0.573*

− 0.022

(0.341)

(0.040)

Alcohol consumption index (0-to-90 score)

0.011

0.001

(0.011)

(0.001)

Medium level of physical activity (binary)

− 1.120***

− 0.118***

(0.359)

(0.034)

High level of physical activity (binary)

− 1.559***

− 0.155**

(0.484)

(0.060)

Medium level of sedentariness (binary)

− 0.345

0.014

(0.556)

(0.052)

High level of sedentariness (binary)

0.823

0.068

(0.523)

(0.051)

Lunch at home (binary)

0.174

0.044

(0.308)

(0.033)

Declared as vegetarian (binary)

0.201

0.047

 

(1.071)

(0.122)

Number of adults per household

0.428*

0.045*

(0.231)

(0.027)

Number of children per household

− 0.040

− 0.007

(0.160)

(0.017)

Season dummies

Yes

Yes

Urbanicity levels

Yes

Yes

Region dummies

Yes

Yes

Black's misreporting indexes

Yes

Yes

Constant

26.846***

0.394***

 

(1.527)

(0.141)

Observations

1,309

1,309

R-squared

0.237

0.190

  1. Estimates are weighted using the survey recommendations to guarantee the representativeness of the sample. Lactating and pregnant women were excluded as well as children (< 18 yo) and the elderly (> 65 yo)
  2. Standard errors are in parentheses. Levels of significance of fitted coefficients: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1
  3. Source: INCA-3 (2014–2015)