O20 (continued)
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior � Volume 41, Number 4S, 2009 Oral Abstracts S9
internal regulation, contextual skills). Physical activity(minutes/day) was self-reported. Anthropometrics weremeasured by trained personnel using standardized proto-col. Complete data were available for 92% of subjects(N¼1035).Intervention: Online nutrition/physical fitness course.Outcome, Measures and Analysis: Eating behavior wasthe outcome and sleep quality was the independent factor.Adequate sleep ¼ PSQI score #5; poor sleep >5. TFEQ andecSI were compared between sleep quality categories.Models controlled for age, gender, physical activity andBMI.Results: Poor sleepers (39%) had significantly higher un-controlled eating (mean¼48.3�, 19.9) compared to ade-quate sleepers (mean¼41.3 � 18.5, P¼0.0001). ecSI scorewas lower (P<0.0001) in poor sleepers (mean¼29.7 � 7.2than adequate sleepers mean¼ 31.9� 6.9, as were the con-structs of eating enjoyment, internal regulation and con-textual skills (P<0.002).Conclusions and Implications: Results provide evi-dence of significant associations between sleep qualityand eating behavior. Temporal nature of associations andimpact on body weight changes need evaluation. This pro-ject was supported by USDA2005- 35215-154121541 andNIH 1UL1RR025011.
Continued on page S10
O21 How Long Does it Take College Students toCook Healthy Meals?Shannon M. Grocott, [email protected];Lora Beth Brown, EdD, RD, [email protected];Amy C. Mitchell, BS, [email protected], S-245 ESC;Rickelle Richards, PhD, MPH, RD, [email protected], S-233ESC, Department of Nutrition Dietetics and Food Science;Dennis L. Eggett, PhD, [email protected], 223A TMCB,Department of Statistics, Brigham Young University,Provo, UT 84602
Objective: To identify what entrees students cooked andto compare times required for their preparation.Use of Theory or Research: Social Cognitive Theoryrecognizes situational constructs that influence behavior.This research examined time required to cook an entreesince perception of time likely influences decisions aboutcooking.Target Audience: Students in an introductory collegenutrition course who completed a cook-an-entree assign-ment (n¼580, 67% females).Description: Students’ entrees were required to havea protein, a starch, and a non-starchy fruit/vegetable ingre-dient. No boxed ‘‘helper’’ mixes or frozen entrees could beused. Students completed the assignment by online report-ing of the times required for each step: searching for therecipe, shopping for ingredients, preparing the entree,and cleaning up.Evaluation: Average times for each step were 6.1 minutesto search for the recipe, 16.1 minutes to shop for ingredi-ents, 26.2 minutes to prepare the entree, and 11.4 minutesto clean up. Main entree ingredients included chicken
(51.4% of students), beef (25.7%), pasta (27.1%), rice(22.6%), and potatoes (17.0%). There was little practicaldifference in average times to prepare entrees with differ-ent main ingredients.Conclusions and Implications: Although cookingdoes require time, the mean cooking time for this assign-ment indicates that healthy cooking is not necessarily astime consuming as students may think. Seventy-three per-cent of students rated their entree as quick to prepare, sug-gesting that nutrition educators could reinforce thathealthy cooking can fit into a busy lifestyle.
O22 Use of Electronic Group Discussion Methodto Assess Food-Related Educational NeedsAmong International College StudentsJulie Garden-Robinson, PhD, LRD, [email protected], North Dakota State University ExtensionService, Health Nutrition and Exercise Sciences, EML 351Dept 7270, P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58108-6050;Agnes Ngale Lyonga, MS, [email protected],North Dakota State University School of Education, 210AFLC, P.O. Box 6050 Fargo, ND 58108; Myron Eighmy, EdD,[email protected], North Dakota State UniversitySchool of Education, FLC 216, P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, ND58108
Objective: This study explored issues related to unfamil-iar foods, food safety educational needs, and preferredmethods of receiving information about food.Design, Setting and Participants: The Group Deci-sion Center (GDC) allowed simultaneous, unidentifiableinteraction among participants. The GDC is a technologylaboratory with 20 participant computer work stations,a network server, lead station and data projector. Purposivesampling was used to obtain participants from differentnationalities. A facilitator used a pilot-tested discussionguide and oral script. A written transcript was availablefor qualitative analysis immediately following the groupdiscussion.Outcome, Measures and Analysis: Thematic analysiswas used to generate main themes and categorize theminto three groups: extensive, recurring or frequent, and in-frequent or limited.Results: Three 90-minute group discussions (n¼58; 51%female; mean age 25.9) were conducted with internationalstudents representing 30 different nationalities. The maincategories of new or less familiar foods were cheese-con-taining foods; fast foods; sweetened and/or high-fat foods;processed and frozen foods; canned foods; and non-vege-tarian foods. The major extensive and frequent themes re-lated to food safety concerns were storage conditions andpreservation of leftovers; proper handling and preparationof salads and fresh vegetables; safety of processed, frozen,and canned foods; and determination of doneness whena food thermometer is unavailable. The extensive and fre-quent themes related to preferred methods for receivinginformation were food packages; TV shows; interactivewebsites and emails; training programs; university orienta-tion programs; and newspapers.
