20110917 - Nutritional balance of low-fat soymilk (2011)

[Data] [<Normal page] [PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2011). Nutritional balance of low-fat soymilk (2011). Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2011, pages 124-126.]

Low-fat soymilk BNI - 2011

Perezgonzalez re-assessed the nutritional balance of low-fat soymilk in 20112, following on the steps of a similar study done in 20081. Both data were collected as part of a research on the nutritional balance of milk and milk alternatives in New Zealand.

In 2011, low-fat soymilk has, on average, a nutritional balance of BNI 26.77s4, being particularly unbalanced towards excess of sugar. The average low-fat soymilk is also adequate in fat and fiber, low in saturated fat, high in protein and sodium, and low in carbohydrate. It also provides about 119mg of calcium per 100ml.

Illustration 1: Nutrition information (low-fat soymilk)
BNI 26.77s 0.00
Food, 100ml 2011 Ideal
Protein 2.9 2.1
Carbohydrate 4.6 5.7
Sugar 2.1 < 1.0
Fat 1.3 1.2
Saturated fat 0.2 < 0.5
Fiber 0.8 0.6
Sodium 0.059 < 0.042
Kcal 41.7 41.7
kJul 174.5 174.5
Illustration 2: Nutritional profile (low-fat soymilk)
55%
50%
45% *
40% *
35% *
30% * * *
25% * * *
20% * * *
15% * * *
10% * * *
5% * * * *
mid p c f fb
max s sf na
5% * * *
10% *
15% *
20% *
ideal % = grey cells; actual % = asterisk (*)

International standards

Low-fat soymilk appears as slightly unbalanced according to international Recommended Dietary Intakes (RDIs), although it is very close to balance according to U.S. and Canada's standards, which allow for a higher content of sugars and fat.

Illustration 3: Nutritional balance across different RDIs
Low-fat soymilk (diet) 26.77 46.77 0.47 26.40 18.76
Product 100ml Company BNI WHO US/CAN AUS/NZ UK
So Good essential Sanitarium 14.20 33.71 1.62 14.29 11.53
Pams soy milk low fat Pams 19.47 39.47 0.00 18.49 10.51
Vitasoy high fibre Vitasoy 19.62 39.99 1.75 19.45 15.84
Signature Range organic soy lite SR Brands 29.60 33.78 2.61 29.21 27.21
So Good lite (chilled) Sanitarium 34.02 53.82 1.03 33.85 18.62
So Good lite (UHT) Sanitarium 34.02 53.82 1.03 33.85 18.62
Vitasoy vitality Vitasoy 35.81 55.81 5.09 25.42 12.59
Vitasoy Soy Milky lite Vitasoy 42.76 62.76 4.04 32.17 16.17
So Natural light Freedom Foods 52.79 72.79 5.34 42.01 26.01
Vitasoy light Vitasoy 55.73 69.12 25.41 55.38 53.94
(Source: Perezgonzalez, 2011a2)

Correlations between indexes are positive, and tend be high between pairs of international indexes, except, perhaps, for the US/CAN index.

Illustration 4: Correlations between RDIs
(n=10) BNI WHO US/CAN AUS/NZ
WHO .932
(p) .000
US/CAN .684 .562
(p) .029 .091
AUS/NZ .935 .819 .779
(p) .000 .004 .008
UK .711 .504 .909 .872
(p) .021 .137 .000 .001

Methods

Research approach

The original research was an exploratory study for describing the nutritional balance of milk alternatives in New Zealand in 2011. It was a follow up of a similar study done in 20081.

Sample

The initial research sample included 34 alternative milk products (ie, soymilk. ricemilk and oatmilk)2. The food products were collected in a convenient manner, looking more for a variety of brands than a random sampling of the same. The results in this study simply describe the 'subsample' of low-fat soymilk products within the original sample: ie, 10 brands of low-fat soymilk.

Materials & analysis

Alternative milk products were purchased from local supermarket chains in Palmerston North, New Zealand. Nutrition information for each milk product was retrieved from the nutritional information panel on each item, to be assessed using the Balanced Nutrition Index™ (BNI™) technology (see Perezgonzalez, 2011b3). SPSS-v16 was used for variable computations, including BNI and international indexes, and statistical analysis, which included descriptives and correlations.

Generalization potential

Most of the products are made internationally, especially in Australia. Thus, the results of this study may be generalizable to the following populations (in order of decreasing generalization power):

  • Australia.
  • Internationally, if one assumes milk alternatives to be of approximately similar nutritional composition anywhere.
References
1. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2008). Milk and milk alternatives in New Zealand in 2007-2008. The Balanced Nutrition Index (ISSN 1177-8849), 2011, issue 3. (Retrievable from http://www.lulu.com/BNI-INE).
2. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2011a). Milking veggies. The Balanced Nutrition Index (ISSN 1177-8849), 2011, issue 5. (Retrievable from http://www.lulu.com/BNI-INE).
3. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2011b). Balanced Nutrition Index™ (BNI™). Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2011, pages 20-21. Also retrievable from Wiki of Science.
+++ Footnotes +++
4. This is the dietBNI. The foodBNI is 34.02s, based on the sample's median.

Want to know more?

BNI™ database
The database offers individual nutrition analyses for foods, including those referred to in above article.
BNI™ journal (2011, issue 5) - Milking veggies
This issue of the Balanced Nutrition Index™ journal collates all BNI™ nutrition information for the original sample in a single book.
Wiki of Science - Balance Nutrition Index™ (BNI™)
This Wiki of Science page offers more information about the BNI™ technology.

Author

Jose D PEREZGONZALEZ (2011). Massey University, Turitea Campus, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand. (JDPerezgonzalezJDPerezgonzalez).


Other interesting sites
320
Journal KAI
105px-Stylised_Lithium_Atom.png
Wiki of Science
120px-Aileron_roll.gif
AviationKnowledge
Artwork-194-web.jpg
A4art
Artwork-162-web.jpg
The Balanced Nutrition Index
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License