20120413 - Nutritional balance of kinds of breakfast cereals - 2012

[Data] [<Normal page] [PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012). The nutritional balance of kinds of breakfast cereals. Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2012, pages 108-113.]

Nutritional balance of kinds of breakfast cereals

Perezgonzalez assessed the nutritional balance of breakfast cereals in 2012 (see b3,c4,d5,e6,f7,g8). The same data can be analysed further, to ascertain whether features such as being sold under a generic brand or having children as the target customer may (unintentionally) inform about the overall nutritional balance of above products.

Illustration 1 collates information per group within each kind of product, namely group size, as well as median and interquartile range for nutritional balance (BNI). Illustration 2 collates information about mean ranks per group, as well as tests for equality of ranked distributions for independent groups (Mann-Whitney U tests and equivalent Z areas).

Illustration 1: Group size, medians & interquartile ranges
Kind 'No' 'Yes'
n median ( IQR ) n median ( IQR )
Children 64 37.27 ( 41.31 ) 15 72.65 ( 48.24 )
Generic 63 39.51 ( 49.72 ) 16 36.89 ( 61.00 )
(Medians closer to 0.0 indicate greater balance)

According to these results, it can be concluded that:

  • Cereals grouped according to having children as their customer base or not show ranked group distances so extreme that, under normal circumstances, such distances would only occur about 4 times in 100. As cereals not targeted to children have a lower median (37.27) than cereals targeted to children (72.65), it can be inferred that cereals not targeted to children are more balanced nutritionally. Indeed, the absence of such targeted marketing alone would identify some 23% of more nutritionally balanced breakfast cereals (see rho values in illustration 3).
  • Cereals grouped according to whether they are marketed under a generic brand or not show ranked group distances within the expected normal range, and relatively similar medians. Thus, it can be inferred that breakfast cereals marketed under generic brands have a similar nutritional balance than breakfast cereals marketed under specific commercial brands. Therefore, this grouping is not helpful in identifying different nutritional balance among breakfast cereals.
Illustration 2. Mann-Whitney U tests
Kind m.rank 'no' m.rank 'yes' U Z ( p )
Children 37.47 50.80 318.0 -2.03 ( .043 )
Generic 40.10 39.59 497.5 -.08 ( .937 )
(Mean ranks closer to 0.0 indicate greater balance. Sig ≤ .05, 2-tailed)

Illustration 3 collates information about a multiple regression model for assessing the potential combination of both kinds of breakfast cereals groupings. The regression model (R, 'stepwise' procedure) retains only the 'targeted to children' category as a significant variable, capable of identifying the nutritional balance of about 23% of breakfast cereals in the sample. The 'usability' of such regression model for predicting the nutritional balance of breakfast cereals not in the sample is, approximately, 20% (adjusted R).

Illustration 3. Regression model on ranked BNI
rho ( p ) β ( p )
Children .229 ( .042 ) .229 ( .042 )
Generic -.009 ( .937 )
R = .229 ( .042 )
Adj.R = .200
(Dependent variable = BNI. Sig ≤ .05, 2-tailed)

Methods

Research approach

Exploratory study.

Sample

The research sample included 79 breakfast cereals (ie, oats, wheat, rice, corn, bran and muesli). Although the research aimed for a stratified sampling procedure, products were nonetheless collected in a convenient manner (see Perezgonzalez, 2012a2).

Materials

The main (or dependent) variable was the BNI classification for each food as assessed using the Balanced Nutrition Index™ (BNI™) technology (see Perezgonzalez, 20111).

Grouping (or independent) variables were two: generic brands (also known as supermarket brands or low-cost brands), and products targeted to children. A product was classified as a generic brand if it was a well-known supermarket brand or one of a wholesaler's generic brands. A product was classified as targeted to children independently of whether it was verbally targeted to children or marketed in a childish manner (eg, with cartoons); products without such direct or indirect references were not classified as targeted to children, even if they looked similar to the former or was suspected children were the most probable consumer target.

Illustration 4: Breakfast cereals from generic brands and targeted to children
Product100g BNI Generic Children
Be Natural multi grain porridge 6.07 No No
Harraways organic rolled oats 6.83 No No
Traditional Porridge brown sugar & cinnamon 6.89 No No
Be Natural cashew, almond, hazelnut & coconut 8.25 No No
Homebrand traditional muesli 9.77 Yes No
Creamy porridge 12.21 Yes No
Harraways organic wholegrain oats 12.21 No No
Harraways traditional wholegrain oats 12.21 No No
Harraways rolled oats 12.21 No No
Harraways Scotch oats 12.21 No No
Oat Singles plain 12.21 No No
Home Brand Quick Oats 12.26 Yes No
Be Natural vanilla almond porridge 12.64 No No
Oat Singles chocolate 16.64 No Yes
Simply Reduced Fat Muesli cranberry & vanilla 18.04 No No
Vogel's rolled oats plus 18.24 No No
Simply toasted muesli original 19.69 No No
Pams natural muesli 20.25 Yes No
Big Breakfast toasted muesli 20.26 No No
Simply toasted muesli 5 golden grains 20.35 No No
Woolworths Select muesli morning crunch 20.83 Yes No
Pams toasted muesli 24.16 Yes No
Be Natural pink lady, flame raisins & fruit 24.76 No No
Oats Smooth & Tasty vanilla 26.26 No Yes
Pams reduced fat toasted muesli 29.53 Yes No
Uncle Tobys Plus omega 3 29.81 No No
Sanitarium puffed wheat 31.88 No No
Vogel's manuka, honey & apricot porridge 33.54 No No
Oats Smooth & Tasty strawberry 34.13 No Yes
Simply toasted muesli apricot 34.40 No No
Oats Smooth & Tasty honey 34.51 No Yes
Weet-Bix 35.26 No Yes
Oat Singles honey & golden syrup 35.55 No No
Sustain original 36.00 No No
Pams wheat biskits 36.32 Yes No
Oat Singles morning berry 36.74 No No
Harraways fruit harvest 37.24 No No
Mini Wheats mixed berry flavour 37.31 No No
Homebrand wheat biscuits 37.46 Yes No
Mini Wheats blackcurrant flavor 38.79 No No
Bran & berries 39.51 No No
Oat Singles apple, sultana & cinnamon 39.68 No No
Bran & apricot 40.89 No No
Sanitarium Honey Puffs 40.90 No Yes
Fibre Life bran flakes 41.40 No No
Be Natural 5 whole grains 43.11 No No
Pams Lite & Fruity apricot fruit 44.65 Yes No
Freedom Foods rice flakes with psyllium 44.94 No No
Just Right original 54.64 No No
Kellogg's sultana bran 55.58 No No
J.R.Fields choc scoops 56.21 No Yes
Special K 56.50 No No
Budget tropical muesli 57.29 Yes No
Alison Holst decadent delight 57.82 No No
Bran & sultana 60.33 No No
All-Bran Wheat Flakes honey almond 61.40 No No
Heart 1st 67.46 No No
All-Bran Wheat Flakes original 68.58 No No
Nutri-Grain 70.08 No No
Alison Holst rise & shine 72.63 No No
J.R.Fields corn scoops 72.65 No Yes
Kellogg's corn flakes 74.90 No No
J.R.Fields rice pops 80.35 No Yes
Coco Pops 81.29 No Yes
Budget cocoa puffs 81.39 Yes No
Homebrand cocoa puffs 81.39 Yes No
Rice Bubbles 81.69 No Yes
Homebrand corn flakes 81.93 Yes No
Frosties 82.76 No Yes
J.R.Fields honey wheats 84.04 No Yes
Homebrand rice pops 84.05 Yes Yes
Sanitarium Ricies 84.63 No Yes
Crispix honey 87.65 No No
Protein 1st 90.43 No No
All-Bran original 97.55 No No
Healtheries bran flakes 128.74 No No
Brantastix 129.23 No No
Homebrand natural brand 131.80 Yes No
San Bran 156.01 No No
(Source: Perezgonzalez, 2012a2)

Analysis

  • The distribution of the BNI variable deviated from normality in a significant manner (see illustration 5), some of the claim groups were too small in size, and not all variables were related linearly with the dependent variable (BNI) (see illustration 6). Thus, a non-parametric approach was used for statistical analysis9.
Illustration 5. Assessment of normality of the BNI variable
Variable Mean Median Skew.Z ( p ) Kurt.Z ( p ) K-S df ( p )
BNI 47.97 38.78 3.76 ( .000 ) 1.74 ( .082 ) .149 79 ( .000 )
(Sig ≤ .05, 2-tailed)
Illustration 6. Curve estimation for kind of cereal on the BNI
Kind Generic Children
Linear fit (p) ( .984 ) ( .123 )
Best fit curve compound compound
(p) ( .910 ) ( .042 )
(Dependent variable = BNI. Sig ≤ .05, 2-tailed)
  • Main analyses: tests of significance (Fisher's approach) based on sig ≤ .05 or more extreme probabilities, 2-tailed.
  • Main tests: Mann-Whitney U test for equality of ranked distributions of independent groups, Spearman's rho correlations, and multiple correlation on ranked data.
  • All analyses were carried out with SPSS-v18 (PASW Statistics 18).

Generalization potential

Most breakfast products were produced locally or imported and exported from or to Australia, respectively. Thus, the results of this study may be generalizable to the following populations (in order of decreasing generalization power):

  • Australia.
  • Internationally, assuming breakfast products to be of approximately similar nutritional composition anywhere.
References
1. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2011). Balanced Nutrition Index™ (BNI™). Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2011, pages 20-21. Also retrievable from Wiki of Science.
2. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012a). Breakfast cereals. The Balanced Nutrition Index (ISSN 1177-8849), 2012, issue 3. Retrievable from The Balanced Nutrition Index journal.
3. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012b). Nutritional balance of bran breakfast cereals. Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2012, pages 94-96.
4. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012c). Nutritional balance of corn breakfast cereals. Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2012, pages 88-90.
5. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012d). Nutritional balance of muesli breakfast cereals. Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2012, pages 81-84.
6. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012e). Nutritional balance of oat breakfast cereals. Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2012, pages 78-80.
7. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012f). Nutritional balance of rice breakfast cereals. Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2012, pages 91-93.
8. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2012g). Nutritional balance of wheat breakfast cereals. Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2012, pages 85-87.
+++ Footnotes +++
9. 'Parametric' regression analyses were carried out on ranked data, thus approaching non-parametric analyses.

Want to know more?

BNI™ journal (2012, issue 3) - Breakfast cereals
This issue of the Balanced Nutrition Index™ journal collates all BNI™ nutrition information for the original sample in a single book. You can also access information about each individual breakfast cereal on the BNI™ database and aggregated information on Wiki of Science (nutritional balance of food)
Wiki of Science - Marketing claims and the nutritional balance of breakfast cereals
Two Wiki of Science pages provide summary and detailed information, respectively, about a research related to the one here discussed.

Author

Jose D PEREZGONZALEZ (2012). Massey University, Turitea Campus, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand. (JDPerezgonzalezJDPerezgonzalez).


BlinkListblogmarksdel.icio.usdiggFarkfeedmelinksFurlLinkaGoGoNewsVineNetvouzRedditYahooMyWebFacebook

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License