Individuals in urban low-income areas often do not have easy access to large grocery stores and supermarkets, and regularly shop at nearby small/corner stores. These stores stock an abundance of processed, energy-dense, nutrient poor foods, combined with few nutrient-dense products. A high concentration of small/corner stores is associated with poor diets by nearby residents. Interventions that target small food stores for increasing the availability and sale of healthy foods have been launched in many communities, and validated survey instruments have been developed to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions. However, in-store surveys can take up to thirty minutes to conduct and require individual visits from investigators. Many projects assess the food environment in a large number of stores spread across broad geographical areas, making in-person evaluations infeasible and resource-prohibitive. The purpose of this study was to develop a valid and feasible short survey that could be used in-store or over the phone to capture the healthfulness of corner stores. An adapted version of the Nutrition Environment Measures Survey for Corner Stores (NEMS-CS) was used to conduct store audits of 230 corner stores in four New Jersey cities. Audit results were used in exploratory factor analysis and item response theory to develop a seven-item survey. The short survey was highly correlated with the full survey (r=0.79), and the short survey's classification of stores as healthy (top 20% of scores) versus unhealthy (bottom 80% of stores) matched NEMS-CS categorizations in 88% of cases. A second round of audits was conducted in 100 corner stores to confirm the validity of the seven-item survey and to test its feasibility as a phone audit tool. Complete phone responses were obtained from 86% of stores. Response matches indicated that store owners did not distinguish between 2% and low-fat milk, and tended to round up the fruit and vegetable count to five if they had fewer varieties. The seven-item short survey discriminates between healthy and unhealthy stores and is feasible for use as a phone audit tool.

ABSTRACT Deciding what to eat can be difficult. There are multiple different diets which are popular today, and all of them say different things about which foods optimize health, and which foods are destructive. The situation become more complicated when the suggestions are all purportedly based on relevant science, and all have had demonstrated positive impacts on overall wellbeing. Even when we do have good information, financial factors, geography, and time constraints can prevent us from acting on it. In an attempt to portray the difficulties involved in eating well, I start by analyzing what each of six diets - The Paleo Diet, The Perfect Health Diet, the vegetarian diet, the vegan diet, the Mediterranean Diet, and the Traditional Asian Diet - says about what we should be eating. I then explore what the science says about what we should be eating, and whether this science lines up with the diets, by discussing an extensive review of books and literature on nutrition. Lastly, in order to gain an understanding of factors which discourage us from eating well, I tracked my consumption habits for a week using My Fitness Tracker, and noted any reasons that I chose to eat or not eat certain foods. I supplemented this with a discussion of the shortcomings of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, and the types of factors that prevent people from acting on information. In conclusion, diets should be praised for attempting to align American eating habits with the best scientific information, but the vast amount of information and the difficulty involved in eating well may ultimately prevent people from doing so.

"Globesity," as defined by the World Health Organization, describes obesity as a pandemic affecting at least 400 million people worldwide. The prevalence of obesity is higher among women than men; and in non-Hispanic black and Hispanic populations. Obesity has been significantly associated with increased all-cause mortality, and mortality from cardiovascular disease, obesity-related cancers, diabetes and kidney disease. Current strategies to curb obesity rates often use an ecological approach, suggesting three main factors: biological, behavioral, and environmental. This approach was used to develop four studies of obesity. The first study assessed dietary quality, using the Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2005, among premenopausal Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women, and found that Hispanic women had lower total HEI-2005 scores, and lower scores for total vegetables, dark green and orange vegetables and legumes, and sodium. Markers of obesity were negatively correlated with total HEI-2005 scores. The second study examined the relationship between reported screen time and markers of obesity among premenopausal women and found that total screen time, TV, and computer use were positively associated with markers of obesity. Waist/height ratio, fat mass index, and leptin concentrations were significantly lower among those who reported the lowest screen time versus the moderate and high screen time categories. The third study examined the relationship between screen time and dietary intake and found no significant differences in absolute dietary intake by screen time category. The fourth study was designed to test a brief face-to-face healthy shopping intervention to determine whether food purchases of participants who received the intervention differed from those in the control group; and whether purchases differed by socioeconomic position. Participants in the intervention group purchased more servings of fruit when compared to the control group. High-income participants purchased more servings of dark green/deep yellow vegetables compared to those in the low-income group. Among those who received the intervention, low-income participants purchased foods of lower energy density, and middle-income participants purchased food of higher fat density. The findings of these studies support policy changes to address increasing access and availability of fruits and vegetables, and support guidelines to limit screen time among adults.