Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
197,768 studies31 sourcesUpdated 31 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYNutrients

The Nutrition Facts of Comfort Foods in the United States: Results from the Census-Matched Eating in America Study

  • Dorothy T. Chiu1
  • Jenna R. Cummings2
  • Euridice Martinez-Steele3,4
  • Alejandra T. Lopez5
  • Jillian Chellis5
  • Juanyi Tan5,6
  • Katrina M. Smith5
  • Sameeksha Panda5
  • Laura E. Finch7
  • A. Janet Tomiyama5
7 affiliations
  1. 1Osher Center for Integrative Health, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA
  2. 2Department of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZA, UK
  3. 3Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 01246-904, Brazil
  4. 4Center for Epidemiological Studies in Health and Nutrition, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 01246-904, Brazil
  5. 5Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
  6. 6Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
  7. 7The Bridge at NORC, NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Comfort foods are perceived as energy dense and highly palatable, yet little empirical research documenting the veracity of such perceptions exists. Methods: We analyzed comfort foods for nutrient content, hyperpalatability, ultra-processing, and by demographic factors, hypothesizing poor nutritional profiles (higher fat, sugar, sodium, ultra-processing) and demographic differences in preferences. US census-matched respondents (N = 1760) self-identifying as comfort eaters listed their top three “comfort foods” through an online survey assessing comfort eating behavior and demographics (age, gender, US residence region). Trained raters abstracted nutrient contents for nominated foods using public reference databases and compared them against established nutritional recommendations (percent daily values [%DV]). We categorized foods by hyperpalatability and Nova classifications. Summary statistics were calculated overall and by demographic group. Two-sample t- and one-way ANOVA tests evaluated nutritional and demographic group differences. Results: N = 300 unique foods/beverages were nominated as top comfort foods, collapsible into n = 132 groupings by similarity (e.g., in ingredients, preparation). The top five groupings were chips, ice cream, pizza, chocolate, and cookies. Notable proportions of comfort foods were low (<5%DV) sources of fiber (60.7%), high (>20% DV) sources of saturated fat (29.7%) and sodium (31.7%), hyperpalatable (72.7%) (especially of the “meats/meal” variety (54.3%)), and 100% ultra-processed (42.7%). Slight differences (p < 0.05) in preferred foods’ nutrient content, hyperpalatability, and ultra-processing by age, gender, and region emerged. Conclusions: US comfort foods range widely but converge on certain foods. Nutritional quality could broadly improve; demographic differences are minor. These findings enhance the practical understanding of comfort food nutrition and inform efforts towards healthier comfort food selection.

Related

  1. Estimation of Antimicrobial-Resistant Mycoplasma genitalium Infections in People Aged 14–59 Years: Results From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, 2017–2018
    Open forum infectious diseasesPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  2. Bridging borders: shared strategies and challenges in abortion advocacy movements in Latin America and the United States.
    Gabriela Alvarado, Paige Logan Prater, Elena Rodriguez Sanchez +2
    Frontiers in global women's healthPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  3. Trends in rheumatic heart disease mortality in the United States of America from 1968 to 2023: a nationwide analysis
    Jacky Chen, Dean Nelson, Adam Trytell +3
    BMC Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Epidemiology & public healthCrossref
  4. Party affiliation, political ideology, views on democracy and society, and support for political violence in the United States of America: findings from a nationally representative survey
    Garen J. Wintemute, Andrew Crawford, Sonia L. Robinson +7
    PLOS OnePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Epidemiology & public healthPLOS
  5. Individual-level Social Vulnerability and Cognitive Function Among Older Adults in the United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
    L. Arboleda-Merino, E. Walker, S. D. Fansler +4
    medRxivPreprintCC BY-NC-NDFull textEpidemiology & public healthmedRxiv

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{chiu2026nutrition,
  title = {{The Nutrition Facts of Comfort Foods in the United States: Results from the Census-Matched Eating in America Study}},
  author = {Dorothy T. Chiu and Jenna R. Cummings and Euridice Martinez-Steele and Alejandra T. Lopez and Jillian Chellis and Juanyi Tan and Katrina M. Smith and Sameeksha Panda and Laura E. Finch and A. Janet Tomiyama},
  journal = {Nutrients},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.3390/nu18193257},
  url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13667082},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - The Nutrition Facts of Comfort Foods in the United States: Results from the Census-Matched Eating in America Study
AU  - Dorothy T. Chiu
AU  - Jenna R. Cummings
AU  - Euridice Martinez-Steele
AU  - Alejandra T. Lopez
AU  - Jillian Chellis
AU  - Juanyi Tan
AU  - Katrina M. Smith
AU  - Sameeksha Panda
AU  - Laura E. Finch
AU  - A. Janet Tomiyama
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/01
JO  - Nutrients
DO  - 10.3390/nu18193257
UR  - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13667082
AB  - Background/Objectives: Comfort foods are perceived as energy dense and highly palatable, yet little empirical research documenting the veracity of such perceptions exists. Methods: We analyzed comfort foods for nutrient content, hyperpalatability, ultra-processing, and by demographic factors, hypothesizing poor nutritional profiles (higher fat, sugar, sodium, ultra-processing) and demographic differences in preferences. US census-matched respondents (N = 1760) self-identifying as comfort eaters listed their top three “comfort foods” through an online survey assessing comfort eating behavior and demographics (age, gender, US residence region). Trained raters abstracted nutrient contents for nominated foods using public reference databases and compared them against established nutritional recommendations (percent daily values [%DV]). We categorized foods by hyperpalatability and Nova classifications. Summary statistics were calculated overall and by demographic group. Two-sample t- and one-way ANOVA tests evaluated nutritional and demographic group differences. Results: N = 300 unique foods/beverages were nominated as top comfort foods, collapsible into n = 132 groupings by similarity (e.g., in ingredients, preparation). The top five groupings were chips, ice cream, pizza, chocolate, and cookies. Notable proportions of comfort foods were low (<5%DV) sources of fiber (60.7%), high (>20% DV) sources of saturated fat (29.7%) and sodium (31.7%), hyperpalatable (72.7%) (especially of the “meats/meal” variety (54.3%)), and 100% ultra-processed (42.7%). Slight differences (p < 0.05) in preferred foods’ nutrient content, hyperpalatability, and ultra-processing by age, gender, and region emerged. Conclusions: US comfort foods range widely but converge on certain foods. Nutritional quality could broadly improve; demographic differences are minor. These findings enhance the practical understanding of comfort food nutrition and inform efforts towards healthier comfort food selection.
SN  - 2072-6643
ER  -