Abstract
Background:
As the impact of early adoption of a sustainable plant-based diet on cardiometabolic biomarkers remains unexplored, we assessed whether they are associated with the Planetary Health Diet Index (PHDI) in adolescents.
Methods:
This prospective study was conducted within the SI! Program for Secondary Schools trial (SI! Program) in 886 adolescents (12 years ± 0.4 at cohort entry; 49.1% female) followed during 4 years in Spain. The PHDI scores were derived from validated food frequency questionnaires. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional-hazards models (HRs) analyzed the association between PHDI and risk of new-onset high blood pressure (BP), obesity, and elevated plasma cardiometabolic biomarkers. Additionally, mixed models assessed changes in those parameters.
Results:
High adherence to the PHDI(Q4 vs. Q1) is associated with a reduced risk of high BP by 81% (HR: 0.19 [95% CI: 0.11, 0.34]), plasma glucose by 47% (HR: 0.53 [95% CI: 0.48, 0.58]), triglycerides (TG) by 66% (HR: 0.34 [95% CI: 0.18, 0.65]), total cholesterol by 51% (HR: 0.49 [95% CI: 0.34, 0.69]), and non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) by 74% (HR: 0.26 [95% CI: 0.13, 0.50]) in Cox models. Mixed models show inverse associations with higher PHDI and blood glucose (−5.23 mg/dL [95% CI: −10.35, −0.10]), TG (−2.48 mg/dL [95% CI: −3.65, −1.30]), and body mass index (BMI) z-score (−0.02 [95% CI: −0.03, 0.00]).
Conclusion:
This study stands out as greater adherence to the PHDI is inversely associated with cardiometabolic biomarkers in adolescents, highlighting nutritional benefits of the Planetary Health Diet and its role in preventing the development of cardiovascular diseases and early detection.
1 Introduction
Food consumption impacts both human health and environmental resources, making the adoption of sustainable consumption practices essential for preserving future food production (1). Agriculture accounts for approximately 25% of total greenhouse gas emissions, occupies around 40% of the Earth’s surface, and consumes 70% of global freshwater resources (2). Thus, the global food system is surpassing several planetary boundaries, with its stability increasingly threatened by ecosystem overexploitation and pollution. Dietary changes aimed at fostering sustainable eating habits can significantly reduce the demand for food items with a high carbon footprint, which pose a threat to the environment (1, 2). Those foods include red meat, processed meat, ultra-processed foods, sugar, and refined grains, all of which offer low nutritional benefits, due to their high content of saturated fats, cholesterol, sodium, added sugars, and refined starches (2).
The Planetary Diet, a healthy and sustainable diet, aligns with the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals by encouraging the consumption of nutrient-rich foods such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and unsaturated fats (3). This dietary pattern prioritizes the inclusion of plant-based foods, which are rich sources of dietary fiber, antioxidant bioactive compounds, including (poly) phenols and carotenoids, and vitamins (provitamin A, C, E); all of them known for health-promoting properties (4, 5). Numerous studies in adults have explored the adherence to the Planetary Health Diet and its association with cardiovascular diseases (6–10), cardiovascular events (11), and mortality (8, 12–14), demonstrating promising benefits across these areas.
Most existing studies have focused on adult populations, limiting our understanding of the nutritional benefits of adopting the Planetary Health Diet at a younger age. Elevated biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk, such as lipid profile, blood pressure (BP), and plasma glucose, are known factors for cardiovascular disease in adolescents (15, 16) and cardiovascular events later in life (17). Therefore, the aim of this prospective cohort study is to assess the association between adherence to the Planetary Health Diet, measured by the Planetary Health Dietary Index (PHDI), and the risk of new-onset high blood pressure, obesity, and other elevated cardiometabolic risk factors during 4 years of follow-up in adolescents in Spain. Thus, we studied risk factors including obesity, high plasma glucose, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and non-HDL-C. Additionally, we examined the relationship between changes in these cardiometabolic parameters, and systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP), body mass index (BMI) z-score, and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR).
2 Methods
2.1 Study population
The SI! Program for Secondary Schools trial is a cluster randomized controlled trial, which aimed to assess the effect of a lifestyle program on cardiovascular health among adolescents between 12 and 16 years, conducted in Spain (Metropolitan areas of Madrid and Barcelona) from 2017 to 2021 (https://fundacionshe.org/programa-si/). The intervention consisted of a comprehensive education program with short- and long-term interventions (2 and 4 years, respectively) and a standard curriculum (control). Participant selection considered students registered in the first year of secondary school at the engaged institutions. The study included 24 public secondary schools (17 in Barcelona and 7 in Madrid), encompassing 1,326 adolescents. The details of the study design and methodology can be found elsewhere (18). The SI! Program was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (NCT03504059) and adheres to the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Committee for Ethical Research (CEI) of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III in Madrid (CEI PI 35/2016), the CEI of the Fundació Unió Catalana d’Hospitals (CEI 16/41), and the Bioethics Committee of the University of Barcelona (IRB00003099). All participants and their parents/legal guardians gave their written informed consent.
The present prospective analysis incorporates data from baseline, 2 years, and 4 years of follow-up, focusing on the PHDI (exposure). Extreme values of total energy (<500 or >3,500 kcal/d for female and < 800 or > 4,000 kcal/d for male) (19) and non-fasting participants were removed from this analysis. Of the 1,326 adolescents who were randomly assigned, 886 participants were included in the final analysis (Figure 1).
Figure 1

Flowchart of adolescents in the SI! Program included in the present study, n = 886.
2.2 Dietary and covariate assessment
Parents/caregivers completed online questionnaires regarding sociodemographic, lifestyle, and dietary factors. Parental education was derived from the highest level of education attained; if only one parent’s level was available, that level was used. Eating habits of adolescent students were reported by their parents/caregivers following the instructions of the research team and subsequently checked by trained dietitians. Eating pattern was assessed using a validated 151-item semi-quantitative Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) (20). Food consumption, derived from this FFQ, was translated into energy and nutrient intake using Spanish food composition tables (21, 22). Meanwhile, adolescents filled out questionnaires regarding puberty development using pictograms (Stage I defined as prepubertal and Stage V defined as mature), and personnel performed standardized clinical measurements in the students’ school settings during school hours. Physical activity and sleep of adolescents were monitored through an Actigraph wGT3X-BT wearable accelerometer during 7 consecutive days.
2.3 Planetary Health Dietary Index (PHDI)
Adherence to the Planetary Health Diet was based on the methodology outlined by Bui et al. (12). The PHDI considers 15 recommendations based on predetermined cutoffs for each item promoting the consumption of whole grains, vegetables, (excluding starchy vegetables), fruits, legumes (including peanuts, pulses, or soy), and unsaturated fats, while encouraging a reduction in animal-based food sources (e.g., beef, lamb, pork, or chicken). It also advises moderation in saturated fats, refined grains, sugars, and added sugars. The highest score possible for each food group was 10, except for non-soy legumes and soy foods (a maximum of five points for each item). Since the diet was proposed over a specific caloric requirement, we standardized the diets to 2,500 kcal/day to meet the criteria. Participants’ scores were assigned proportionally between the maximum and minimum thresholds, and the score was calculated by summing the components. Hence, leading to potential scores ranging from 0 to 140, with higher scores indicating greater adherence to the PHDI. The cumulative average of the PHDI was used to reduce measurement errors during follow-up. Then, the PHDI score was divided into quartiles based on the distribution among participants: Q1: < 80.5 points; Q2: 80.5–90 points; Q3: 90.1–98.5 points; and Q4: > 98.5 points.
2.4 Cardiometabolic parameters measurement
BP was measured using an OMRON M6 monitor, with readings taken twice at 2–3-min intervals. If variation exceeded >10 mmHg for systolic SBP or >5 mmHg for DBP, additional measurements were taken. Body weight and height were measured using calibrated electronic scales (OMRON BF511) and portable stadiometers (Seca 213), respectively. BMI was calculated by dividing adolescent body weight in kilograms by the square of his height in meters. Waist circumference was measured in triplicate to the nearest 0.1 cm using a non-stretchable Holtain tape, and the WHtR was calculated by dividing waist circumference by height in centimeters. Fasting blood glucose, LDL-C, TG, total cholesterol, and HDL-C levels were assessed using a CardioCheck Plus device (Polymer Technology System Inc.) and PTS-Panels test strips on capillary blood.
2.5 Outcome ascertainment and thresholds
The primary outcomes in this study included risk of new-onset high BP based on age, sex, and height according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (for adolescents <13 years: ≥ 95th percentile; and for adolescents aged ≥13 years: ≥ 130/80 mmHg) (23) and obesity based on sex-specific BMI-for-age (≥ 95th percentile) (24). Other primary outcomes included elevated cardiovascular risk parameters: blood glucose > 100 mg/dL, LDL-C > 110 mg/dL, TG > 90 mg/dL, total cholesterol > 170 mg/dL, non-HDL-C > 120 mg/dL, but increasing HDL-C level > 40 mg/dL (25). In addition to the previous variables, the following continuous variables were used as secondary outcomes, including SBP (mmHg), DBP (mmHg), glucose (mg/dL), LDL-C (mg/dL), TG (mg/dL), total cholesterol (mg/dL), HDL-C (mg/dL), non-HDL-C (mg/dL), sex-specific BMI-for-age (z-score), and WHtR over the follow-up.
2.6 Statistical analyses
The characteristics of the study sample were described in numbers, means, percentages (%), and standard deviations (SD). The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to check their normality. The Kruskal–Wallis and Pearson chi-squared tests were used to test quantitative and categorical variables. Orthogonal polynomial contrasts evaluated linear trends. Missing data on variables of interest ranged from <0.1% (high BP at baseline) to 3.4, 7.8, and 15.1% in total cholesterol, HDL-C (at baseline, 2 years, and 4 years of follow-up, respectively); while missing values for BMI z-score were 0.1, 7.6, and 14.5% (at baseline, 2 years, and 4 years of follow-up, respectively). We performed the last observation carried forward method to account for missing data (26). Cox regression analyses evaluated the association (hazard ratios - HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between time and event (among 4 years of follow-up). The cumulative average PHDI score was calculated from each follow-up period, and the following outcomes were studied: risk of high BP, obesity, glucose >100 mg/dL, total cholesterol >170 mg/dL, HDL-C > 40 mg/dL, and non-HDL-C > 120 mg/dL. The clustering approach was considered across municipalities (Barcelona/Madrid) and schools. Outcome adjustments were conducted using two multivariable models. Multivariable model A was adjusted for gender (male/female), baseline age (11–12 years/13–14 years), parental education level (primary/secondary/academic-graduate), randomized group (control/long-term intervention/short-term intervention), and Tanner maturation stage (from I to V). Multivariable model B was adjusted for variables of model A, plus the following baseline variables: adolescent high BP status (yes/no), BMI-for-age (≥5th to <85th percentile/≥85th to <95th percentile/≥95th percentile), MVPA 60 min-day (yes/no), sleep duration (hours, continuous), and energy intake (kcal/day, continuous). For BP analysis, the model B further included dietary sodium and potassium ratio (continuous) and dietary calcium (mg/day, continuous), while HDL-C was further adjusted by dietary saturated fat (mg/day) using the energy-adjusted residual method (19). Likelihood ratio tests for interaction explored potential interactions between adherence to PHDI and gender. HRs were also estimated for outcomes for every 20-point increase in the PHDI. Furthermore, we also studied dose–response models using restricted cubic splines (RCS) Cox regression with 5 knots (27) to assess the relationship between the cumulated adherence to PHDI and the previously mentioned outcomes, adjusting for model B.
As a secondary analysis, we analyzed PHDI adherence and longitudinal changes in cardiometabolic parameters (BP, glucose, LDL-C, TG, total cholesterol, HDL-C, non-HDL-C, BMI z-score, and WHtR) by using multilevel linear mixed models during three visits over the 4 years of follow-up. Fitted models were clustered across recruitment municipalities and schools, and two-level random intercepts (municipality and participant). Models were adjusted (A and B) using the same covariates described in the Cox models but including the following time-varying variables: adolescent BMI-for-age, MVPA 60 min-day, sleep duration, energy intake, and saturated fat intake. p-values <0.05 were considered significant. Analyses were performed using Stata (Stata-Corp LP, TX, USA) version 16.1.
3 Results
Study population characteristics, lifestyle, food consumption, and nutrient intake according to the adherence to PHDI are described in Tables 1, 2. At baseline, approximately half of the participants were female (49.1%), aged 12.0 years, with a maternal migrant background of approximately 20%, and a mean BMI of 20.3 kg/m2. Out of a maximum of 140 points, adolescents had a mean score of 89.9 ± 13.1, with minimum and maximum scores of 54.5 points and 131.5 points, respectively (Supplementary Figure 1). When comparing the PHDI scores by gender, girls had a mean of 91.1 ± 13.5 points, while boys had a mean of 88.8 ± 12.7 points. No differences were found according to the place of residence between Barcelona and Madrid (89.2 ± 13.1 points and 91.2 ± 13.1 points, respectively).
Table 1
| Characteristics | Whole sample | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | p-value † | p-trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 80.5 | 80.5–90 | 90.1–98.5 | > 98.5 | ||||
| n = 886 | n = 223 | n = 231 | n = 213 | n = 219 | |||
| Demographics | |||||||
| Age (y) | 12.0 (0.4) | 12.0 (0.4) | 12.0 (0.4) | 12.0 (0.4) | 12.0 (0.4) | 0.88 | 0.88 |
| Gender | |||||||
| Male | 451 (50.9%) | 120 (54.0%) | 120 (52.0%) | 110 (51.6%) | 101 (46.1%) | 0.41 | 0.12 |
| Female | 435 (49.1%) | 103 (46.2%) | 111 (48.1%) | 103 (48.4%) | 118 (53.9%) | ||
| Tanner stages‡ | |||||||
| I | 13 (1.5%) | 4 (1.8%) | 3 (1.3%) | 3 (1.4%) | 3 (1.4%) | 0.73 | 0.74 |
| II | 181 (20.5%) | 43 (19.3%) | 45 (19.6%) | 42 (19.7%) | 51 (23.5%) | ||
| III | 430 (48.7%) | 112 (50.2%) | 117 (50.9%) | 101 (47.4%) | 100 (46.1%) | ||
| IV | 220 (24.9%) | 50 (22.4%) | 58 (25.2%) | 61 (28.6%) | 51 (23.5%) | ||
| V | 39 (4.4%) | 14 (6.3%) | 7 (3.0%) | 6 (2.8%) | 12 (5.5%) | ||
| Annual household income | |||||||
| Low | 240 (28.7%) | 60 (28.4%) | 57 (25.7%) | 52 (26.0%) | 71 (35.0%) | 0.17 | 0.33 |
| Average | 251 (30.0%) | 59 (28.0%) | 78 (35.1%) | 64 (32.0%) | 50 (24.6%) | ||
| High | 345 (41.3%) | 92 (43.6%) | 87 (39.2%) | 84 (42.0%) | 82 (40.4%) | ||
| Municipality | |||||||
| Barcelona | 596 (67.3%) | 158 (70.9%) | 159 (68.8%) | 141 (66.2%) | 138 (63.0%) | 0.33 | 0.06 |
| Madrid | 290 (32.7%) | 65 (29.1%) | 72 (31.2%) | 72 (33.8%) | 81 (37.0%) | ||
| Parental education | |||||||
| Primary | 39 (17.7%) | 30 (13.2%) | 32 (15.7%) | 30 (14.2%) | 35 (17.3%) | 0.11 | 0.021* |
| Secondary | 99 (45.0%) | 85 (37.6%) | 78 (38.2%) | 73 (34.6%) | 83 (41.1%) | ||
| Academic/graduate | 82 (37.3%) | 111 (49.1%) | 94 (46.1%) | 108 (51.2%) | 84 (41.6%) | ||
| Maternal migrant background | 163 (19.7%) | 32 (15.2%) | 34 (15.5%) | 41 (20.8%) | 56 (28.0%) | <0.01** | <0.001*** |
| Lifestyle and risk factors | |||||||
| MVPA ≥ 60 min/day | 599 (67.6%) | 154 (69.1%) | 153 (66.2%) | 148 (69.5%) | 144 (65.8%) | 0.78 | 0.64 |
| Sleep time, hours | 7.2 (1.0) | 7.2 (0.9) | 7.2 (0.9) | 7.1 (1.1) | 7.2 (1.0) | 0.99 | 0.99 |
| Body weight, kg | 48.9 (11.0) | 47.9 (11.7) | 47.9 (10.2) | 50.1 (10.4) | 49.6 (11.6) | 0.07 | 0.07 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 20.3 (3.7) | 20.1 (4.0) | 19.9 (3.4) | 20.6 (3.7) | 20.4 (3.8) | 0.17 | 0.17 |
| BMI, z-score | 0.4 (0.4) | 0.3 (1.0) | 0.3 (0.9) | 0.5 (1.0) | 0.4 (1.0) | 0.14 | 0.13 |
| BMI status | |||||||
| Healthy weight | 617 (69.7%) | 161 (72.5%) | 171 (71.0%) | 141 (66.2%) | 144 (65.8%) | 0.44 | 0.08 |
| Overweight | 162 (18.3%) | 35 (15.8%) | 38 (16.4%) | 45 (21.1%) | 44 (20.1%) | ||
| Obesity | 83 (9.4%) | 20 (9.0%) | 16 (6.9%) | 24 (11.3%) | 23 (10.5%) | ||
| Waist circumference, cm | 71.9 (10.1) | 71.6 (11.0) | 70.9 (9.1) | 72.9 (10.1) | 72.2 (10.4) | 0.21 | 0.21 |
| High BP status§ | 115 (13.0%) | 33 (14.8%) | 29 (12.7%) | 28 (13.2%) | 25 (11.4%) | 0.77 | 0.34 |
| SBP, mmHg | 109.1 (10.5) | 108.3 (11.1) | 109.0 (10.3) | 110.3 (10.1) | 109.3 (10.7) | 0.28 | 0.28 |
| High BP adolescents¶ | 123.8 (9.0) | 125.9 (9.0) | 120.8 (9.0) | 125.1 (9.2) | 123.2 (8.0) | 0.12 | 0.12 |
| DBP, mmHg | 65.7 (8.6) | 65.6 (8.8) | 65.8 (8.9) | 65.7 (8.3) | 65.8 (8.3) | 0.99 | 0.99 |
| High BP adolescents¶ | 77.7 (8.6) | 77.1 (9.3) | 77.7 (9.1) | 76.0 (8.5) | 80.1 (7.1) | 0.36 | 0.36 |
| Blood glucose level, mg/dL | 103.4 (17.0) | 102.3 (11.0) | 105.7 (26.9) | 102.1 (12.4) | 103.3 (10.8) | 0.10 | 0.10 |
| HDL-C, mg/dL | 62.9 (16.0) | 64.1 (16.4) | 63.9 (15.6) | 60.8 (16.0) | 62.6 (15.5) | 0.13 | 0.13 |
| LDL-C, mg/dL | 78.3 (26.0) | 79.8 (26.0) | 77.4 (25.4) | 78.8 (26.5) | 77.4 (26.0) | 0.80 | 0.80 |
| Total cholesterol, mg/dL | 152.9 (33.2) | 154.8 (33.8) | 153.2 (32.4) | 150.5 (32.7) | 153.2 (34.1) | 0.61 | 0.61 |
| Triglycerides, mg/dL | 78.0 (40.0) | 80.6 (42.5) | 76.1 (43.1) | 78.1 (37.8) | 77.4 (35.9) | 0.70 | 0.70 |
| Non-HDL-C, mg/dL | 90.1 (29.0) | 90.9 (29.3) | 89.3 (27.2) | 89.6 (29.2) | 90.7 (30.6) | 0.93 | 0.93 |
Baseline characteristics of the participants according to the Planetary Health Diet Index (PHDI) in the SI! Program.
Data are given as means (SDs) for continuous variables and n (%) for categorical variables.
p-value for comparisons across PHDI (quartiles).
p-value and p-trend < 0.05 considered significant, values shown in bold are statistically significant (*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001).
†Data normality was verified by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. p-value based on one-way ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis test, while χ2 test was used for categorical variables.
‡Puberty development was evaluated using pictograms, with stage I defined as prepubertal and stage V defined as mature.
§High BP based on adolescents <13 years: ≥ 95th percentile; and for adolescents aged ≥13 years: ≥ 130/80 mmHg.
¶In the adolescent subgroup with high BP at baseline.
BP, Blood Pressure; BMI, Body Mass Index; DBP, Diastolic blood pressure; HDL-C, High-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; MVPA, Moderate to vigorous physical activity; PHDI, Planetary Health Diet Index; SBP, Systolic blood pressure; SD, Standard deviation.
Table 2
| Characteristics | Whole sample | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | p-value† | p-trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 80.5 | 80.5–90 | 90.1–98.5 | > 98.5 | ||||
| n = 886 | n = 223 | n = 231 | n = 213 | n = 219 | |||
| Nutritional intake | |||||||
| Total energy intake, kcal/day | 2,532 (597.6) | 2,605 (605.1) | 2,567 (590.2) | 2,516 (607.8) | 2,435 (577.4) | 0.018* | 0.02* |
| Carbohydrates, g/day | 255.8 (72.0) | 257.6 (73.4) | 256.1 (71.4) | 257.8 (71.8) | 251.4 (71.6) | 0.77 | 0.77 |
| Proteins, g/day | 120.8 (33.1) | 128.7 (34.4) | 125.4 (31.0) | 118.9 (34.1) | 109.6 (29.9) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Proteins, g/kg/day | 2.6 (1.0) | 2.8 (1.0) | 2.8 (1.0) | 2.5 (0.9) | 2.3 (0.8) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Animal proteins, g/day | 90.2 (29.8) | 100.6 (31.3) | 95.6 (27.0) | 87.7 (30.2) | 76.3 (24.8) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Plant proteins, g/day | 30.6 (9.7) | 28.0 (9.1) | 29.8 (8.8) | 31.2 (9.2) | 33.2 (10.8) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Fat, g/day | 23.4 (8.3) | 23.4 (8.8) | 22.2 (8.0) | 24.1 (8.2) | 23.9 (8.3) | 0.08 | 0.08 |
| Monounsaturated fats, g/day | 48.5 (16.1) | 48.3 (15.1) | 49.5 (15.5) | 47.9 (16.4) | 48.1 (17.3) | 0.73 | 0.73 |
| Polyunsaturated fats, g/day | 19.5 (6.6) | 19.6 (6.3) | 19.3 (6.6) | 19.4 (7.0) | 19.9 (6.7) | 0.80 | 0.80 |
| Saturated fat, g/day | 68.0 (21.2) | 40.3 (12.6) | 37.6 (10.7) | 35.5 (11.2) | 33.0 (9.7) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Fiber, g/day | 29.4 (10.7) | 23.9 (8.8) | 28.4 (9.1) | 30.3 (9.0) | 35.4 (12.2) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Sodium intake, mg/day | 3,400 (1,066) | 3,564 (1,171) | 3,457 (994.7) | 3,433 (1,055) | 3,141 (992.9) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Potassium intake, mg/day | 4,479 (1304) | 4,142 (1226) | 4,496 (1267) | 4,758 (1,400) | 4,758 (1,400) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Dietary sodium:potassium ratio | 0.8 (0.3) | 0.9 (0.3) | 0.8 (0.3) | 0.8 (0.2) | 0.7 (0.2) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Calcium, mg/day | 1,011 (388.2) | 1,041 (422.5) | 1,011 (375.5) | 1,001 (387.4) | 990.3 (366.2) | 0.56 | 0.56 |
| Iron, mg/day | 18.0 (4.9) | 17.4 (4.9) | 18.2 (4.7) | 18.1 (4.7) | 18.5 (5.2) | 0.08 | 0.08 |
| Zinc, mg/day | 13.7 (3.7) | 14.1 (3.9) | 14.0 (3.7) | 13.6 (3.5) | 13.1 (3.6) | 0.017 | 0.02 |
| Vitamin B12, mcg/day | 9.5 (6.6) | 10.2 (7.3) | 10.0 (7.0) | 9.0 (6.8) | 8.6 (5.1) | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| Food intake (g/day) | |||||||
| Dairy‡ | 403.9 (250.2) | 472.2 (306.5) | 413.4 (232.5) | 385.3 (219.7) | 342.5 (213.5) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Cheese | 14.5 (15.2) | 15.8 (15.4) | 13.6 (13.7) | 14.7 (15.5) | 13.9 (16.2) | 0.42 | 0.42 |
| Meat | 179.2 (91.8) | 220.8 (95.9) | 197.0 (80.5) | 171.1 (87.0) | 125.9 (75.0) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Beef | 28.7 (23.9) | 33.2 (26.6) | 33.3 (23.9) | 29.0 (23.6) | 19.1 (18.2) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Pork | 85.3 (48.6) | 102.5 (53.8) | 94.2 (47.5) | 82.6 (44.1) | 61.0 (37.2) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Poultry | 66.9 (53.2) | 83.4 (45.7) | 72.1 (43.6) | 63.0 (59.6) | 48.6 (57.1) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Eggs | 22.3 (12.5) | 23.5 (15.4) | 21.9 (9.5) | 23.0 (11.1) | 20.8 (12.8) | 0.11 | 0.11 |
| Seafoods | 86.9 (54.2) | 77.1 (52.4) | 92.1 (56.5) | 87.4 (46.1) | 90.8 (59.6) | 0.01** | 0.01** |
| Potatoes | 52.8 (38.3) | 58.9 (41.1) | 52.8 (38.0) | 55.0 (40.2) | 44.2 (32.0) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Legumes | 60.9 (44.4) | 49.7 (49.1) | 57.9 (40.6) | 63.8 (35.1) | 72.6 (48.5) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Nuts | 11.1 (13.50) | 6.3 (8.2) | 9.7 (11.6) | 11.5 (12.6) | 17.1 (17.6) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Vegetables | 208.2 (152.0) | 128.2 (99.3) | 190.8 (126.1) | 220.7 (149.6) | 295.7 (174.7) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Dark & green vegetables | 124.3 (91.7) | 78.3 (61.9) | 117.3 (77.5) | 131.1 (89.7) | 172.1 (107.4) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Red & orange vegetables | 65.5 (67.3) | 42.3 (44.8) | 57.9 (57.9) | 69.9 (67.2) | 92.8 (83.9) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Fruits | 334.4 (247.3) | 237.0 (218.1) | 333.9 (242.8) | 354.3 (199.6) | 414.8 (286.9) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Refined cereals | 113.2 (69.5) | 129.3 (74.4) | 117.2 (69.3) | 115.0 (71.4) | 90.6 (56.1) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Whole grains | 18.3 (31.8) | 4.5 (12.6) | 12.9 (24.0) | 20.8 (34.4) | 35.4 (40.9) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Added sugars | 25.6 (16.5) | 29.0 (19.4) | 27.8 (17.7) | 24.3 (14.4) | 20.9 (12.2) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Total olive oil | 16.8 (14.7) | 13.5 (11.8) | 17.0 (14.6) | 17.4 (13.3) | 19.4 (17.8) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Extra-virgin olive oil | 9.24 (9.8) | 7.46 (8.2) | 8.8 (9.7) | 9.5 (9.7) | 11.3 (11.2) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Sunflower oil | 1.4 (2.9) | 1.1 (2.4) | 1.3 (2.9) | 1.3 (2.9) | 1.7 (3.4) | 0.19 | 0.19 |
| Butter | 1.0 (1.9) | 0.77 (1.8) | 1.0 (1.8) | 1.3 (2.0) | 0.95 (1.81) | 0.04 | 0.04 |
| Margarine | 0.8 (1.8) | 0.8 (1.7) | 0.8 (1.9) | 0.9 (1.9) | 0.7 (1.5) | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| Water | 876.7 (428.6) | 847.3 (442.9) | 885.7 (435.8) | 853.4 (419.0) | 919.9 (414.3) | 0.26 | 0.26 |
| Fruit juices | 54.6 (78.0) | 42.3 (65.7) | 59.0 (92.2) | 59.9 (79.4) | 57.4 (70.6) | 0.06 | 0.06 |
| Plant milk¶ | 10.3 (48.3) | 2.7 (19.9) | 3.1 (19.4) | 13.6 (58.5) | 22.6 (71.4) | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
| Sugar-sweetened beverages | 33.7 (71.8) | 41.7 (93.1) | 30.5 (57.9) | 39.9 (81.1) | 22.9 (43.6) | 0.02* | 0.02* |
Baseline dietary pattern of the participants according to the PHDI in the SI! Program.
Data are given as means (SDs).
p-value for comparisons across PHDI (quartiles).
p-value and p-trend < 0.05 considered significant, values shown in bold are statistically significant (*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001).
†Data normality was verified by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. p-value based on one-way ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis test.
‡Including milk (liquid and powder), condensed milk, and yogurt.
¶Including soy, almond, or rice milks.
PHDI, Planetary Health Diet Index; SD, Standard deviation.
Regarding the PHDI scores, low adherence was identified for key items such as soy and soy foods (90% below 5 points), red and processed meat (74.3% below 5 points), pulses (90% below 5 points), whole grains (40.9% below 5 points), unsaturated oils (40.9% below 5 points), and peanuts and tree nuts (40.1% below 5 points). The baseline proportion of these items within the total PHDI score is shown in Supplementary Figure 2. Reasonably, there were significant increases and decreases in most reported dietary components and food items across the PHDI quartiles (Table 2; Supplementary Figure 3). When examining PHDI attitudes toward adherence in families with migrant mothers, there was little to no difference compared to other families (Supplementary Figure 4). Participants in the highest quartile consumed more dietary fiber, potassium, and seafoods, and consumed almost double amounts of legumes, nuts, vegetables (dark & green/red & orange), and fruits compared to the lowest quartile. Increased consumption of whole grains, olive oil, and plant milks was observed in the highest quartile, while dairy, animal proteins (beef, pork, and poultry), potatoes, added sugars, and sugar-sweetened beverages were less consumed compared to the lowest quartile of the PHDI. As dietary patterns shifted toward higher PHDI adherence, participants consumed fewer calories from proteins (plant-based and animal-based proteins), along with reduced sodium and increased potassium intake. Differences in calcium, zinc, iron, and vitamin B12 intake were identified, with levels becoming more pronounced by gender, according to the PHDI (Supplementary Figure 5).
The mean follow-up of participants was 3.5 years. In the fully adjusted Cox regression models (Table 3), significant linear trends were observed, indicating a reduced risk of high BP, elevated plasma glucose, TG, total cholesterol, and non-HDL-C with increased PHDI adherence. A significant inverse association with high adherence to PHDI, whether evaluated in quartiles, and for each 20-point increase (Table 3) was observed for high BP, and increased glucose, TG, total cholesterol, and non-HDL-C. In contrast, no significant reductions for LDL-C, obesity (HR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.48, 1.11]; p-value = 0.14), and HDL-C (HR: 1.86 [95% CI: 0.42, 8.27]; p-value = 0.42) were found by 20-point increase. When comparing the higher vs. lower PHDI adherence (Q4 vs Q1), the risk of high BP was significantly reduced by 81% (HR: 0.19 [95% CI: 0.11, 0.34]), plasma glucose by 47% (HR: 0.53 [95% CI: 0.48, 0.58]), TG by 66% (HR: 0.34 [95% CI: 0.18, 0.65]), total cholesterol by 51% (HR: 0.49 [95% CI: 0.34, 0.69]), and non-HDL-C by 74% (HR: 0.26 [95% CI: 0.13, 0.50]). Comparisons between the standardized diet and the reported diet showed no variations in the estimators (Supplementary Table 1). Limitations to study obesity and HDL-C > 40 mg/dL were attributable to the low incidence, 27 cases of obesity that made up approximately 3.3%; while out of the 35 participants who had HDL-C below 40 at baseline, 20 experienced an increase in their HDL-C concentrations. PHDI(Q4 vs Q1) gender stratified analyses for elevated cardiometabolic parameters achieved statistical significance in both genders, mainly in girls (Figure 2). The results of the RCS Cox regression showed a non-significant J-shaped association (p-value for non-linearity) between the PHDI and outcomes of interest (Supplementary Figure 6).
Table 3
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Hazard ratio of PHDI for 20-point increase‡ | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 80.5 | 80.5–90 | 90.1–98.5 | > 98.5 | ||||||||||||||
| High blood pressure | |||||||||||||||||
| Cases/Person-years (219/2890) | 101/652 | 48/720 | 46/772 | 24/746 | |||||||||||||
| Incidence rate | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.03 | |||||||||||||
| HR | CI (95%) | p-value | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | p-trend | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | |||||
| Model A | Ref. | 0.45 | 0.43 | 0.47 | <0.001*** | 0.41 | 0.27 | 0.64 | <0.001*** | 0.21 | 0.10 | 0.45 | <0.001*** | <0.001*** | |||
| Model B | Ref. | 0.48 | 0.43 | 0.54 | <0.001*** | 0.43 | 0.29 | 0.65 | <0.001*** | 0.19 | 0.11 | 0.34 | <0.001*** | <0.001*** | 0.43 | 0.33 0.56 | <0.001*** |
| Glucose > 100 mg/dL | |||||||||||||||||
| Cases/Person-years (169/1020) | 60/220 | 41/314 | 38/256 | 30/230 | |||||||||||||
| Incidence rate | 0.27 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.13 | |||||||||||||
| HR | CI (95%) | p-value | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | p-trend | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | |||||
| Model A | Ref. | 0.52 | 0.38 | 0.72 | <0.001*** | 0.57 | 0.56 | 0.57 | <0.001*** | 0.53 | 0.53 | 0.53 | <0.001*** | <0.001*** | |||
| Model B | Ref. | 0.52 | 0.34 | 0.78 | <0.01** | 0.56 | 0.50 | 0.62 | <0.001*** | 0.53 | 0.48 | 0.58 | <0.001*** | <0.01** | 0.74 | 0.69 0.80 | <0.001*** |
| LDL-C ≥ 110 mg/dL | |||||||||||||||||
| Cases/Person-years (314/1964) | 100/448 | 79/498 | 61/526 | 74/492 | |||||||||||||
| Incidence rate | 0.22 | 0.16 | 0.12 | 0.15 | |||||||||||||
| HR | CI (95%) | p-value | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | p-trend | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | |||||
| Model A | Ref. | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.75 | <0.001*** | 0.52 | 0.23 | 1.17 | 0.11 | 0.72 | 0.45 | 1.15 | 0.17 | 0.11 | |||
| Model B | Ref. | 0.71 | 0.61 | 0.81 | <0.001*** | 0.49 | 0.25 | 0.98 | 0.04* | 0.68 | 0.46 | 1.01 | 0.06 | 0.04* | 0.78 | 0.54 1.14 | 0.20 |
| TG > 90 mg/dL | |||||||||||||||||
| Cases/Person-years (242/2802) | 105/664 | 54/700 | 44/734 | 39/704 | |||||||||||||
| Incidence rate | 0.16 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.06 | |||||||||||||
| HR | CI (95%) | p-value | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | p-trend | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | |||||
| Model A | Ref. | 0.50 | 0.42 | 0.56 | <0.001*** | 0.38 | 0.28 | 0.50 | <0.001*** | 0.35 | 0.19 | 0.63 | <0.001*** | <0.001*** | |||
| Model B | Ref. | 0.50 | 0.42 | 0.59 | <0.001*** | 0.39 | 0.31 | 0.48 | <0.001*** | 0.34 | 0.18 | 0.65 | <0.001*** | <0.01** | 0.53 | 0.41 0.68 | <0.001*** |
| Total cholesterol > 170 mg/dL | |||||||||||||||||
| Cases/Person-years (211/2136) | 83/532 | 51/498 | 36/586 | 41/520 | |||||||||||||
| Incidence rate | 0.16 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.08 | |||||||||||||
| HR | CI (95%) | p-value | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | p-trend | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | |||||
| Model A | Ref. | 0.68 | 0.57 | 0.80 | <0.001*** | 0.38 | 0.31 | 0.47 | <0.001*** | 0.50 | 0.26 | 0.94 | 0.031* | 0.031* | |||
| Model B | Ref. | 0.66 | 0.57 | 0.76 | <0.001*** | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 | <0.001*** | 0.49 | 0.34 | 0.69 | <0.001*** | <0.001*** | 0.62 | 0.53 0.74 | <0.001*** |
| Non-HDL-C ≥ 120 mg/dL | |||||||||||||||||
| Cases/Person-years (202/2636) | 95/632 | 46/658 | 33/690 | 28/656 | 95/632 | ||||||||||||
| Incidence rate | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.15 | ||||||||||||
| HR | CI (95%) | p-value | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | p-trend | HR | CI (95%) | p-value | |||||
| Model A | Ref. | 0.48 | 0.45 | 0.51 | <0.001*** | 0.36 | 0.28 | 0.47 | <0.001*** | 0.22 | 0.10 | 0.53 | <0.001*** | <0.001*** | |||
| Model B | Ref. | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.53 | <0.001*** | 0.32 | 0.28 | 0.36 | <0.001*** | 0.26 | 0.13 | 0.50 | <0.001*** | <0.001*** | 0.45 | 0.31 0.66 | <0.001*** |
Cox regression models† for the cumulative average PHDI, risk of new-onset high blood pressure, and elevated cardiometabolic risk biomarkers in the SI! Program.
Cox regression (clustering at the recruitment municipality level and school) was used to conduct this analysis. Multivariable model A: gender (male/female), age (11–12 years/13–14 years), parental education (primary/secondary/academic-graduate), randomized group (control/long-term intervention/short-term intervention), baseline Tanner maturation stage (from I to V). Multivariable model B: variables of model A plus, adolescent high blood pressure status (yes/no), adolescent BMI-for-age (≥5th to <85th percentile/≥85th to <95th percentile/≥95th percentile), moderate to vigorous physical activity 60 min-day (yes / no), sleep duration (hours, continuous), energy intake (kcal/day, continuous). For high BP analysis model B, further adjustment included: dietary sodium and potassium ratio (continuous), and calcium (mg/day, continuous); both adjusted for total energy using the residual method.
p-value <0.05 considered significant, values shown in bold are statistically significant (*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001).
† Number of participants not having the condition or the elevated cardiovascular marker at baseline: High BP: n = 769; Glucose: n = 320; LDL-C: 597; TG: n = 509; Total cholesterol: n = 856; Non-HDL-C: n = 719.
‡ Fitted according to model B.
CI, Confidence interval; HR, Hazard ratio; LDL-C, Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; PHDI, Planetary Health Diet Index; TG, Triglycerides.
Figure 2

Planetary Health Dietary Index and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CI in 886 participants in the SI! Program, based on the fully adjusted model by gender. HDLC, High-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HR, Hazard ratio; LDL-C, Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TG, Triglycerides.
Results of the linear mixed models assessing changes in cardiometabolic risk biomarkers and the PHDI are shown in Table 4. The PHDI (Q4 vs Q1) was inversely associated with reductions of glucose (−5.23 mg/dL [95% CI: −10.35, −0.10]), TG (−2.48 mg/dL [95% CI: −3.65, −1.30]), and BMI z-score (−0.02 [95% CI: −0.03, 0.00]). In addition, we found statistically significant inverse associations between PHDI (Q3 vs Q1), SBP (−3.83 mmHg [95% CI: −3.98, −3.67]), and DBP (−3.83 mmHg [95% CI: −3.98, −3.67]) in participants with high BP at baseline. Overall, trends were observed in the other cardiometabolic risk parameters; however, no association was observed when comparing them as continuous variables.
Table 4
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | p-trend | ICC | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 80.5 | 80.5–90 | 90.1–98.5 | > 98.5 | ||||||||||||
| β | CI (95%) | p-value | β | CI (95%) | p-value | β | CI (95%) | p-value | |||||||
| SBP (mgHg) | |||||||||||||||
| Model A | Ref. | 0.83 | −0.02 | 1.68 | 0.054 | 1.00 | −0.05 | 2.06 | 0.06 | 1.30 | 0.02 | 2.59 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.45 |
| Model B | Ref. | 1.79 | −1.81 | 5.39 | 0.33 | 1.01 | 1.91 | 2.12 | <0.001*** | 1.41 | −0.61 | 3.44 | 0.17 | 0.32 | 0.35 |
| DBP (mgHg) | |||||||||||||||
| Model A | Ref. | 0.20 | −0.54 | 0.95 | 0.59 | −0.32 | −0.97 | 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.22 | −0.70 | 1.14 | 0.63 | 0.52 | 0.45 |
| Model B | Ref. | 0.71 | 0.41 | 1.03 | <0.001*** | 0.36 | −1.34 | 2.07 | 0.68 | 0.19 | −2.43 | 2.80 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.35 |
| SBP (mgHg) ‡ | |||||||||||||||
| Model A | Ref. | −4.24 | −5.52 | −2.96 | <0.001*** | 0.23 | −1.33 | 1.78 | 0.78 | −0.84 | −2.33 | 0.66 | 0.27 | 0.78 | 0.43 |
| Model B | Ref. | −3.66 | −6.05 | −1.28 | <0.01** | −3.83 | −3.98 | −3.67 | <0.001*** | −3.74 | −9.91 | 2.43 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.13 |
| DBP (mgHg) † | |||||||||||||||
| Model A | Ref. | −1.51 | −3.76 | 0.73 | 0.19 | −2.21 | −2.63 | −1.79 | <0.001*** | −1.41 | −6.50 | 3.69 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.21 |
| Model B | Ref. | −3.66 | −6.05 | −1.28 | <0.01** | −3.83 | −3.98 | −3.67 | <0.001*** | −3.74 | −9.91 | 2.43 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.13 |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | |||||||||||||||
| Model A | Ref. | −0.96 | −3.77 | 1.84 | 0.50 | −1.69 | −3.67 | 0.28 | 0.09 | −1.68 | −4.34 | 0.98 | 0.22 | 0.50 | 0.25 |
| Model B | Ref. | −4.18 | −9.79 | 1.44 | 0.15 | −4.91 | −9.66 | −0.15 | 0.043* | −5.23 | −10.35 | −0.10 | 0.046* | 0.15 | 0.20 |
| LDL-C (mg/dL) | |||||||||||||||
| Model A | Ref. | −0.52 | −4.41 | 3.37 | 0.79 | 1.83 | −1.96 | 5.63 | 0.34 | −0.41 | −2.69 | 1.87 | 0.72 | 0.79 | 0.59 |
| Model B | Ref. | −0.72 | −7.77 | 6.33 | 0.84 | 0.86 | −5.45 | 7.16 | 0.79 | −0.73 | −6.58 | 5.12 | 0.81 | 0.84 | 0.55 |
| TG (mg/dL) | |||||||||||||||
| Model A | Ref. | 1.56 | 0.62 | 2.49 | <0.001*** | −0.74 | −5.80 | 4.32 | 0.77 | 0.89 | −0.80 | 2.57 | 0.30 | 0.77 | 0.23 |
| Model B | Ref. | 0.84 | −1.40 | 3.07 | 0.46 | −2.06 | −7.51 | 3.40 | 0.46 | −2.48 | −3.65 | −1.30 | <0.001*** | 0.46 | 0.17 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | |||||||||||||||
| Model A | Ref. | −2.04 | −7.18 | 3.10 | 0.44 | −0.51 | −4.29 | 3.27 | 0.79 | −1.42 | −2.88 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.44 | 0.58 |
| Model B | Ref. | −2.54 | −11.11 | 6.03 | 0.56 | −2.07 | −8.62 | 4.48 | 0.54 | −1.80 | −6.53 | 2.93 | 0.46 | 0.56 | 0.55 |
| HDL-C (mg/dL) | |||||||||||||||
| Model A | Ref. | −1.54 | −3.47 | 0.38 | 0.12 | −1.80 | −2.63 | −0.97 | <0.001*** | −1.54 | −2.89 | −0.18 | 0.026* | 0.12 | 0.61 |
| Model B | Ref. | −1.66 | −2.53 | −0.78 | <0.001*** | −1.06 | −5.44 | 3.32 | 0.64 | −0.29 | −0.71 | 0.12 | 0.16 | 0.64 | 0.57 |
| Non-HDL-C (mg/dL) | |||||||||||||||
| Model A | Ref. | −0.37 | −4.50 | 3.75 | 0.86 | 1.44 | −2.67 | 5.53 | 0.49 | 0.22 | −4.46 | 4.91 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.57 |
| Model B | Ref. | 0.41 | −0.92 | 1.74 | 0.55 | −0.24 | −0.79 | 0.30 | 0.37 | 0.23 | −1.70 | 2.16 | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.35 |
| BMI (z-score) | |||||||||||||||
| Model A | Ref. | 0.00 | −0.06 | 0.06 | 0.93 | 0.00 | −0.07 | 0.07 | 0.99 | 0.00 | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.81 | 0.99 | 0.87 |
| Model B | Ref. | −0.02 | −0.08 | 0.03 | 0.36 | −0.02 | −0.06 | 0.03 | 0.41 | −0.02 | −0.03 | 0.00 | 0.04* | 0.35 | 0.85 |
| WHtR | |||||||||||||||
| Model A | Ref. | −0.001 | −0.004 | 0.001 | 0.31 | −0.003 | −0.004 | −0.002 | <0.001*** | 0.001 | −0.004 | 0.005 | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.81 |
| Model B | Ref. | −0.003 | −0.004 | −0.001 | <0.001*** | −0.003 | −0.007 | 0.001 | 0.18 | −0.004 | −0.007 | 0.001 | 0.06 | 0.18 | 0.55 |
Associations between changes of cardiometabolic risk biomarkers† and the PHDI in the SI! Program during 4 years of follow-up.
Multilevel linear mixed models (clustering at recruitment municipality level and school) with municipality and participant considered as random intercepts. Multivariable model A: gender (male/female), age (11–12 years/13–14 years), parental education (primary/secondary/academic-graduate), maternal migrant background (yes /no), randomized group (control/long-term intervention/short-term intervention), baseline Tanner maturation stage (from I to V). Multivariable model B: variables of model A plus adolescent high blood pressure (yes/no), adolescent BMI-for-age (≥5th to <85th percentile/≥85th to <95th percentile/≥95th percentile), moderate to vigorous physical activity 60 min-day (yes/no), sleep duration (hours, continuous), energy intake (kcal/day, continuous). For the HDL-C analysis, dietary saturated fat (mg/day) was included, adjusted for total energy intake using the residual method.
p-value <0.05 considered significant, values shown in bold are statistically significant (*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001).
† Number of participants within each quartile of the PHDI and cardiometabolic parameters over three time points (0, 2 and 4 years): SBP: n = 665, 667, 667 and 657; DBP: n = 665, 667, 667 and 657; and in those with high BP: SBP: n = 103, 81,78 and 87; DBP: n = 103, 81,78 and 87; Glucose: n = 649, 670, 657 and 641; LDL-C: n = 542, 584, 581 and 585; TG: n = 649, 670, 657 and 641; Total cholesterol: n = 648, 670, 657 and 641; HDL-C: n = 649, 670, 657 and 641; Non-HDL-C: n = 646, 669, 657 and 640; BMI (z-score): n = 668, 675, 664 and 650; WHtR: n = 669, 675, 664 and 650.
‡In those adolescents who have high BP at baseline, n = 115.
β, Beta regression coefficient; BMI, Body Mass Index; BP, Blood pressure; CI, Confidence interval; DBP, Diastolic Blood Pressure; HDL-C, High-density lipoprotein cholesterol; ICC, Intraclass correlation; LDL-C, Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; PHDI, Planetary Health Diet Index; SBP, Systolic Blood Pressure; TG, Triglycerides; WHtR, Waist-to-height ratio.
4 Discussion
Our results indicate that a high PHDI adherence(Q4 vs Q1) is associated with a risk reduction of high BP, increased plasma glucose, TG, total cholesterol, and non-HDL-C by 81, 47, 66, 51, and 74% respectively; and that high adherence to this dietary pattern is longitudinally associated with reductions of glucose (−5.23 mg/dL), TG (−2.48 mg/dL), and BMI z-score (−0.02) in adolescents. In contrast, when evaluating the PHDI (Q4 vs Q1) and its relationship with LDL-C, total cholesterol, WHtR, SBP, and DBP as continuous variables in linear mixed models, no significant association is found. However, trends suggest a potential inverse association, which may reflect a healthier nutritional status. The analyses are robust, with most associations remaining significant after adjustments for various confounders and after sensitivity analyses. We found that when estimating the nutritional requirements (28) for energy, protein, zinc, iron, and vitamin B12 among adolescents with higher adherence to the PHDI, their intake was well within the recommended range. However, calcium intake was insufficient in female adolescents (4.4% below the requirements) among the highest quartiles. Promotion of calcium-rich plant foods and intake of mineral water as part of a healthy, balanced diet may facilitate reaching an adequate concentration of calcium.
Evidence that adherence to the PHDI is associated with changes in lipid profile, glucose, BP, or anthropometric parameters among adolescents is limited. In fact, consistent with our findings, a high PHDI adherence (10-point increase) was associated with lower odds of hypertension (OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.79, 0.96]) (29), lower odds of increased total cholesterol (OR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.78, 0.99]), and a higher Ideal Cardiovascular Health score. One study also found reductions in anthropometric parameters with PHDI adherence (30). Adjusted mean estimates revealed inverse associations between PHDI adherence and body weight (0.98 kg [95% CI: 0.97, 0.99]), BMI (0.99 kg/m2 [95% CI: 0.97, 0.99]), fat-free mass index (0.99 [95% CI: 0.99, 0.99]), waist circumference (0.99 cm [95% CI: 0.98, 0.99]), and body fat (0.98% [95% CI: 0.96, 0.99]) in an European cohort (30). Our results, regarding the excessive consumption of red and processed meats (Supplementary Figure 3) and adherence to the PHDI, are consistent with findings from studies in other young populations (31, 32). A surprising finding was that attitudes toward PHDI adherence were similar, including in families with a migrant background, as shown in Supplementary Figure 4. Some factors, such as socioeconomic level, duration of residence, and the role of country of origin (Mediterranean or non-Mediterranean), may promote dietary acculturation by adopting a healthy or a detrimental “Westernized” dietary pattern (33, 34).
The studies summarized below examine the effects of plant-based diets, such as the Mediterranean diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, on cardiometabolic biomarkers in pediatric populations, which underscore the relevance of this topic (35–40). These diets include food items similarly recommended in the Planetary Health Diet, but differing in the emphasis on sustainable eating. Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the mean differences following the Mediterranean diet showed a significant inverse effect on SBP (−4.75 mm Hg [95% CI: −8.97,−0.52]), TG (−16.42 mg/dL [95% CI: −27.57, −5.27]), total cholesterol (−9.06 mg/dL [95% CI: −15.65, −2.48]), and LDL-C (−10.48 mg/dL [95% CI: −17.77, −3.19]), while increasing HDL-C (2.24 mg/dL [95% CI: 0.34, 4.14]) (41). Plant-rich diets have also shown to significantly reduce the odds of developing hypertension (OR, 0.63 [95% CI: 0.41, 0.97]) (35), mitigating the harmful effects of oxidative stress and inflammation, which are exacerbated by prolonged high BP (36). Significant reductions in SBP have been reported in two interventional studies: a decrease of 2.7 mmHg (p-value = 0.03) (36) and 10.4 mmHg (p-value <0.01) (37), both of them following the DASH diet. The Framingham Children’s study similarly observed reductions in mean SBP and DBP (4.60 mmHg and 1.12 mmHg, respectively) with a diet rich in fruits and vegetables (>4 servings/day) and low in dairy products (< 2 servings/day) (38). Other plant-based diets, such as the Mediterranean diet, have also shown significant improvements in lipid profile after a lifestyle intervention (39, 40). For example, reductions in total cholesterol (23.5 mg/dL), LDL-C (21.5 mg/dL), and non-HDL-C (21.5 mg/dL) were observed in children diagnosed with primary hypercholesterolemia (39), and in total cholesterol (25.5 mg/dL), LDL-C (22.0 mg/dL), and TG (12.0 mg/dL) (40).
Several reasons could explain the beneficial results in cardiometabolic biomarkers following this healthy pattern. One is the influence of low added sugars consumption (≤25 g/day of added sugars) (42), along with high consumption of whole grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables, which has been shown to mitigate postprandial glucose excursions (41). A second reason underlies the consumption of phytonutrients, which have shown to activate β-oxidation, regulate satiety, and modulate energy intake (5, 43). These compounds can also induce thermogenesis in brown adipose tissue, and mobilize stored fat (5), while exhibiting antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and immune-modulating properties (43, 44). A third reason involves the consumption of dietary fibers, such as β-glucans, arabinoxylans, and lignins, that play a crucial role in cardiometabolic health. They reduce the absorption of lipids and carbohydrates (45), control circulating LDL-C by inhibiting bile acid reabsorption (45), increase bacterial diversity (44), enhance intestinal barrier integrity (45), and promote the growth and metabolism of beneficial commensal Clostridia (Firmicutes) (46). High fermentation by major butyrate-producing bacteria, such as Faecalibacterium, further influences lipid metabolism through G-protein coupled receptors 41 and 43 (45, 47).
The strengths of the present study include its large-scale and long-term assessment of the PHDI and subsequent cardiometabolic risk screening during adolescence. Our results also addressed the controversies regarding nutrient intake, of particular concern in plant-based diets, in this population. Handling missing values in studied variables helped retain precise information for analysis, even after data loss occurred throughout the follow-up. Capillary blood measurements enabled us to efficiently assess cardiometabolic blood biomarkers, while wearable accelerometers offered objective measurements of physical activity and sleep. Repeated dietary assessments, along with the use of time-varying covariates to capture changes in dietary habits and health status, helped to reduce intraindividual variation over time. Furthermore, the validated FFQ used in this study showed good reproducibility and validity, and participants with extreme energy intakes were excluded to optimize the reliability of dietary information. By employing various data-driven analysis techniques, we were able to identify meaningful patterns and relationships.
However, the study also has some limitations. First, although BP readings were taken during the visits following standardized protocols, hypertension diagnoses were not confirmed through clinical records. Second, the use of proxy reporters for diet and other covariates may induce potential residual confounding in the analysis. The results may not be generalizable to other populations because participants were from a Mediterranean country. Caution should be exercised when interpreting glucose results, as some adolescents may have been assessed in a non-fasting state despite reporting that they were fasting. Additionally, the study design allows for the observation of the associations between PHDI adherence and outcomes, but it does not establish causality. It reflects the real-world conditions of the population rather than controlled experimental scenarios. Finally, the association between PHDI adherence, cardiometabolic health, and high BP was not a predefined endpoint of the SI! Program. This study makes the findings exploratory, requiring further research regarding PHDI, adolescent health, and educational strategies.
5 Conclusion
We observed strong inverse associations between higher PHDI adherence and the incidence of high BP, as well as several cardiometabolic risk factors. These findings suggest that a healthy plant-based diet, rich in phytochemicals and dietary fiber, promotes cardiometabolic health from an early age. This approach should mitigate the progression of cardiovascular diseases in younger populations while also reducing the environmental impact. Practical implications of these results include incorporating PHDI recommendations into school meals and education campaigns targeting adolescents and their families to promote the dual benefits of this diet for health and planetary sustainability.
Statements
Data availability statement
Data availability to external researchers is restricted to related project proposals upon request to the corresponding authors. Based on these premises, de-identified participant data will be available with publication after approval of the proposal by the steering committee and a signed data sharing agreement.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by the Committee for Ethical Research (CEI) of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III in Madrid (CEI PI 35/2016), the CEI of the Fundació Unió Catalana d’Hospitals (CEI 16/41), and the Bioethics Committee of the University of Barcelona (IRB00003099). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin.
Author contributions
DM-L: Visualization, Validation, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Formal analysis. EL-S: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. RE: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MCo: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. CA-R: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. AR-L: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. RC: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MCa: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. JM-G: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AC-G: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. PB: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. GS-B: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JF-A: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RF-J: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RL-R: Resources, Writing – review & editing, Software, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Supervision. SC-B: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This study was supported by the SHE Foundation (owner of the SI! Program), −"la Caixa” Foundation [LCF/PR/CE16/10700001], the Fundació la Marató de TV3 [369/C/2016], Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades [AEI/FEDER, UE, PID2023-147307OB-I00], and Generalitat de Catalunya [2021-SGR-00334]. We want to express gratitude to INSA-UB Unit of Excellence [María de Maeztu CEX2021-001234-M funded by MICIN/AEI/FEDER, UE], the Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares (CNIC) supported by the ISCIII, the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (MCIN), the Pro CNIC Foundation, and the Severo Ochoa Center of Excellence [CEX2020-001041-S funded by MICIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033]. DM-L receives funding from the Colombian Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation [MINCIENCIAS] for his doctoral studies. EPL-S is supported by the post-doctoral grant [JDC2022-049842-I] funded by [MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033] and by “European Union NextGeneration EU/PRTR”. MC’s appreciation is given to the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 101105493. RML-R thanks the GC for the ICREA academia recognition. JM-G is funded by the predoctoral contract (Ayudas para la formación de profesorado universitario [FPU21/04891] from the Spanish Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte). RF-J is supported by the ISCIII [PI22/01560], funded by ISCIII and co-funded by the European Union.
Acknowledgments
We extend our sincere appreciation to all involved adolescents, families, educators, schools, and personnel from the SI! Program. This study is dedicated to the memory of Anna Tresserra-Rimbau, our former colleague and friend, whose insights and dedication were key to the development of this study.
Conflict of interest
RL-R reports personal fees from Cerveceros de España, personal fees, and others from Adventia, UNIDECO SA, Wine in Moderation, Ecoveritas S.A., outside the submitted work. RE reports grants from the Spanish government, Fundación Dieta Mediterránea (Spain), and Cerveza y Salud (Spain), and personal fees for given lectures from Brewers of Europe (Belgium), the Fundación Cerveza y Salud (Spain), Pernaud-Ricard (Mexico), Instituto Cervantes (Alburquerque, USA), Instituto Cervantes (Milan, Italy), Instituto Cervantes (Tokyo, Japan), Lilly Laboratories (Spain), and the Wine and Culinary International Forum (Spain), as well as non-financial support for the organization of a National Congress on Nutrition and feeding trials with products from Grand Fountain and Uriach Laboratories (Spain).
The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author RC declares that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2025.1739577/full#supplementary-material
Abbreviations
BMI, Body mass index; BP, Blood pressure; CI, Confidence interval; DASH, Dietary approaches to stop hypertension diet; DBP, Diastolic blood pressure; FFQ, Food frequency questionnaire; HDL-C, High-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HR, Hazard ratio; LDL-C, Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; MVPA, Moderate to vigorous physical activity; PHDI, Planetary Health Diet Index; RCS, Restricted cubic spline; SBP, Systolic blood pressure; SD, Standard deviation; SI! Program, The SI! Program for Secondary Schools trial; TEI, Total energy intake; TG, Triglycerides; WHtR, Waist-to-height ratio.
References
1.
United Nations . 2023. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023: Special edition towards a rescue plan for people and planet; Available online at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2023/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2023.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2024.
2.
Springmann M Wiebe K Mason-D’Croz D Sulser TB Rayner M Scarborough P . Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet Health. (2018) 2:e451–61. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30206-7,
3.
Willett W Rockström J Loken B Springmann M Lang T Vermeulen S et al . Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet. (2019) 393:447–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4,
4.
Samtiya M Aluko RE Dhewa T Moreno-Rojas JM . Potential health benefits of plant food-derived bioactive components: an overview. Foods. (2021) 10, 1–25. doi: 10.3390/foods10040839,
5.
Castro-Barquero S Lamuela-Raventós RM Doménech M Estruch R . Relationship between Mediterranean dietary polyphenol intake and obesity. Nutrients. (2018) 10, 1–13. doi: 10.3390/nu10101523,
6.
Frank SM Jaacks LM Avery CL Adair LS Meyer K Rose D et al . Dietary quality and cardiometabolic indicators in the USA: a comparison of the planetary health diet index, healthy eating Index-2015, and dietary approaches to stop hypertension. PLoS One. (2024) 19:e0296069. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296069,
7.
Cacau LT Benseñor IM Goulart AC Cardoso LO Santos IS Lotufo PA et al . Adherence to the EAT-lancet sustainable reference diet and cardiometabolic risk profile: cross-sectional results from the ELSA-Brasil cohort study. Eur J Nutr. (2023) 62:807–17. doi: 10.1007/s00394-022-03032-5
8.
Karavasiloglou N Thompson AS Pestoni G Knuppel A Papier K Cassidy A et al . Adherence to the EAT-lancet reference diet is associated with a reduced risk of incident cancer and all-cause mortality in UK adults. One Earth. (2023) 6:1726–34. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.11.002,
9.
Berthy F Brunin J Allès B Fezeu LK Touvier M Hercberg S et al . Association between adherence to the EAT-lancet diet and risk of cancer and cardiovascular outcomes in the prospective NutriNet-Sante cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. (2022) 116:980–91. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqac208,
10.
Kim H Caulfield LE Garcia-Larsen V Steffen LM Grams ME Coresh J et al . Plant-based diets and incident CKD and kidney function. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. (2019) 14:682–91. doi: 10.2215/CJN.12391018,
11.
Zhang S Dukuzimana J Stubbendorff A Ericson U Borné Y Sonestedt E . Adherence to the EAT-lancet diet and risk of coronary events in the Malmö diet and Cancer cohort study. Am J Clin Nutr. (2023) 117:903–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.02.018,
12.
Bui LP Pham TT Wang F Chai B Sun Q Hu FB et al . Planetary health diet index and risk of total and cause-specific mortality in three prospective cohorts. Am J Clin Nutr. (2024) 120:80–91. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.03.019,
13.
Ye YX Geng TT Zhou YF He P Zhang JJ Liu G et al . Adherence to a planetary health diet, environmental impacts, and mortality in Chinese adults. JAMA Netw Open. (2023) 6:e2339468. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.39468,
14.
Kim H Caulfield LE Garcia-Larsen V Steffen LM Coresh J Rebholz CM . Plant-based diets are associated with a lower risk of incident cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular disease mortality, and all-cause mortality in a general population of middle-aged adults. J Am Heart Assoc. (2019) 8, 1–13. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.012865,
15.
Morcel J Béghin L Michels N De Ruyter T Drumez E Cailliau E et al . Nutritional and physical fitness parameters in adolescence impact cardiovascular health in adulthood. Clin Nutr. (2024) 43:1857–64. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2024.06.022,
16.
Loria CM Liu K Lewis CE Hulley SB Sidney S Schreiner PJ et al . Early adult risk factor levels and subsequent coronary artery calcification. The CARDIA study. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2007) 49:2013–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.03.009,
17.
Jacobs DR Woo JG Sinaiko AR Daniels SR Ikonen J Juonala M et al . Childhood cardiovascular risk factors and adult cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med. (2022) 386:1877–88. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2109191,
18.
Fernandez-Jimenez R Santos-Beneit G Tresserra-Rimbau A Bodega P de Miguel M de Cos-Gandoy A et al . Rationale and design of the school-based SI! Program to face obesity and promote health among Spanish adolescents: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Am Heart J. (2019) 215:27–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2019.03.014,
19.
Willett WC Howe GR Kushi LH . Adjustment for total energy intake in epidemiologic studies. Am J Clin Nutr. (1997) 65:1220S–8S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/65.4.1220S,
20.
Juton C Castro-barquero S Casas R Freitas T Ruiz-León AM Crovetto F et al . Reliability and concurrent and construct validity of a food frequency questionnaire for pregnant women at high risk to develop fetal growth restriction. Nutrients. (2021) 13:1629. doi: 10.3390/nu13051629,
21.
Farrán A Zamora R Cervera P . Tablas de Composición de Alimentos Del CESNID. Barcelona: McGraw-Hill Interamericana Edicions Universitat de Barcelona (2003).
22.
Moreiras O Carvajal A Cabrera L Cuadrado C . Tablas de Composición de Alimentos (Food Composition Tables). Madrid: Pirámide (2005).
23.
Flynn JT Kaelber DC Baker-Smith CM . Clinical practice guideline for screening and management of high blood pressure in children and adolescents. Pediatrics. (2017) 140:e20171904. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1904
24.
Flegal KM . Construction of LMS parameters for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000 growth charts. Natl Health Stat Report. (2013) 63:1–3.
25.
De Jesus JM . Expert panel on integrated guidelines for cardiovascular health and risk reduction in children and adolescents: summary report. Pediatrics. (2011) 128 Suppl 5:S213–56. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-2107C,
26.
Little RJ D’Agostino R Cohen ML Dickersin K Emerson SS Farrar JT et al . The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. (2012) 367:1355–60. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1203730
27.
Harrell FE . Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York, NY: Springer New York (2001).
28.
Allen LH Carriquiry AL Murphy SP . Perspective: proposed harmonized nutrient reference values for populations. Adv Nutr. (2020) 11:469–83. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmz096,
29.
Cacau LT Hanley-Cook GT Vandevijvere S Leclercq C de Henauw S Santaliestra-Pasias A et al . Association between adherence to the EAT-lancet sustainable reference diet and cardiovascular health among European adolescents: the HELENA study. Eur J Clin Nutr. (2024) 78:202–8. doi: 10.1038/s41430-023-01379-4,
30.
Montejano Vallejo R Schulz CA Van De Locht K Oluwagbemigun K Alexy U Nöthlings U . Associations of adherence to a dietary index based on the EAT-lancet reference diet with nutritional, anthropometric, and ecological sustainability parameters: results from the German DONALD cohort study. J Nutr. (2022) 152:1763–72. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxac094,
31.
Marchioni DM Cacau LT De Carli E de Carvalho AM Rulli MC . Low adherence to the EAT-lancet sustainable reference diet in the Brazilian population: findings from the national dietary survey 2017–2018. Nutrients. (2022) 14:1187. doi: 10.3390/nu14061187,
32.
Pineda EBG Lopez Olmedo N Macias HM Levy TS . Three approaches to assessing dietary quality in Mexican adolescents from 2006 to 2018 with data from national health and nutrition surveys. Public Health Nutr. (2024) 27:e97. doi: 10.1017/S1368980024000648,
33.
Satia-Abouta J Patterson RE Neuhouser ML Elder J . Dietary acculturation. J Am Diet Assoc. (2002) 102:1105–18. doi: 10.1016/s0002-8223(02)90247-6,
34.
Martínez-Gómez J Bodega P Santos-Beneit G de Cos-Gandoy A Beneito-Durá M de Miguel M et al . Trajectories of adherence to an obesogenic dietary pattern and changes in diet quality, food intake, and adiposity during adolescence. Nutr J. (2025) 24:35. doi: 10.1186/s12937-025-01102-y,
35.
Ducharme-Smith K Caulfield LE Brady TM Rosenstock S Mueller NT Garcia-Larsen V . Higher diet quality in African-American adolescents is associated with lower odds of metabolic syndrome: evidence from the NHANES. J Nutr. (2021) 151:1609–17. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxab027,
36.
Couch SC Saelens BE Khoury PR Dart KB Hinn K Mitsnefes MM et al . Dietary approaches to stop hypertension dietary intervention improves blood pressure and vascular health in youth with elevated blood pressure. Hypertension. (2021) 77:241–51. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.16156,
37.
Couch SC Saelens BE Levin L Dart K Falciglia G Daniels SR . The efficacy of a clinic-based behavioral nutrition intervention emphasizing a DASH-type diet for adolescents with elevated blood pressure. J Pediatr. (2008) 152:494–501. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.09.022
38.
Moore LL Singer MR Bradlee ML Djoussé L Proctor MH Cupples LA et al . Intake of fruits, vegetables, and dairy products in early childhood and subsequent blood pressure change. Epidemiology. (2005) 16:4–11. doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000147106.32027.3e,
39.
Massini G Capra N Buganza R Nyffenegger A de Sanctis L Guardamagna O . Mediterranean dietary treatment in hyperlipidemic children: should it be an option?Nutrients. (2022) 14:1344. doi: 10.3390/nu14071344,
40.
Giannini C Diesse L D’Adamo E Chiavaroli V de Giorgis T Di Iorio C et al . Influence of the Mediterranean diet on carotid intima-media thickness in hypercholesterolaemic children: a 12-month intervention study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. (2014) 24:75–82. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2013.04.005
41.
Bergia RE Giacco R Hjorth T Biskup I Zhu W Costabile G et al . Differential glycemic effects of low-versus high-glycemic index Mediterranean-style eating patterns in adults at risk for type 2 diabetes: the MEDGI-carb randomized controlled trial. Nutrients. (2022) 14:706. doi: 10.3390/nu14030706,
42.
Vos MB Kaar JL Welsh JA Van Horn LV Feig DI Anderson CAM et al . Added sugars and cardiovascular disease risk in children: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. (2017) 135:e1017–34. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000439,
43.
Minich DM . A review of the science of colorful, plant-based food and practical strategies for “eating the rainbow”. J Nutr Metab. (2019) 2019:2125070. doi: 10.1155/2019/2125070,
44.
Olmo-Cunillera A Escobar-Avello D Pérez AJ Marhuenda-Muñoz M Lamuela-Raventós RM Vallverdú-Queralt A . Is eating raisins healthy?Nutrients. (2020) 12:54. doi: 10.3390/nu12010054,
45.
Madsen MTB Landberg R Nielsen DS Zhang Y Anneberg OMR Lauritzen L et al . Effects of wholegrain compared to refined grain intake on cardiometabolic risk markers, gut microbiota, and gastrointestinal symptoms in children: a randomized crossover trial. Am J Clin Nutr. (2024) 119:18–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.10.025,
46.
Ayua EO Kazem AE Hamaker BR . Whole grain cereal fibers and their support of the gut commensal Clostridia for health. Bioact Carbohydr Diet Fibre. (2020) 24, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bcdf.2020.100245
47.
Rivière A Selak M Lantin D Leroy F De Vuyst L . Bifidobacteria and butyrate-producing colon bacteria: importance and strategies for their stimulation in the human gut. Front Microbiol. (2016) 7:979. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00979,
Summary
Keywords
adolescents, cardiovascular health, nutritional epidemiology, Planetary Diet, plant-based diet, prevention, prospective study, sustainability
Citation
Murcia-Lesmes D, Laveriano-Santos EP, Estruch R, Corrado M, Arancibia-Riveros C, Ruiz-León AM, Casas R, Camafort M, Martínez-Gómez J, de Cos-Gandoy A, Bodega P, Santos-Beneit G, Fernández-Alvira JM, Fernández-Jiménez R, Lamuela-Raventós RM and Castro-Barquero S (2026) Is it time to align adolescent diets with the Planetary Health Diet? An observational study on early cardiovascular health. Front. Nutr. 12:1739577. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2025.1739577
Received
04 November 2025
Revised
17 December 2025
Accepted
29 December 2025
Published
03 February 2026
Volume
12 - 2025
Edited by
Qing-Yong Zheng, Lanzhou University, China
Reviewed by
Marta Jeruszka-Bielak, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Poland
Nicola Gillies, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Murcia-Lesmes, Laveriano-Santos, Estruch, Corrado, Arancibia-Riveros, Ruiz-León, Casas, Camafort, Martínez-Gómez, de Cos-Gandoy, Bodega, Santos-Beneit, Fernández-Alvira, Fernández-Jiménez, Lamuela-Raventós and Castro-Barquero.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Rosa M. Lamuela-Raventós, lamuela@ub.eduSara Castro-Barquero, sara.castro@ub.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.