Developing a Meal-Planning Exchange List for Traditional Dishes in Jordan

Download Developing a Meal-Planning Exchange List for Traditional Dishes in Jordan

Post on 05-Sep-2016




9 download

Embed Size (px)




    D inT daHIB c

    ABThexcdalocToodavrecwemeexanAsCotrifooor lissufouobobchreaheJ A






    Recipe Collection

    H.tiouanology, Jordan University of Science and Technology,Iribid, Jordan.A



    840To minimize the variation in food preparation methodsamong individuals, five women (from southern, northern,and central Jordan) were asked to provide a detailedrecipe for each dish. The quantity of each ingredient wasaveraged (ie, summation of ingredients quantities di-vided by five). Every item in the average recipe wasdocumented in both kitchen (eg, standard cups andspoons) and standard measurements (eg, grams, milli-grams, liters, and milliliters). To decrease the variation

    ddress correspondence to: Hiba Ahmad Bawadi,D, FACN, Department of Nutrition and Food Technol-, Jordan University of Science and Technology, POx 3030, Irbid 22110, Jordan. E-mail: hbawadi@just.u.joanuscript accepted: July 19, 2007.opyright 2008 by the American Dietetic

    sociation.002-8223/08/10805-0002$34.00/0oi: 10.1016/j.jada.2008.02.016

    Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION 2008 by the American Dietetic Associationrspectives in Practice

    eveloping a Meal-Plannraditional Dishes in Jor


    STRACTis study was conducted to develop a meal-planninghange list for traditional combination dishes in Jor-n. A total of 80 traditional dishes were selected fromal cookbooks and through interviews with housewives. minimize individual variations in preparation meth-s, five different recipes for each dish were collected anderaged. Dishes were cooked according to the averagedipe. The weight of each ingredient and dishs netight were documented in both kitchen and standardasures to be later used in dishes fitting into thechange list. Samples from each prepared dish werealyzed for their macronutrient content following thesociation of Official Analytical Chemists procedures.rrelation analysis was performed between macronu-ent content of prepared dishes and that published ind composition tables for the use in the Middle Eastanalyzed using food analysis software. Exchangets were then developed using an approximation methodggested in the literature. Significant correlation wasnd between carbohydrate, protein, and fat amountstained in this study and that previously published ortained by food analysis software. Meal-planning ex-ange list for combination dishes is now available anddy to be used by food and nutrition professionals andalth care providers in Jordan.m Diet Assoc. 2008;108:840-846.

    utrition-related chronic diseases such as diabetes,cancer, cardiovascular disease, and obesity have be-come epidemic worldwide and in Jordan (1,2). A

    althful diet has long been considered essential in pre-tion, or at least reducing the risk, of developing these

    A. Bawadi is an assistant professor of human nutri-n in epidemiology and S. A. Al-Sahawaneh is a grad-te student, Department of Nutrition and Food Tech-g Exchange List forn

    eases (3-5). Planning a healthful diet is not a simplek. The plan should obey many principles, includingequacy, balance, energy control, nutrient density, mod-tion, and variety (6). Factors influencing food choicesvide a substantial answer to the question, Why do wet the way we eat? Food choice is a function of manytors, including personal preferences, habits, ethnicritage, and tradition (6). Considering these factorsen planning a diet may increase the commitment ofents for whom the diet has been planned. Hence, hav- a planning tool that is culturally sensitive and con-ers all previously mentioned factors is a must in pro-ting better nutrition in a community.n 1950, a joint effort was undertaken by the Americanetetic Association, the American Diabetes Association,d the US Public Health Service to develop a systemt permits trading foods without disturbing energy in-e or macronutrient distribution of a diet.n Jordan, the absence of a national food exchanget has made it difficult for food and nutrition profes-nals to include traditional dishes in meal plans.spite the existence of regional food composition ta-s for Middle Eastern countries that include dishesmon in Jordanian cuisine, ingredients and prepa-

    tion methods differ substantially between research offers a chance for Jordanian practitio-rs to plan culturally sensitive meal plans that guar-tee higher commitment. Practitioners outside Jor-n working with Jordanian immigrants may alsonefit from this research.

    THODSection of Dishesenty housewives from different areas in Jordan weredomly selected and asked to name 20 dishes they

    ually prepare at home. Housewives were advised toer to cookbooks they use in cooking to better recallhes. Most frequently mentioned dishes (N80) wereected to be included in the exchange list.

  • bedisproamkbpro

    DisOnconwaanwepaatiducaranJohotak(mdacawe(mcona Kdeingtra10conmo

    SerAsmegragiva sA










    aVtween given recipes, a main food component (Y) in ah (X) was selected, and participants were asked tovide a recipe of how to prepare dish X with givenount of component Y. For example, when recipes forab hindy were collected, every housewife was asked tovide a recipe for kbab hindy calling for 0.5 kg meat.

    h Preparation and Analysise batch of the average recipe was cooked. Cookingditions were under best possible control; all cookings done by the same researcher using the same kitchend facilities. The purpose of cooking was to get a preciseight of the ingredients and the net weight of the pre-red dish. Food proximate analysis according to Associ-on of Official Analytical Chemists procedures was con-cted to determine the amount of protein, fat, andbohydrates (7). Analysis was conducted in the feedalysis lab in the Department of Animal Production atrdan University of Science and Technology. Duplicatemogenized samples (300 g) from each dish wereen and coded. Samples were desiccated in an ovenodel NR 200F, Carbolite, Derbyshire, England) for 3ys, and then were ground. Moisture content waslculated by the difference in wet and dry sampleights. Ash content was determined using a furnaceodel CSF 11/7, Carbolite, Derbyshire, UK). Nitrogentent was determined using the Kjeldahl method andjeletec system (model 1026, Tecator, Hoganas, Swe-

    n). Protein content was then estimated by multiply-the nitrogen content by 6.25. Total fat (ether ex-ct) was analyzed using a Soxtec system (model HT43, Tecator, Hoganas, Sweden). Total carbohydratetent was estimated by difference in sample weightisture, ash, protein, and ether extract.

    ving Size Determinationmentioned, the net weight of the whole dish wasasured and reported in both standard measures (kilo-ms) and kitchen measure (cups). The amount thates the best fit in the exchange system was chosen to beerving.fter the proximate analysis for the whole amounts ofprepared dish were obtained, the same data were

    tained for each serving by dividing the amounts ofbohydrates, protein, and fat by the number of serv-s. For example, after the analysis of kbab hindy, it wasnd that the whole dish contains 145.2 g carbohydrate,6.5 g protein, and 123.3 g fat. If one serving of kbabdy equals 1/3 c (75 g), 1 serving should contain 5.8 gbohydrate, 6.7 g protein, and 4.9 g fat.

    hes Fitting in the Exchange Listthis study, we followed the rounding-off method (de-ibed below) of Wheeler and colleagues (8) to get bestssible precision when fitting dishes into the exchanget.Carbohydrate Exchange. If food portion had 1 to 5 gbohydrate, it was not counted as a serving. If it had 610 g carbohydrates, it was counted as half a serving.d if it had 11 to 20 g carbohydrates, it was counted ase serving.Fat Exchange. If food portion had 0 to 2 g fat, it was notnted as a serving. If it had 3 g fat, it was counted aslf a serving. And if it had 4 to 7 g fat, it was counted ase serving.Protein Exchange. If food portion had 0 to 3 g proteinm the meat and meat substitutes list, it was notnted as a serving. If it had 4 to 10 g protein, it wasnted as one serving.

    parison with Food Composition Table of the Regionconducted a search to determine if dishes included in

    r list were included in the previously published foodposition tables for use in the Middle East prepared by

    llet and Shadervian (9). Twenty-four dishes out of 80re found in the work by Pellet and Shadervian. Theposition of the 24 items was compared to that foundthe proximate analysis conducted by the researcher,trolling for serving size.ecause the food composition tables by Pellet andadervian (9) do not include many of the traditionalbination foods common in Jordan, we wanted to test if

    e can use food analysis software not for the purpose oft analysis, but dish analysis. Ingredients of each dishd their weights were entered into Food Processor soft-re (version 7.71, 2001, ESHA Research Inc, Salem,) for analysis. Amounts entered were edible parts ac-lly used in cooking. Because the database in Foodocessor software does not include all items that areed in the preparation of traditional dishes, such aseed and kishk, these items were subjected to proxi-te analysis and then were added to the Food Processortware database for later use. A list of these items andir lab analysis is presented in Table 1. Unfortunately,e item highly used in the Jordanian cuisine, samnehladeeh, could not be analyzed either by Food Processortware nor laboratory proximate analysis because of theh fat content. Samneh baladeeh is the solid animal fatbjected to home processing and storage and used inking. Because the total fat content was our point oferest, samneh baladeeh was replaced with vegetableee.

    tistical Analysisarsons correlation coefficient was used as indicator forlidity. To broaden the application of this work, and

    able 1. Proximate analysis of ingredients of combination foodsot found in the database of Food Processor softwarea

    od componentCarbohydrate(g) /100 g

    Protein(g) /100 g

    Fat(g) /100 g

    undelia 3.47 1.66 0.22meed 3.4 57.02 22.25ishk 33.45 35.27 11.25ry maftoul 43.66 9.04 1.15ry friekeh 73.67 13.39 2.41ws mallow, raw 5.56 5.14 0.54allow 5.52 5.84 0.88

    ersion 7.71, 2001, ESHA Research Inc, Salem, OR.May 2008 Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION 841

  • TD


    842able 2. Macronutrient content (in grams) of main combination dishes common in Jordanian cuisine

    ish name g Carbohydrates Protein Fat

    ddas ma Ruz 115 13.4 4.6 1.7koob b zait 190 8.4 3.2 8.8raees 80 24.6 11.8 10.1adhinjan makli 50 4.9 0.9 7.1adhinjan mihshi 120 22.9 6.4 5.6amieh b thom 100 27.3 8 9.6anadoura b baid 120 5.4 1.9 12.1anadoura b batata 125 15.1 3 2.6anadoura b lahm 100 6.2 8.1 6.4anadoura mihshi 150 17.4 4 3.4atata mihshi 150 23.3 1.9 2.7haacheel 95 7.7 7.9 2.8jaj ma batata 100 15.5 7.2 8jaj mhamar 100 9.2 7.4 6.5jaj mihshi 75 12.6 10 6.1ssoulia khadra b banadoura 210 15 4 6.2ttet makdos 100 10.2 6.7 11.5ttet himmos 75 12.2 7.8 4.4tr b zait 80 11.6 3.1 7.4iekeh 150 25 7.6 4.9ul akhdar b zait 200 21 8.4 16.6lful akhdar mihshi 220 17.3 8.3 6.2

    edreh 220 27.7 12.3 6.9abseh 180 27.3 10.6 5.1afta b bandoura 150 3.5 8.2 2.7afta b tehineh 80 1.4 14.3 9.9arnabeet b laban 170 6.2 10.9 16.6arnabeet b tehineh 100 10 8.1 17.9arnabeet makli 150 4 4.6 20.6ishkieh 115 11 6.5 3.8ussa b laban 220 6 13.2 7hobaizh b zait 170 8.8 6.8 12.3ibbeh b batata 60 10.7 7.2 5.5ibbeh b burghol 50 11.6 7.1 6.7ibbeh b laban 100 16 11 12.2ibbeh makli 50 12.2 7.4 8.7bab hindy 75 5.8 6.7 4.9ussa ma bandoura 200 10.5 4 4.9ussa makli 100 9.2 4.8 11.1ussa mihshi 150 13.9 2.2 4.9acaroni ma laban 200 30.7 3.2 11.2acaroni ma lahm 200 26.2 13 5.4aftoul 150 12.1 9.8 4.4akloubet badhinjan 150 15.7 8.1 11.1akloubet batata 150 31.2 12.4 6.7akloubet foul 150 28.1 13.8 5.9akloubet karnabeet (Zahra) 150 12.1 8.1 9.9akmora 75 15.8 8.7 4.6alfouf mihshy 125 18.2 4.8 5.1ansaf (1) 120 0.3 12.1 4.8ansaf (2) 130 2.5 14.6 8.8jaddara b Burghol 90 13.7 5.6 4.3jaddara b Laban 100 16.3 7.1 0.8jaddara b Ruz 100 23.6 4.8 3.5jaddara hamra 100 19.8 6.3 8.6sakhan 115 17.1 9.2 7.1shat karnabeet 90 13.6 1.2 12.5ufarraket batata 75 12.3 1.7 6.9

    (continued)May 2008 Volume 108 Number 5

  • bedadicansioSAsig





    T com

    D Ca

    O 18R 17R 12R 17R 20S 16S 14S 0S 30S 29S 20S 22Ta 8To 28W 33Ya 21Ya 13Ya 7Ya 20Ya 6Ya 8Ya 27cause there are many other combination dishes in Jor-n, we performed linear regression to enable best pre-tion of carbohydrate, protein, and fat when using foodalysis software. Data were analyzed using the regres-n procedure of SAS for Windows (version 6.0, 1991,S Institute Inc, Cary, NC). Unless otherwise stated,nificance was declared at P0.05.

    ULTS AND DISCUSSIONrbohydrate, protein, and fat content of the traditionalhes included in this study are presented in Table 2.sed on the data in Table 2, exchange list for traditionalhes common in Jordanian cuisine is now available anddy for use by professionals and the public. Table 3sents the exchanges of the study dishes. Serving sizespresented in standard measures and kitchen mea-

    res.ery strong correlation was found between our proxi-te analysis and that published in the Pellet and Sha-revian food composition tables (9) regarding carbohy-te (r0.74) and protein (r0.70) content. Significantrelation was found for fat (r0. 47), yet not as strongthat found for carbohydrate and protein. When wepared our average recipe and the matched one pub-

    hed by Pellet and Shadarevian (9), we found that therere considerable differences in the amounts of oils, eggs,d meat used.n the case of Food Processor software analysis, therelation was strong for carbohydrate (r0.72) and fat0.82). Less strong correlation, yet significant, wasnd for protein content (r0.44). The reason why therelation for protein was not as strong as that found inbohydrate and fat is not fully understood. It is worth

    able 2. Macronutrient content (in grams) of main combination dishes

    ish name g

    ozy 75ashoof 115ushtaeeh 110uz b sheereh 60uz mfalfal 60ayadieh 100hakreeh 420heikh - el - mihshi 100helfato 200hoshbarak 250hourbat friekeh 210hourbat il addas 220bakh roho 200rfan 150arak inab mihshi 140khnet bamieh 200khnet fassoulia baida 110khnet fassoulia khadra 200khnet khoudra mshakalh 230khnet Mulukhiyah 440khnet Sabanekh 500langy 150ting that in the Food Processor software analysis itemstered were in raw, uncooked form; whereas in laboximate analysis results were obtained from theked dishes. In other words, in Food Processor soft-re analysis, analysis and the net weight was basedthe summation of the weight of raw materials. Thismay be different from the net weight after is may be a main limitation of using Food Proces-software in dish analysis. Table 4 represents re-ssion...


View more >