4.3 Article

Provincial Dietary Intake Study (PDIS): Energy and Macronutrient Intakes of Children in a Representative/Random Sample of 1-<10-Year-Old Children in Two Economically Active and Urbanized Provinces in South Africa

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17051717

Keywords

dietary intakes; energy; macronutrients; children 1-< 10-years-old; nutrition; double burden of malnutrition

Funding

  1. International Life Sciences Institute of South Africa
  2. National Research Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The double burden of malnutrition is still prevalent in South Africa, hence the importance of a dietary survey to identify risks of under- and over-nutrition. A multistage stratified cluster random sampling design was applied in two economically active provinces, Gauteng (GTG) (N = 733) and Western Cape (WC) (N = 593). Field workers completed questionnaires, and a 24 h recall with children taking part aged 1-<10-years (N = 1326). Important findings were that 71% and 74%, respectively, of 3-<6-year-olds and 6-<10-year-olds had an energy intake below the estimated energy requirement (EER), while 66% 1-<3-year-olds had intakes above the EER. The percentage of children with a total fat intake below recommended levels decreased as age increased ((51%, 40% and 5%) respectively, for the three age groups). Similarly, the percentage of those who had a total fat intake above the recommendation increased with increasing age (4%, 11% and 26%, respectively, for the three age groups). Saturated fat intake above 10%E was highest in the youngest and oldest children (33% and 32%, respectively). The percentage of children with a free sugars intake above 10%E was 47%, 48% and 52% respectively, and 98-99% had a fibre intake that was less than recommended. Overall, the diet was not healthy, with the main food items being very refined, and the diet being high in salty snacks and sugary items, and low in fruit, vegetables and legumes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available