4.5 Article

Food sources of plant sterols in the EPIC Norfolk population

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 62, Issue 6, Pages 695-703

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602765

Keywords

plant sterols; food sources; population; diet

Funding

  1. British Heart Foundation Funding Source: Medline
  2. Medical Research Council Funding Source: Medline
  3. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline
  4. Department of Health Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate the intake of plant sterols and identify major dietary sources of plant sterols in the British diet. Subjects: A total of 24 798 men and women recruited during 1993-1997, participating in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC-Norfolk). Interventions: A database of the plant sterol (campesterol, beta-sitosterol, stigmasterol, campestanol and b-sitostanol) content in foods, based on gas-liquid chromatography (GLC) analyses, was linked to nutritional intake data from food frequency questionnaires in the EPIC-Norfolk population. Results: The mean (s. d.) intake of total plant sterols was 300 (108) mg/d for men and 293 (100) mg/d for women. Bread and other cereals, vegetables and added fats were the three major food sources of plant sterols representing 18.6 (8.9), 18.4 (8.5) and 17.3 (10.4)% of the total plant sterol intake respectively. Women had a higher plant sterol density than men (36.4 vs 32.8 mg/1000 kJ, P<0.001) and in relation to energy intake higher intakes of plant sterols from vegetables, bread and other cereals, added fats, fruits and mixed dishes (all P<0.001), whilst men had higher intakes of plant sterols from cakes, scones and chocolate, potatoes (all P<0.001) and other foods (P<0.01). Conclusions: The intake of plant sterols in UK, mainly from bread, cereals, fats and vegetables, is much higher than previously reported but comparable to recent European studies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available