4.1 Article

Methods for using nutrient intake values (NIVs) to assess or plan nutrient intakes

Journal

FOOD AND NUTRITION BULLETIN
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages S51-S60

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/15648265070281S106

Keywords

assessing diets; average nutrient requirement; individual nutrient level; nutrient intake values; planning diets; upper nutrient level

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article describes the methods for using nutrient intake values (NIVs) to plan and assess intakes of both individuals and population groups. The advantages of the more recent standards, which use an average nutrient requirement (ANR) and its standard deviation to describe the distribution of nutrient requirements, are highlighted. The goal of assessing the intake of an individual is to determine the probability that the persona usual diet is meeting his or her nutrient needs and whether the person is at risk for adverse effects from excessive intakes, whereas the goal of planning an individual's intake is to ensure that the probability of inadequate intake and the likelihood of excessive intake are both small. The goal of assessing intakes of groups is to determine the prevalence of inadequate intakes and the prevalence of potentially excessive intakes, whereas the goal of planning nutrient intakes for groups is to minimize the prevalence of inadequate intakes and also to minimize the prevalence of potentially excessive intakes. For all of these goals, it is important to utilize appropriate food-composition tables and accurate dietary assessment methods. To fully utilize the new paradigm, it will be necessary for the professional nutrition community to identify ways to implement these new procedures in nutrition research and nutrition programs, to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the results, and to contribute to the evolution of both the theory and the application of the NIVs when planning and assessing diets.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available