4.6 Article

Repeated Exposure of Infants at Complementary Feeding to a Vegetable Puree Increases Acceptance as Effectively as Flavor-Flavor Learning and More Effectively Than Flavor-Nutrient Learning

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 143, 期 7, 页码 1194-1200

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/jn.113.175646

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Community's Seventh Framework Program [FP7-245012-HabEat]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Children's vegetable consumption is below the public health recommendations. This study aimed to compare learning mechanisms to increase vegetable acceptance in infants at complementary feeding, namely repeated exposure (RE), flavor-flavor learning (FFL), and flavor-nutrient learning (FNL); measure the stability of the learning effect; and examine the impact of infants' feeding history on vegetable acceptance. The study was composed of a preexposure test, an exposure period, a postexposure test, and tests at 2-wk, 3-mo, and 6-mo follow-ups. At pre- and postexposure, a basic artichoke pur e and carrot pur e were presented to 95 French infants (6.4 +/- 0.8 mo). During the exposure period, infants were randomly split into 3 groups and were exposed 10 times to the basic (RE group; 2 kJ/g; n = 32), a sweet (FFL group; 2 kJ/g; n = 32), or an energy-dense (FNL group; 6 kJ/g; n = 31) artichoke pur e 2 or 3 times/wk. To evaluate acceptance, intake (g) and liking were recorded at home by parents. Between pre- and postexposure, intake of the basic artichoke pur e significantly increased in the RE (+63%) and FFL (+39%) groups but not in the FNL group; liking increased only in the RE group (+21%). After exposure, artichoke was as much consumed and as much liked as carrot only in the RE group. Learning of artichoke acceptance was stable up to 3 mo postexposure. Initial artichoke intake was significantly related to the number of vegetables offered before the study started. RE is as effective as and simpler to implement than FFL and more effective than FNL for increasing vegetable acceptance at complementary feeding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据