4.5 Article

One-month of calcium supplementation does not affect iron bioavailability: A randomized controlled trial

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 44-48

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2013.06.007

关键词

Iron; Calcium; Women; Bioavailability

资金

  1. Chilean National Research Council [FONDECYT 1095038]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Calcium (ca) and iron (Fe) are essential minerals for normal growth and development. Although previous studies have shown that Ca inhibits acute Fe absorption, there is no evidence of the possible long- or medium-term effects of Ca supplementation on Fe bioavailability. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of 34 d of Ca supplementation on heme Fe and non-heme Fe bioavailability in non-pregnant women of ages 33 to 47 y. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Twenty-six healthy women (40 +/- 5 y) were randomly assigned to receive either 600 mg of elemental Ca/d as CaCO3 (Ca group, n = 13) or a placebo (P group, n = 13) for 34 d. Heme Fe and non-heme Fe bioavailability were determined before and after treatment using Fe-55 and Fe-59 radioisotopes. A two-factor, repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to assess differences by treatment and timing. Results: The geometric mean (range +/- 1 SD) of heme Fe bioavailability before and after treatment was 16.5% (8.3-32.8) and 26% (15.5-43.6) for the Ca group and 21.8% (13.0-36.6) and 25.1% (16.5-38.3) for the P group. Non-heme Fe bioavailability before and after treatment was 39.5% (19.9-78.7) and 34.1% (19.1-60.6) for the Ca group, and 44.6% (24.9-79.7) and 39.3% (24.3-63.4) for the P group. There were no differences in either heme Fe or non-heme Fe bioavailability either at baseline or after treatment. Conclusion: The administration of calcium supplements for 34 d does not affect iron bioavailability. This trial is registered with Controlled-trials.gov, number ISRCTN 89888123. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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