4.3 Article

Evidence of dietary inadequacy in adults with chronic spinal cord injury

期刊

SPINAL CORD
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 318-322

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sc.2008.134

关键词

spinal cord injury; diet; DRI; nutrient; adequacy; SHAPE SCI

资金

  1. SHAPE SCI
  2. Canadian Institutes for Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study design: Cross-sectional, observational study. Objective: Estimate prevalence of inadequate dietary intakes in community-dwelling men and women with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). Setting: Ontario, Canada. Methods: In-home interviewer administered multiple-pass 24-h recalls were collected at baseline (n = 77) and at 6 months (n = 68). Dietary intake (adjusted to remove intra-individual variation) was compared with the dietary reference intakes (DRIs), specifically the estimated average requirement, adequate intake (AI) and acceptable macronutrient distribution ranges (AMDR). Results: Macronutrient intakes, as percentages of daily energy, for men (16% protein, 52% carbohydrate, 30% fat) and women (17% protein, 53% carbohydrate, 28% fat) were within the AMDR. Despite this, inadequate intakes for men (n = 63) and women (n = 14) were determined for vitamin A (92 and 57%), magnesium (89 and 71%), folate (75 and 79%), zinc (71 and 29%), vitamin C (52 and 14%), thiamine (22 and 14%), vitamin B12 (6 and 29%), riboflavin (5% men) and vitamin B6 (24% men). Mean usual intakes of fiber, vitamin D, calcium and potassium fell below the AI for men and women. In all, 53% of participants consumed a micronutrient supplement in the previous 24 h at baseline and at 6 months-specifically, calcium (29, 19%), multivitamin (26, 25%), vitamin D (22, 12%) and vitamin C (9, 6%). Conclusion: Our results show numerous nutrient inadequacies, relative to the DRIs, for men and women with SCI. This study has important implications for clinical dietetic practice in the SCI population. Sponsorship: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

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

4.3
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