4.5 Article

What is a healthy Nordic diet? Foods and nutrients in the NORDIET study

期刊

FOOD & NUTRITION RESEARCH
卷 56, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SWEDISH NUTRITION FOUNDATION-SNF
DOI: 10.3402/fnr.v56i0.18189

关键词

Nordic foods; nutrient intake; food intake; Swedish reference population; Nordic nutrition recommendations

资金

  1. Cerealia Foundation
  2. Cerealia Foundation RD
  3. NordForsk Nordic Centre of Excellence of Food, Nutrition and Health (SYSDIET)
  4. Swedish Research Council
  5. Diabetesfonden
  6. Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A healthy Nordic diet (ND), a diet based on foods originating from the Nordic countries, improves blood lipid profile and insulin sensitivity and lowers blood pressure and body weight in hypercholesterolemic subjects. Objective: To describe and compare food and nutrient composition of the ND in relation to the intake of a Swedish reference population (SRP) and the recommended intake (RI) and average requirement (AR), as described by the Nordic nutrition recommendations (NNR). Design: The analyses were based on an estimate of actual food and nutrient intake of 44 men and women (mean age 53 +/- 8 years, BMI 26 +/- 3), representing an intervention arm receiving ND for 6 weeks. Results: The main difference between ND and SRP was the higher intake of plant foods, fish, egg and vegetable fat and a lower intake of meat products, dairy products, sweets and desserts and alcoholic beverages during ND (p<0.001 for all food groups). Intake of cereals and seeds was similar between ND and SRP (p>0.3). The relative intake of protein, fat and carbohydrates during ND was in accordance with RI. Intake of all vitamins and minerals was above AR, whereas sodium intake was below RI. Conclusions: When compared with the food intake of an SRP, ND is primarily a plant-based diet. ND represents a balanced food intake that meets the current RI and AR of NNR 2004 and has a dietary pattern that is associated with decreased morbidity and mortality.

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