4.7 Article

Dietary Acid Load in Gluten-Free Diets: Results from a Cross-Sectional Study

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 14, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu14153067

关键词

dietary acid load; potential renal acid load; net endogenous acid production; gluten-free diet; celiac disease; nutritional epidemiology; grains; acid-base homeostasis

资金

  1. Baden-Wuerttemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Art
  2. University of Freiburg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The gluten-free diet (GFD) improves clinical symptoms for celiac disease patients, but there is controversy over its effects on healthy individuals. This study found that adopting a GFD is associated with lower dietary acid load in the US population.
The gluten-free diet (GFD) ensures improvement of clinical symptoms in the vast majority of celiac disease (CD) patients. Despite stable CD rates in many countries, an increasing number of healthy individuals are adopting gluten-free diets, believing that this diet is an inherently healthier choice. The health effects of gluten-free diets are controversial, and a recent study added to the debate by reporting a lower acidogenic potential of this diet. The effects of the GFD on potential renal acid load (PRAL) and net endogenous acid production (NEAP)-two important markers of dietary acid load (DAL)-are poorly understood, and have never been examined in a Western population. Using cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, we estimated DAL in U.S. individuals reporting a GFD and contrasted the results to the general U.S. population consuming gluten and denying special diets. The GFD was associated with significantly lower crude DAL scores, and after adjustments for confounders in multivariate regression, the results remain significant. Yet, our study could not confirm the reported alkalizing properties of the GFD. Although overall DAL scores were significantly lower in the GFD group, they were comparable to Western diets producing 50-75 mEq of acid per day.

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

4.7
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