4.1 Article

Association of physical activity status with dietary energy density and nutritional adequacy

期刊

FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 42, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA CIENCIA TECNOLOGIA ALIMENTOS
DOI: 10.1590/fst.50021

关键词

physical activity; nutritional adequacy; energy density; NAR; MAR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the association between physical activity status and dietary energy density and nutritional adequacy. The results showed that physical activity status has different effects on the nutritional adequacy of men and women, with lower intake adequacy observed in active women. Additionally, dietary energy density was found to be lower in all active individuals.
This study evaluated the association of physical activity status with dietary energy density and nutritional adequacy. 205 individuals between the ages of 19-35 years (102 active, 103 inactive) (50% women) participated in the study. The individuals were grouped according to their physical activity status by gender. When the nutrient adequacy ratio (NAR) of the individuals' diets was evaluated, there was a significant difference between active and inactive men only in vitamin A and E adequacy (p < 0.05). On the other hand, energy, protein, calcium, iron, magnesium, zinc, niacin, vitamin E and folate intake adequacy were found to be lower in active women compared to inactive women (p < 0.05). While the mean adequacy ratio (MAR) of the diet did not differ among men, it was significantly higher in inactive women compared to active women (p < 0.05). Dietary energy density was found to be lower in all active individuals compared to inactive individuals (p < 0.05). A positive association was found between nutritional adequacy and body weight (p < 0.05), body mass index (p < 0.05), body fat percentage (p < 0.05) and fat free mass (p < 0.05) in inactive men. As a result, physical activity status can affect nutritional adequacy and dietary energy density, and this effect differs between genders.

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

4.1
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