4.3 Review

A Scoping Review of Current Guidelines on Dietary Fat and Fat Quality

期刊

ANNALS OF NUTRITION AND METABOLISM
卷 77, 期 2, 页码 65-82

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000515671

关键词

Scoping review; Dietary fat; Dietary guidelines; Fat quality; Recommendations

资金

  1. International Union of Nutritional Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The scoping review highlighted the wide range of recommendations on dietary fat intake in dietary guidelines, with most guidelines suggesting a daily total fat intake of 30-35% of total energy intake, emphasizing the replacement of saturated fatty acids with unsaturated fatty acids, and the avoidance of industrial trans fats.
Introduction: We conducted a scoping review of dietary guidelines with the intent of developing a position paper by the IUNS Task force on Dietary Fat Quality tasked to summarize the available evidence and provide the basis for dietary recommendations. Methods: We systematically searched several databases and Web sites for relevant documents published between 2015 and 2019. Results: Twenty documents were included. Quantitative range intake recommendations for daily total fat intake included boundaries from 20 to 35% of total energy intake (TEI), for monounsaturated fat (MUFA) 10-25%, for polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) 6-11%, for saturated-fat (SFA) <= 11-<= 7%, for industrial trans-fat (TFA) <= 2-0%, and <300-<200 mg/d for dietary cholesterol. The methodological approaches to grade the strength of recommendations were heterogeneous, and varied highly between the included guidelines. Only the World Health Organization applied the GRADE approach and graded the following recommendation as strong: to reduce SFA to below 10%, and TFA to below 1% and replace both with PUFA if SFA intake is greater than 10% of TEI. Conclusion: Although the methodological approaches of the dietary guidelines were heterogeneous, most of them recommend total fat intakes of 30-<= 35% of TEI, replacement of SFA with PUFA and MUFA, and avoidance of industrial TFA.

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