4.7 Article

A New Approach to Assess Lifetime Dietary Patterns Finds Lower Consumption of Animal Foods with Aging in a Longitudinal Analysis of a Health-Oriented Adventist Population

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu9101118

关键词

diet; vegetarian; dietary patterns; Adventists; dietary recall; life-course nutrition; foods of animal origin; lifetime diet patterns

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (NIH/NCI) [5U01CA152939]
  2. World Cancer Research Fund, UK [2009/93]
  3. USA Department of Agriculture (USDA) [2010-38938-20924]
  4. World Cancer Research Fund UK (WCRF UK) [2009/93] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Life-course diet patterns may impact risk of disease, but little is known about dietary trends with aging. In a retrospective longitudinal analysis we estimated lifetime intake of animal products and adherence to vegetarian dietary patterns among 51,082 Adventist Health Study-2 (AHS-2) subjects using data from a reliable life-course dietary (meats, dairy, eggs) questionnaire. Results showed a marked tendency to consume fewer animal products (in total) in older years and to reduce consumption of meat, poultry and fish, but not eggs or dairy. Among the 29% of elderly subjects who during their lifetime kept the same dietary pattern (LTS) were: LTS-vegans (1.1%), LTS-lacto-ovo vegetarians (31.2%), LTS-pesco vegetarians (0.49%), LTS-semi vegetarians (3.7%), and LTS-non-vegetarians (63.5%). Among the 71% of switchers were Converters (59.7%) who moved towards and Reverters (9.1%) who moved away from vegetarian diets, and Multiverters (31.2%), who had moved in both directions. LTS-non-vegetarians, and also reverters, were more overweight and showed a less healthy lifestyle than others. We conclude that the dietary patterns are dynamic with strong trends to reduce animal foods and to adopt more vegetarian patterns with aging. The disease experience of subjects with different lifetime dietary patterns can be compared.

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