4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Commonly consumed protein foods contribute to nutrient intake, diet quality, and nutrient adequacy

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 101, 期 6, 页码 1346S-1352S

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.114.084079

关键词

diet quality; mineral; nutrient density; vitamin; nutrient rich; animal protein

资金

  1. Beef Checkoff
  2. Dairy Research Institute
  3. Egg Nutrition Center
  4. Global Dairy Platform
  5. Hillshire Brands
  6. National Pork Board
  7. USDA/Agricultural Research Service [58-6250-0-008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The amount of dietary protein needed to prevent deficiency in most individuals is defined in the United States and Canada by the Recommended Dietary Allowance and is currently set at 0.8 g protein . kg(-1) . d(-1) for adults. To meet this protein recommendation, the intake of a variety of protein food sources is advised. The goal of this article is to show that commonly consumed food sources of protein are more than just protein but also significant sources of essential nutrients. Commonly consumed sources of dietary protein frequently contribute substantially to intakes of nutrients such as calcium, vitamin D, potassium, dietary fiber, iron, and folate, which have been identified as nutrients of concern (i.e., intakes are often lower than recommended). Despite this, dietary recommendations to reduce intakes of saturated fat and solid fats may result in dietary guidance to reduce intakes of commonly consumed food sources of protein, in particular animal-based protein. We propose that following such dietary guidance would make it difficult to meet recommended intakes for a number of nutrients, at least without marked changes in dietary consumption patterns. These apparently conflicting pieces of dietary guidance are hard to reconcile; however, we view it as prudent to advise the intake of high-quality dietary protein to ensure adequate intakes of a number of nutrients, particularly nutrients of concern.

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