4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Food, plant food, and vegetarian diets in the US dietary guidelines: conclusions of an expert panel

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 89, 期 5, 页码 S1549-S1552

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.26736C

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We summarize conclusions drawn from a panel discussion at the Fifth International Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition about the roles of and emphasis on food, plant food, and vegetarianism in current and future US dietary guidelines. The most general recommendation of the panel was that future dietary guidelines, following the lead of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, should emphasize food-based recommendations and thinking to the full extent that evidence allows. Although nutrient-based thinking and Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) may help ensure an adequate diet in the sense that deficiency states are avoided, the emphasis on DRIs may not capture many important nutritional issues and may inhibit a focus on foods. More generally, in the context of the conference on vegetarian nutrition, this report focuses on the history and structure of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, on various plant food-oriented recommendations that are supported by literature evidence, and on mechanisms for participating in the process of forming dietary guidelines. Among recommendations that likely would improve health and the environment, some are oriented toward increased plant food consumption and some toward vegetarianism. The literature on health effects of individual foods and whole lifestyle diets is insufficient and justifies a call for future food-oriented research, including expanding the evidence base for plant-based and vegetarian diets. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee's role should be carried forward to creation of a publicly accessible icon (eg, the current pyramid) and related materials to ensure that the science base is fully translated for the public. Am J Clin Nutr 2009; 89(suppl): 1549S-52S.

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