4.3 Review

Systematic Review on Daily Vitamin B12 Losses and Bioavailability for Deriving Recommendations on Vitamin B12 Intake with the Factorial Approach

期刊

ANNALS OF NUTRITION AND METABOLISM
卷 62, 期 4, 页码 311-322

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000346968

关键词

Bioavailability; EURRECA; Nutritional requirements; Recommended dietary allowances; Review; Vitamin B12

资金

  1. Commission of the European Communities, a specific research, technology and development program Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources, within the Sixth Framework Program [036196]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To systematically review the literature on daily losses and bioavailability of vitamin B12. These estimates could be used for deriving recommendations on vitamin B12 intake for adults and elderly. Methods: We identified publications on daily vitamin B12 losses (July 2011) and publications on the bioavailability of vitamin B12 from foods or diets (June 2010) in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Results: A pooled analysis of five studies (52 subjects) showed that 0.13 +/- 0.03% of the total body store is lost per day. Absorption of vitamin B12 ranged from 4.5 (dose of 38 mu g from consumption of liver) to 83% (dose of 3.0 mu g from consumption of mutton meat). Data from eight studies including 83 subjects suggested that the amount of vitamin B12 absorbed from food (A(i)) increased with increasing doses of vitamin B12 (D-i) as described by the equation: ln(A(i)) = 0.7694 * ln(D-i) - 0.9614. Conclusion: Daily vitamin B12 losses in apparently healthy adults and elderly probably range from 1.4 to 5.1 mu g. Vitamin B12 intakes needed to compensate for these losses seem to range from 3.8 to 20.7 mu g. More evidence is needed on the relationships between biochemical markers of vitamin B12 status, vitamin B12 body store and long-term health outcomes to evaluate whether current recommendations on vitamin B12 intake (1.4-3 mu g) need to be changed. Copyright (c) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

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