4.1 Article

Diet quality in young children is influenced by beverage consumption

期刊

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07315724.2005.10719445

关键词

diet quality; milk; juice; soda pop

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01-RR00059] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCR NIH HHS [R01-DE09551, R01-DE12101] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Replacement of milk with sugar-containing beverages could affect calcium intake and overall diet quality. Objective: To describe dairy food, 100% juice and added sugar beverage intakes, contributions of dairy foods to diet quality, and effects of beverages on diet quality in young children. Methods: We surveyed participants in the Iowa Fluoride Study (n = 645) at ages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years and calculated intakes for 1-5 years (i.e. weighted averages). Nutrient, dairy food and beverage intakes were obtained from 3-day diaries; nutrient adequacy ratios were calculated as the nutrient intake to Recommended Dietary Allowance/Adequate Intake ratio; and dairy-dependent percentages were calculated as fractions of total diet nutrient adequacy ratios (truncated at 1) not met by non-dairy foods. Results: Milk intakes were inversely associated with intakes of juice drinks (2, 4, 5 and 1-5 years), soda pop (2, 3, 4, 5 and 1-5 years) and added sugar beverages (2, 3, 4, 5 and 1-5 years). Dairy dependent fractions of 1-5 year nutrient adequacy ratios were 68% for calcium and 61% for vitamin D. Higher 1-5 year calcium adequacy was predicted by higher energy, higher other dairy and lower added sugar beverage intakes while higher vitamin D adequacy was predicted by higher energy and higher other dairy intakes. Overall diet quality was predicted by higher energy, higher other dairy, lower 100% juice and lower added sugar beverage intakes. Conclusions: Dairy foods remain an important source of calcium and vitamin D, while added sugar beverages and, to a lesser extent, 100% juice decrease diet quality of young children.

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

4.1
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