4.6 Article

Dietary patterns of rural older adults are associated with weight and nutritional status

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 52, 期 4, 页码 589-595

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52167.x

关键词

dietary pattern; nutritional status; weight status

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To characterize dietary patterns of rural older adults and relate patterns to weight and nutritional status. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: Rural Pennsylvania. Participants: One hundred seventy-nine community-dwelling adults aged 66 to 87 years. Measurements: A home visit was conducted to collect demographic, health behavior, and anthropometric data and a blood sample. Five 24-hour dietary recall were administered. Cluster analysis classified participants into dietary patterns using food subgroup servings. Chi-square, analysis of covariance, and logistic regression were used to assess differences across clusters. Results: A low-nutrient-dense cluster (n=107), with higher intake of breads, sweet breads/desserts, dairy desserts, processed meats, eggs, and fats/oils, and a high-nutrient-dense cluster (n=72) with higher intake of cereals, dark green/yellow vegetables, other vegetables, citrus/melons/berries, fruit juices, other fruits, milks, poultry, fish, and beans, were identified. Those in the high-nutrient-dense cluster had lower energy intake; higher energy-adjusted intake of fiber, iron, zinc, folate, and vitamins B-6, B-12, and D; higher Healthy Eating Index scores; higher plasma vitamin B-12 levels; and a lower waist circumference. Those with a low-nutrient-dense dietary pattern were twice as likely to be obese, twice as likely to have low plasma vitamin B-12 levels, and three to 17 times more likely to have low nutrient intake. Conclusion: This study provides support for recommending a high-nutrient-dense dietary pattern for older adults. Behavioral interventions encouraging diets characterized by high-nutrient-dense foods may improve weight and nutritional status of older adults.

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

4.6
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