4.7 Article

Ascorbic acid from lime juice does not improve the iron status of iron-deficient women in rural Mexico

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 78, 期 2, 页码 267-273

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL NUTRITION
DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/78.2.267

关键词

iron deficiency; bioavailability; ascorbic acid; ferritin; transferrin receptors; women; community trial; rural Mexico

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although ascorbic acid (AA) increases dietary iron bioavailability, there has been no food-based community trial of its efficacy in improving iron status. Objective: The objective was to assess the efficacy of 25 mg AA as agua de limon (limeade), consumed with each of 2 daily meals, in improving the iron status of iron-deficient women. Design: Two rural Mexican populations were randomly assigned to an AA or a placebo group, each with 18 iron-deficient women. The AA group was given 500 mL limeade containing 25 mg AA twice a day, 6 d/wk, for 8 mo. The placebo group was given a lime-flavored beverage free of AA or citric acid. Beverages were consumed within 30 min of 2 main daily meals. Data were collected on morbidity (3 times/wk), dietary intake (on 6 d), socioeconomic status, parasites (twice), medical history, and response to treatment. Blood samples at 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 mo were analyzed for hemoglobin, plasma AA, plasma ferritin, transferrin receptors, and C-reactive protein. Results: AA intake was significantly (P < 0.0001) higher in the AA group, but nonheme iron, heme iron, and phytic acid intakes did not differ significantly. Plasma AA was significantly (P < 0.01) higher in the AA group at 2, 4, 6, and 8 mo. There were no final differences between groups in hemoglobin, plasma ferritin, or transferrin receptor concentrations or in the ratio of transferrin receptors to plasma ferritin after control for initial concentrations. Conclusion: Increasing dietary AA by 25 mg at each of 2 meals/d did not improve iron status in iron-deficient women consuming diets high in phytate and nonheme iron.

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