4.5 Article

Frequency of fruit and vegetable consumption and blood antioxidants in the Caerphilly cohort of older men

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 54, 期 11, 页码 828-833

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601101

关键词

fruit; vegetables; antioxidant vitamins; carotenoids; tocopherols; retinol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the number of portions of fruit and vegetables consumed daily by a large representative sample of older men, and to determine how blood antioxidant (vitamins E, A and carotenoids) concentrations vary with fruit and vegetable consumption. Design: Cross-sectional study of free-living men. Subjects: Men aged 55-69 y (dietary data, n = 1957; blood data, n = 1874) participating in Phase III (1989-1993) of the Caerphilly and Speedwell Collaborative Heart Disease Studies. Methods: Dietary data were obtained by semi-quantitative food-frequency questionnaire and blood samples were analysed for antioxidant vitamins. Men were subdivided into groups on the basis of portions per day of fruit and vegetables. Within these sub-groups, mean and 95% ranges of intakes and of blood antioxidant levels were obtained. Log transformations were performed where appropriate. Results: Only 4.3% of the men met the recommended target of five portions, while 33.3% of the men consumed one or fewer portions of fruit and vegetables per day. Those men who consumed the poorest diets with respect to fruit and vegetable intakes were more likely to be from lower socio-economic classes, drink more alcohol and be current smokers. Fruit and vegetable intake reflected plasma concentrations of antioxidants, which showed a dose-response relationship to frequency of consumption. Conclusions: Older men in the UK consume much less fruit and vegetables than current recommendations. Major difficulties are likely to be encountered in trying to meet a dietary target that is clearly much higher than the fruit and vegetable consumption of large sections of the older population in the UK.

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

4.5
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