4.0 Article

Dietary Intake of Nutrients with Adequate Intake Values in the Dietary Reference Intakes for Japanese

期刊

出版社

CENTER ACADEMIC PUBL JAPAN
DOI: 10.3177/jnsv.59.584

关键词

Adequate Intake (AI); Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs); median intake; National Health and Nutrition Survey-Japan (NHNS-J)

资金

  1. Health and Labour Sciences Research Grant from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan [H22-Junkankitou [Seishuu]-Shitei-015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Adequate Intake (AI) values in: the Dietary Reference Intakes for Japanese (DRIs-J) 2010 were mainly determined based on the median intakes from 2 y of pooled data (2005-2006) from the National Health and Nutrition Survey-Japan (NHNS-J). However, it remains unclear whether 2 y of pooled data from the NHNS-J are appropriate for evaluating the intake of the population. To clarify the differences in nutrient intakes determined from 2 and 7 y of pooled data, we analyzed selected nutrient intake levels by sex and age groups using NHNS-J data. Intake data were obtained from 64,624 individuals (age: >= 1 y; 47.4% men) who completed a semi-weighed 1-d household dietary record that was part of the NHNS-J conducted annually in Japan from 2003 to 2009. There were no large differences between the median intakes calculated from 2 or 7 y of pooled data for n-6 or n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), vitamin D, pantothenic acid, potassium, or phosphorus. When the AI values and median intakes were compared, there was no large difference in the values for n-6 or n-3 PUFAs, pantothenic acid, or phosphorus. Conversely, the AI values for vitamin D and potassium differed from the median intakes of these nutrients for specific sex and age groups, because values were not based on NHNS-J data. Our results indicate that 2 y of pooled data from the NHNS-J adequately reflect the population's intake, and that the current system for determination of AI values will be applicable for future revisions.

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

4.0
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