4.5 Article

Intakes of whole grain in an Italian sample of children, adolescents and adults

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 56, 期 2, 页码 521-533

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00394-015-1097-5

关键词

Whole grain; Nutrients; Food source; Diet quality

资金

  1. Cereal Partners Worldwide (CPW) SA, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is wide evidence that regular consumption of whole grain foods may reduce the risk of chronic diseases. The aim of this work was to quantify the intake of whole grains and identify main dietary sources in the Italian population. Whole grain intakes were calculated in a sample of 2830 adults/older adults and of 440 children/adolescents from the last national survey INRAN-SCAI 2005-06. Food consumption was assessed from a 3-day food record. The whole grain content of foods was estimated mainly from quantitative ingredient declarations on labels. Mean whole grain intakes were 3.7 g/day in adults/older adults and 2.1 g/day in children/adolescents. Overall, 23 % of the sample reported consumption of whole grain foods during the survey, among which mean whole grain intakes ranged from 6.0 g/day in female children to 19.1 g/day in female older adults. The main sources of whole grains were breakfast cereals in children/adolescents (32 %) and bread in adults/older adults (46 %). Consumption of whole grain among adults was associated with significantly higher daily intakes and adequacy of dietary fibre, several vitamins (thiamine, riboflavin, vitamin B-6) and minerals (iron, calcium, potassium, phosphorus, zinc, magnesium) compared to non-consumption. Among children, whole grain intake was associated with significantly higher intakes of iron and magnesium. The study reveals very low whole grain intakes across all age groups of the Italian population. Considering the positive association in consumers between whole grain intakes and fibre and micro-nutrient intakes, public health strategies to increase whole grain consumption should be considered.

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