4.5 Article

Many adult Canadians are not meeting current calcium recommendations from food and supplement intake

期刊

APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY NUTRITION AND METABOLISM
卷 34, 期 2, 页码 191-196

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/H09-005

关键词

calcium; nutrition; diet; intake; supplements; prevalence of adequacy; health; surveys

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to determine trends in calcium intake from foods of Canadian adults from 1970-1972 to 2004. We compiled the calcium intake of adults (aged >= 19 years) from foods from Nutrition Canada (1970-1972; n = 7036); 9 provincial nutrition surveys (1990-1999; n = 16 915); and the 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey 2.2 ( n = 20 197). Where possible, we used published confidence intervals to test for significant differences in calcium intake. In 2004, the mean calcium intake of Canadians was below Dietary Reference Intake recommendations for most adults, with the greatest difference in older adults (>= 51 years), in part because the recommended calcium intake for this group is higher (1200 mg) than that for younger adults (1000 mg). The calcium intake of males in every age category was greater than that of females. Calcium intake increased from 1970 to 2004, yet, despite the introduction of calcium-fortified beverages to the market in the late 1990s, increases in calcium intake between 1970 and 2004 were modest. Calcium intakes in provinces were mostly similar in the 1990s and in 2004, except for women in Newfoundland and Labrador, who consumed less, especially in the 1990s, and for young men in 2004 in Prince Edward Island, who consumed more. When supplemental calcium intake was added, mean intakes remained below recommended levels, except for males 19-30 years, but the prevalence of adequacy increased in all age groups, notably for women over 50 years. The calcium intake of Canadian adults remains in need of improvement, despite fortification and supplement use.

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