Barr Susan I, Murphy Suzanne P, Poos Mary I
University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2002 Jun;102(6):780-8. doi: 10.1016/s0002-8223(02)90177-x.
For individuals, a statistical approach is available to compare observed intakes to the EAR or AI (to assess adequacy), and the UL (to assess risk of excess). A more qualitative assessment of intakes involves comparison directly to the RDA to evaluate adequacy, but this is accurate only if long-term usual intake is known. For groups of people, the prevalence of inadequacy can usually be estimated as the proportion with intakes below the EAR, while the prevalence of potentially excessive intakes is estimated as the proportion above the UL. The accuracy of all assessments depends on unbiased and accurate intake estimates as well as a consideration of the effects of day-to-day variation in intake. Nutrition practitioners will find the new DRIs useful for assessing diets in a variety of settings. Computerized assessment systems will be important tools when incorporating these theoretical concepts into dietetic practice.
对于个体而言,可以采用统计学方法将观察到的摄入量与EAR或AI进行比较(以评估充足性),并与UL进行比较(以评估过量风险)。对摄入量进行更定性的评估是直接与RDA进行比较以评估充足性,但这只有在知道长期通常摄入量时才准确。对于人群组,不足发生率通常可估计为摄入量低于EAR的人群比例,而潜在过量摄入量的发生率则估计为高于UL的人群比例。所有评估的准确性取决于无偏差且准确的摄入量估计值以及对摄入量每日变化影响的考量。营养从业者会发现新的膳食营养素参考摄入量在各种情况下评估饮食时都很有用。将这些理论概念纳入饮食实践时,计算机化评估系统将成为重要工具。