Suppr超能文献

明尼苏达州“每日五份蔬果强化计划”中针对四年级学生的三种蔬果计数方法比较。

Comparison of 3 methods for counting fruits and vegetables for fourth-grade students in the Minnesota 5 A Day Power Plus Program.

作者信息

Eldridge A L, Smith-Warner S A, Lytle L A, Murray D M

机构信息

Food and Beverage Division, Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, Ohio 45224, USA.

出版信息

J Am Diet Assoc. 1998 Jul;98(7):777-82; quiz 783-4. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8223(98)00175-8.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare fruit and vegetable servings calculated from 24-hour dietary recall data using 3 methods: a counting scheme developed for the 5 A Day for Better Health study, a method developed by the University of Minnesota Cancer Prevention Research Unit to quantify total consumption of fruits and vegetables, and a counting scheme based on the US Food and Drug Administration's Reference Amounts. The counting methods differ by food items counted and by serving sizes for those items.

SUBJECTS/SETTING: Record-assisted 24-hour dietary recalls were collected from 617 randomly selected fourth-grade students (317 girls, 300 boys) from 23 schools in St Paul, Minn, participating in the Minnesota 5 A Day Power Plus Program.

DESIGN

The dietary recalls were analyzed using the Minnesota Nutrition Data System (version 2.6/8a/23). Total servings of fruits and vegetables, servings of vegetables, servings of fruits plus juices, servings of fruit juice, and servings of fruit excluding juice were tallied using each counting method.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

A mixed-model Poisson regression analysis was conducted to compare numbers of servings calculated using the 3 methods.

RESULTS

Counts of daily total fruits and vegetables averaged 3.9 servings with the 5 A Day method, 4.1 servings using US Food and Drug Administration Reference Amounts, and 5.1 servings with the Minnesota Cancer Prevention Research Unit method (P < .0001).

APPLICATIONS

Because the different counting methods yield different tallies of fruit and vegetable intake, it is important for researchers and practitioners interested in fruit and vegetable consumption to be clear about their uses of the data before choosing a counting scheme.

摘要

目的

使用三种方法比较根据24小时饮食回忆数据计算出的水果和蔬菜摄入量:为“每日五份,健康更佳”研究开发的计数方案、明尼苏达大学癌症预防研究单位开发的量化水果和蔬菜总消费量的方法,以及基于美国食品药品监督管理局参考量的计数方案。这些计数方法在计算的食物项目以及这些项目的食用量方面存在差异。

对象/背景:从明尼苏达州圣保罗市23所学校随机抽取的617名四年级学生(317名女生,300名男生)中收集了有记录辅助的24小时饮食回忆数据,这些学生参与了明尼苏达“每日五份,增强活力”计划。

设计

使用明尼苏达营养数据系统(版本2.6/8a/23)对饮食回忆数据进行分析。使用每种计数方法统计水果和蔬菜的总份数、蔬菜份数、水果加果汁份数、果汁份数以及不含果汁的水果份数。

统计分析

进行混合模型泊松回归分析,以比较使用三种方法计算出的份数。

结果

使用“每日五份”方法时,每日水果和蔬菜的平均份数为3.9份;使用美国食品药品监督管理局参考量时为4.1份;使用明尼苏达癌症预防研究单位方法时为5.1份(P <.0001)。

应用

由于不同的计数方法得出的水果和蔬菜摄入量计数不同,对于对水果和蔬菜消费感兴趣的研究人员和从业者来说,在选择计数方案之前明确数据的用途非常重要。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验