Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:07:03.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the prevalence of nutrient inadequacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Alicia L Carriquiry
Alicia L Carriquiry*
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011-1210, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

To describe an approach for assessing the prevalence of nutrient inadequacy in a group, using daily intake data and the new Estimated Average Requirement (EAR).

Design:

Observing the proportion of individuals in a group whose usual intake of a nutrient is below their requirement for the nutrient is not possible in general. We argue that this proportion can be well approximated in many cases by counting, instead, the number of individuals in the group whose intakes are below the EAR for the nutrient.

Setting:

This is a methodological paper, and thus emphasis is not on analysing specific data sets. For illustration of one of the statistical methods presented herein, we have used the 1989–91 Continuing Survey on Food Intakes by Individuals.

Results:

We show that the EAR and a reliable estimate of the usual intake distribution in the group of interest can be used to assess the proportion of individuals in the group whose usual intakes are not meeting their requirements. This approach, while simple, does not perform well in every case. For example, it cannot be used on energy, since intakes and requirements for energy are highly correlated. Similarly, iron in menstruating women presents some difficulties, due to the fact that the distribution of iron requirements in this group is known to be skewed.

Conclusions:

The apparently intractable problem of assessing the proportion of individuals in a group whose usual intakes of a nutrient are not meeting their requirements can be solved by comparing usual intakes to the EAR for the nutrient, as long as some conditions are met. These are: (1) intakes and requirements for the nutrient must be independent, (2) the distribution of requirements must be approximately symmetric around its mean, the EAR, and (3) the variance of the distribution of requirements should be smaller than the variance of the usual intake distribution.

Keywords

EARInadequate intakesRequirementsProbability approachIntake distribution
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 1999 , pp. 23 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © CABI Publishing 1999

References

1National Research Council. Nutrient Adequacy: Assessment Using Food Consumption Surveys. Report of the Food and Nutrition Board. Washington, DC, National Academy of Sciences. 1986.Google Scholar
2Nusser, SM, Carriquiry, AL, Dodd, KW, Fuller, WA. A semiparametric transformation approach to estimating usual daily intake distributions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1996; 91: 1440–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Guenther, PM, Kott, PS, Carriquiry, AL. Development of an approach for estimating usual nutrient intake distributions at the population level. J. Nutr. 1997; 127: 1106–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Carriquiry, AL, Nusser, SM. Analyzing Dietary Intake Data. Ames: Iowa State University, Department of Statistics, 1998.Google Scholar
5Beaton, GH. Criteria of an adequate diet. In: Shils, RE, Olson, JA, Shike, M, eds. Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1994: 1491–505.Google Scholar
6Murphy, SP. The need for different recommendations for individual and population intakes. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley, 1994.Google Scholar
7Lörstad, MH. Recommended intake and its relation to nutrient deficiency. FAO Nutr. Newsletter 1971; 9: 18–31.Google Scholar
8Peterkin, BB, Kerr, RL, Hama, MY. Nutritional adequacy of diets of low-income households. J. Nutr. Educ. 1982; 14: 102–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Life Sciences Research Office. Guidelines for use of dietary intake data. Anderson, SA. ed. Bethesda, MD: Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 1986.Google Scholar
10Hegsted, DM. Problems in the use and interpretation of the Recommended Dietary Allowances. Ecol. Food Nutr. 1972; 1: 255–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Beaton, GH. What do we think we are estimating? In: Beal, VA, Laus, MJ, eds. Proceedings of the Symposium on Dietary Data Collection, Analysis, and Significance. Res. Bull. No. 675, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1982.Google Scholar
12Beaton, GH. Empiric relationships between intake and requirement distributions. Report submitted to the Food and Nutrition Board, Institutes of Medicine, 1995.Google Scholar
13Sempos, CT, Johnson, NE, Smith, EL, Gilligan, C. Effects of intraindividual and interindividual variation in repeated dietary records. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1985; 121: 120–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Aickin, M, Rittenbaugh, C, Woolf, K. A general method for adjusting dietary data to obtain stable estimates of usual intake. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1994; 59: 303S (abstract).Google Scholar
15Emrich, JE, Dennison, D, Dennison, K. Distributional shape of nutrition data. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1989; 89: 665–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Carriquiry, AL, Dodd, KW, Nusser, SM. Estimating adjusted intake and blood biochemical measurement distributions for NHANES III. Report submitted to the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Department of Statistics, Iowa State University, 1997.Google Scholar
17Beaton, GH, Chery, A. Protein requirements of infants: a reexamination of concepts and approaches. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1988; 105: 914–23.Google Scholar
18 FAO/WHO/UNU. Energy and Protein Requirements. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation. WHO Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 724, 1985.Google Scholar
19 FAO/WHO. Requirements of Vitamin A, Iron, Folate, and Vitamin B12. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation. FAO Food and Nutrition Ser. No. 23. 1988.Google Scholar
20Beaton, GH. Recommended dietary intakes: individuals and populations. In: Williams, G, Wilkins, S, eds. Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, ninth edition. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1998.Google Scholar
21Dewey, KG, Beaton, GH, Fjeld, C, Lonnerdal, B, Reeds, P. Protein requirements of infants and children. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1996; 50: S119–S150.Google ScholarPubMed
22Borrelli, R, Cole, TJ, Di Biase, G, Contaldo, F. Some statistical considerations on dietary assessment methods. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1989; 43: 453–63.Google ScholarPubMed
23Beaton, GH, Burema, J, Rittenbaugh, C. Errors in the interpretation of dietary assessments. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1997; 65: 1100S–1107S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Carriquiry, AL, Fuller, WA, Goyeneche, JJ, Jensen, HH. Estimated correlations among days for the combined 1989–91 CSFII. Dietary Assessment Research Series 4. CARD Staff Report 95-SR77. Ames: Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, 1995.Google Scholar