Nutrition Today最新文献

Infant formula (IF) is crucial for meeting the nutrient needs of some infants and toddlers, underscoring the need for continued monitoring of their use, composition, and contribution to nutrient intakes in this group. The objectives were to estimate among infants and toddlers aged 0 to 23 months: (1) percentage using IF, (2) mean IF nutrient content per 100 kcal, (3) percentage using IF with selected bioactives, (4) percentage using frequently reported product brands, and (5) percentage consuming both IF and dietary supplements (DSs). Data from a sample of infants and toddlers aged 0 to 23 months (n = 389) from the 2019 to March 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were analyzed. Nearly half (45.7%) of infants and toddlers consumed IF within the past 14 days. Most IF users were infants aged 0 to 11 months: 47.7% were 0 to 5 months, 42.1% were 6 to 11 months, and about 10% were toddlers 12 to 23 months. On average, the reported IFs contained the US Food and Drug Administration-specified required nutrients in quantities within the US Food and Drug Administration standards. Some IF users (8.5%) used more than one IF product within the 2-week period. About 68% of infants and 10% of toddlers consumed an IF with docosahexaenoic acid. Additionally, 7% and 19% of infants consumed a product with probiotics or prebiotics, respectively; less than 5% used a product with both. Enfamil^® RT products were used by 40.9% of IF users, Similac^® RT by 38.6%, and Gerber^® RT by 9.1%. Overall, 20.6% of infants and toddlers used DSs. Among IF users, 13.1% also used DSs: 16.7% aged 0 to 5 months, 10.8% aged 6 to 11 months, and 5.6% aged 12 to 23 months. Among infant IF users, the majority used products with docosahexaenoic acid, smaller percentages used products with probiotics/prebiotics, and more than one-tenth used DSs. Comprehensive dietary assessments for this age group are needed to capture accurate nutrient and bioactive intakes.

The Dietary Fiber (fiber) Terminology Roundtable was organized to address crucial issues concerning current definitions of dietary fiber and the pressing need to resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in fiber terminology. This publication captures valuable insights and diverse perspectives from a multidisciplinary group of experts who span research areas, including fiber and carbohydrate research in human health, fiber analysis and methodology, and food and nutrition ontology development and application, as well as food composition data and public health. Although health is a critical concern, the use of the word "health" here is directly tied to its intrinsic role in regulatory definitions of dietary fiber. The presentations supported the view of dietary fiber as an essential food component with significant potential to improve health, underscoring the need for clarity in language and communication. Additionally, the concept of a systematic ontological framework was introduced as a highly valuable and most suitable solution to facilitate clear communication about fiber in research, education, healthcare, and industry. As a result, a Dietary Fiber Ontology Working Group has been formed, and the collective expertise within the group will contribute to the creation of an open-access fiber ontology. This effort aims to not only address educational aspects but also support the identification of fiber-related health outcomes and the underlying mechanisms responsible for biological effects.

The state of the science of nutrition and its relationship to brain health is complex, making dissemination of research findings difficult. One contributing factor is the lack of a consensus on defining brain health. Some organizations emphasize cognitive function (eg, memory, perception, judgment, decline, impairment) and/or the presence of dementia, whereas others use a broader conceptualization to include mood and stress. Regarding nutrition, some studies support specific dietary patterns, such as the MIND (Mediterranean-Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay) diet, for preserving cognitive function. Others find no effect. Public-facing organizations communicate this science in varying ways to meet consumer and patient needs and interest in preserving brain function as they age. Some organizations have standardized communication methods, whereas others communicate based on topics most salient to the consumer or patient, regardless of the strength of the evidence. This conceptual article reflects a roundtable discussion among stakeholders to document processes for communicating the state of the science to inform best practices moving forward. Six best practices are offered to ensure consistent, evidence-based communication, which is vital in the digital age where misinformation is pervasive.