MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3166977750 · doi:10.1093/milmed/usab222

Dietary Intakes From Ad Libitum Consumption of Canadian Armed Forces Field Rations Compared With Usual Home Dietary Intakes and Military Dietary Reference Intakes

2021· article· en· W3166977750 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Mavra Ahmed, Iva Mandić, Wendy Lou, Len Goodman, Ira Jacobs, Mary R L’ Abbé

Notice bibliographique

RevueMilitary Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueOccupational Health and Performance
Établissements canadiensDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésEnvironmental healthMedicineConsumption (sociology)Food scienceBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Diet has an impact on weight status, health, and physical performance. Assessing the usual at-home dietary intakes of military personnel can help ascertain their nutritional status before field training or operations. Preference for foods consumed on a routine basis can also impact the military's preference for and consumption of field rations. Military personnel are limited by the inherent nature of the field rations and availability of calories and food types; and despite previous studies indicating a high acceptability of the field rations, it is unknown whether military personnel self-select the same number of calories when faced with a restricted list of field ration options as they would from their usual foods. Although field rations are intended to be nutritionally sufficient for standard military operations, there are limited data on the ad libitum intake of nutrients of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel from field rations in comparison to the military dietary reference intake (MDRI) recommendations, which establishes standards intended to meet the nutritional requirements of military personnel on duty. Thus, assessing the adequacy of their usual diets at home and longer-term sustenance on field rations in relation to MDRIs can provide insight on CAF personnel's operational readiness. The objectives of this study were to describe and compare, in a convenience sample of CAF, their ad libitum nutrient intakes from the consumption of self-selected field rations at home with their usual home intakes and to compare both with MDRI recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen CAF participants weighed and recorded their dietary intake from the ad libitum consumption of field rations at home and their usual at-home diets. Both MDRIs and the Institute of Medicine's dietary reference intake recommendations were used to assess the adequacy of intakes for each individual. Paired Student's t-test or Wilcoxon-matched paired tests were used to compare nutrient intake levels between usual at-home diets and field rations consumed at home. RESULTS: Mean daily energy intakes were similar between ad libitum intakes from field rations (2,688 ± 619 kcal) and usual home diets (2,657 ± 580 kcal), although participants had significantly higher intakes of protein and fat from their home diets and higher intakes of carbohydrates from the field rations (P ≤ 0.05). Participants had less than the recommended intakes of some micronutrients (vitamins A and D, folate, calcium, magnesium, and potassium), from both their home diets and field rations, but adequate intakes of vitamin C and iron. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed no difference in energy intake between the consumption of field rations and home diets, with levels consistent with recommendations for individuals with average physical activity levels. The results also demonstrated less than the recommended intakes (in comparison with MDRIs) of some nutrients from both home diets and self-selected consumption of field rations, warranting further research into nutritional adequacy for operational readiness.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,457
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,128
Tête enseignante GPT0,384
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2021
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMilitary MedicineMême sujetOccupational Health and PerformanceTravaux en français237 207