MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lactating Women Restricting Milk Are Low on Select Nutrients

2007· article· en· W1964694266 on OpenAlexafffund
Cynthia Mannion, Katherine Gray‐Donald, Louise Johnson‐Down, Kristine G. Koski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Nutrition · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersHealth CanadaHealth Research BoardMcGill University
KeywordsNiacinRiboflavinMedicineNutrientVitaminMicronutrientDietary Reference IntakeLactationBreast milkAnimal sciencePregnancyVitamin D and neurologyPhysiologyFood scienceInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Currently there are no recommendations for vitamin/mineral supplementation for lactating women but supplementation may be important, particularly for those women who choose to restrict milk intake during lactation. The objective of this study was to assess nutrient adequacy for lactating women and compare their dietary intake, including supplements, between those who restrict milk and those who do not. METHODS: A cohort of 175 healthy exclusively breast-feeding women (19-45 yrs) recruited from prenatal classes were divided into milk restrictors (RS) defined as milk intake < or = 250 ml/day and non-restrictors (NRS) (>250 ml/day) and followed for six months postpartum. Participants provided repeated 24-hr dietary recalls, detailed use of vitamin/mineral supplements and reasons for restricting milk. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Observed intakes were adjusted to remove day-to-day variability. Nutrient intakes were estimated for macronutrients and vitamins C, D, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, and minerals, calcium and zinc, with and without vitamin/mineral supplements. Chi-square was used to compare the number of RS and NRS with intakes less than the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR). RESULTS: Milk restriction was practiced by 23% of the sample. Sixty per cent of RS reported protein intakes <EAR compared to 38% of NRS (chi(2) = 6.22, p < 0.05). Prior to supplementation, mean levels of calcium and vitamin D intakes for RS were below the adequate intake level (AI) and lower than NRS estimated intakes (p < 0.05). Following supplementation, mean levels of these nutrients reached AI for both groups. RS remained lower than NRS. RS had lower energy intakes than NRS (p < 0.05) but no difference in weight loss at 6 months was noted. A higher proportion of RS were below the EAR for thiamin, riboflavin and zinc. CONCLUSIONS: Milk restriction compromised protein and nutrient intakes in lactating women who restricted milk to <250 mL. Vitamin/mineral supplements helped exclusively breastfeeding milk restrictors improve their vitamin D and calcium intakes. Milk restriction is not recommended during lactation and where unavoidable, nutrients provided by milk should be compensated for by other foods or supplements.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of NutritionSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207