Evaluation of Energy, Nutrient and Dietary Fiber Intakes of Adolescent Males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The minimal data available on the current energy, nutrient and dietary fiber intakes of adolescent males challenges the development of effective nutrition education programs. There is a need for research into the current intakes of adolescent males and in particular their relation to the current Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). The primary objective of this study was to assess the diet of adolescent males and relate energy, nutrient and dietary fiber intakes to the DRIs. Secondary objectives were to relate energy, macronutrient and dietary fiber intakes to body mass index (BMI)-for-age percentile categories as well as to explore vitamin/mineral supplement use and soft drink consumption. METHODS: Three-day food records were completed by 180 healthy adolescent males for analysis of energy, nutrient and dietary fiber intakes from food and supplements. Following adjustment for intra-individual variability, nutrient intake percentile distributions were related to the DRIs. Energy, macronutrient and dietary fiber intakes were compared among BMI-for-age percentile categories and diets were evaluated for vitamin/mineral supplement use and soft drink consumption. RESULTS: Median intakes for percent energy from carbohydrate, fat and protein were within the Accepted Macronutrient Distribution Ranges. Intakes of micronutrients with Estimated Average Requirement values indicated that greater than 50% of subjects consumed inadequate amounts of vitamin A and vitamin B6, and greater than 75% of subjects consumed inadequate amounts of magnesium, phosphorus and zinc. Subjects classified as overweight had significantly lower energy and carbohydrate intakes compared with subjects classified as having an acceptable body weight. The prevalence of vitamin/mineral supplement use was 16.1% and 67% of subjects reported daily consumption of soft drinks. CONCLUSION: Results of this study reveal that adolescent males are consuming the recommended amounts of macronutrients but may be at risk for consuming inadequate levels of specific micronutrients. Nutrition education programs should consider targeting select micronutrients to improve nutritional intakes of adolescent males.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".