Consumption and Sources of Saturated Fatty Acids According to the 2019 Canada Food Guide: Data from the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2019 revised version of Canada’s Food Guide (CFG) recommends limiting the consumption of processed foods that are high in saturated fatty acids (SFA). Yet, the contributions of each CFG group to the total SFA intake of Canadians are not specifically known. The objectives of this study were to quantify the total SFA intake of Canadians, determine the sources of SFA consumed by Canadian adults, and identify potential differences in these sources. A nation representative sample from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS – Nutrition 2015) was used for these analyses. Dietary intakes were measured using a single 24-h recall. Food sources of SFA were classified according to the revised 2019 CFG categories. We have also examined the contribution of foods not included in these three categories to total SFA intake. Among Canadian adults, total SFA contributed to 10.4 ± 0.1% (SE) of total energy intake (E). The “Protein foods” (47.7 ± 0.5% with 23.2 ± 0.4% from milk and alternatives and 24.5 ± 0.4% from meats and alternatives) and “All other foods” (44.2 ± 0.5%) categories were the main sources of total SFA intake. Few differences in SFA sources were identified between sexes, age groups, education levels, and body mass index (BMI) categories. These data show that the mean SFA consumption is greater than the 10% E cut-off previously proposed in Canada. Future studies should examine which food substitution is most likely to contribute to a greater reduction in SFA intake at the population level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".