Popcorn intake and its association to nutrient intake, pyramid servings, and physiologic parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Popcorn, a whole grain product, is included among those foods being recommended in MyPyramid to increase whole grain consumption. The purpose of this study was to use 1999–2002 NHANES 24‐hr dietary recall data to determine the average level of popcorn intake in the U.S., and whether popcorn consumers exhibited different nutrient intake, food group intake, or physiological characteristics compared to popcorn non‐consumers. Nine hundred ten individuals (5.9% of the sample) age four and above reported consuming popcorn. Average intake of popcorn was 38.8 + 1.7 g/d. Compared to non‐consumers, popcorn consumers had ~250% higher (p<0.01) intake of whole grains (2.5 ± 0.09 vs 0.70 ± 0.01 servings/d) and ~20% higher (p<0.01) intake of fiber (18.1 ± 0.5 vs 14.9 ± 0.2 g/d). Small but significant differences (p<0.01) were also observed for intake of carbohydrate, magnesium (higher in popcorn consumers), protein, niacin, and folate (lower in popcorn consumers). Additionally, popcorn consumers had greater (p<0.01) intake of total grains and fewer meat servings. Weight, BMI, and waist circumference were similar for both groups. Mean blood pressure and serum lipids were also similar between the groups, however hematocrit was lower among popcorn consumers, but within normal range. Eating popcorn was associated with increased whole grain and dietary fiber intake. It is likely that the increase in whole grain consumption is related, at least in part, to popcorn consumption. Supported by ConAgra Foods, Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".