Do disparities exist between national food group recommendations and the dietary intakes of contemporary young adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare food and nutrient intakes of young Australian adults (18-24 years) to national recommendations as per the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating and Nutrient Reference Values. METHODS: Dietary intake of 18 to 24 year olds (n = 1005) participating in the Advice, Ideas, and Motivation for My Eating (Aim4Me) study was self-reported using the 120-item Australian Eating Survey Food Frequency Questionnaire. Median daily servings of Australian Guide to Healthy Eating food groups, macronutrients and micronutrients were compared to recommendations in the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating and Nutrient Reference Values using t-tests or Kruskal-Wallis tests (P < .05). RESULTS: None of the young adults met all Australian Guide to Healthy Eating recommendations. The highest adherence [% meeting recommendations, median (IQR)] was for meat/alternatives [38%, 2.1(1.8)] and fruit [32%, 1.5(1.6)], with <25% meeting remaining food-group recommendations. The majority (76%) exceeded recommendations for the consumption of discretionary foods [4.0(3.3) vs 0-3 serves] and 81% had excessive saturated fat intakes. Young adults who met all key Nutrient Reference Values (dietary fibre, folate, iodine, iron, calcium and zinc) (18%) consumed a higher number of serves of all food groups, including discretionary foods. CONCLUSIONS: Dietary intakes of contemporary young adults do not align with Australian Guide to Healthy Eating targets, while meeting Nutrient Reference Values is achieved by a higher consumption of all food groups, including discretionary foods. Strategies to increase consumption of nutrient-dense foods in young adults to achieve the Nutrient Reference Values are warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".