Consumption of Milk and alternatives decreased among Canadians from 2004 to 2015: evidence from the Canadian community health surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Milk and milk products make important contributions to the diet of Canadians. The aim of this study was to examine trends in Milk & Alternatives consumption among Canadians (≥2 years) from 2004 to 2015. METHODS: We used nutrition data from 2 nationally representative cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2004 and 2015 [Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) 2004 Cycle 2.2 and CCHS-Nutrition 2015] to compare Milk & Alternatives consumption between 2004 and 2015. Data from 24-h dietary recalls were collected using the Automated Multiple-Pass Method (AMPM). RESULT: From 2004 to 2015, the proportion of Canadians consuming Milk & Alternatives food group significantly decreased from 89.5 to 87.7% and the number of servings consumed per day dropped from 1.9 to 1.7. Despite their low energy contribution (12.3% of energy), Milk & Alternatives contributed 45.8% of calcium, 39.9% of vitamin D, and 36.0% of vitamin B12 to the diet of the Canadian population in 2015. Milk & Alternatives were among the top sources of vitamin A, phosphorus and riboflavin. Milk & Alternatives food group was a major contributor to saturated fat intake in both 2004 (31.2%) and 2015 (28.6%). In 2015, dietary intakes of calcium and vitamin D among Milk & Alternatives consumers were 137.8, and 59.4% higher, respectively, than those of non-consumers. CONCLUSION: Daily intake of Milk & Alternatives has decreased in the Canadian population over time, which may adversely affect the nutritional profile of the diet.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".