Relationship between adherence to the 2019 Canada’s Food Guide recommendations on healthy food choices and nutrient intakes in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Following Canada’s food guide (CFG) recommendations should ensure adequate nutrient intakes. Older adults have increased needs for certain nutrients and nutrient density; the extent to which adherence to CFG recommendations can help reduce inadequate nutrient intakes is unknown. Objective Our aim was to assess the relationship between adherence to CFG recommendations on healthy food choices and intake of key nutrients in adults 65 years and older from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) 2015 - Nutrition. Methods Secondary analysis of data from 4,093 older adults of the CCHS 2015 - Nutrition (mean age, 73.6 years, 54% females). Dietary intakes were measured using an interviewer-administered 24-hour dietary recall including one repeat in a subsample (42%). The National Cancer Institute multivariate method was used to estimate usual (i.e., long-term) dietary intakes. Adherence to CFG recommendations was measured using the Healthy Eating Food Index (HEFI)-2019 score. Simple linear and logistic regression models estimated the effect of increased HEFI-2019 score on usual nutrient intakes and the prevalence of inadequate nutrient intakes (i.e., below the estimated average requirements), respectively. Results Compared with the prevalence of inadequate intakes at median HEFI-2019 score (46.4/80 points), a higher HEFI-2019 (+11 points) was associated with reductions in the prevalence of inadequate intakes of magnesium, vitamin B6, and protein (-19.8% [95%CI: -30.8, -8.9], -12.7% [95%CI: -22.5, -3.0], and -4.7% [95%CI: -9.4, -0.1], respectively). In contrast, data for higher HEFI-2019 scores were compatible with increased prevalence of inadequate intakes of folate, vitamin D, and calcium (4.0% [95%CI: -8.4, 16.3], 2.6% [95%CI: 1.1, 4.0], and 2.3% [95%CI: -3.0, 7.5], respectively). Conclusions Based on dietary intakes of Canadian older adults in 2015, increasing the degree of adherence to CFG recommendations on healthy food choices may reduce nutrient intake inadequacy for most key nutrients except folate, vitamin D and calcium.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".