DIETARY PATTERNS OF A GROUP OF CHILDREN, THEIR MOTHERS AND GRANDMOTHERS LIVING IN SASKATOON
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information on dietary patterns is useful for nutritional epidemiology and also has applications for nutrition educators. \nThe current study had four objectives: to characterize the dietary patterns of a convenience sample of children, their biological mothers, and grandmothers, in terms of percent of energy as macronutrients, servings from food groups, and intake of selected micronutrients; to determine generational differences in dietary patterns; to determine if there was a family influence on dietary patterns; and to compare the dietary patterns of our subjects with similar \nage groups in 1970-72. \nFour days of dietary intake data, based on a combination of 24-hour recalls and 3-day diaries, were available for 76 children aged 8 to 12 years, 59 mothers aged 31 to 52 years, and 19 grandmothers aged 58 to 83 years, who were participants in bone density studies at the \nUniversity of Saskatchewan. \nThe children reported a low intake of Fruits and Vegetables per day (3.9 ± 2 servings), reflected by a lower intake of vitamin A, K, folate and fibre. The mothers' diet was high in fat, indicated by a high percent of energy as fat (36 + 6), and servings of Fats and Oils (6.0 ± 3.6). The mothers appeared least likely of the three generational groups to have implemented dietary recommendations to reduce fat and increase carbohydrate. The grandmothers' higher intake of Fruits and Vegetables was reflected in higher intakes of vitamin A, K, folate and fibre. This group was close to achieving dietary guidelines. \nA family similarity in dietary patterns was found for variables associated with fat consumption between related pairs of children and their mothers. No family similarities were found between related pairs of mothers and grandmothers. \nThe children 5-11 years, females 40-64 years, and females 65+ years, had higher carbohydrate and lower fat intakes as percent of energy than similar age groups in 1970-1972. Our data suggests that the older women have made greater modifications to their diets since 1970 than the younger women. \nGenerational differences in dietary patterns suggest that there may have been differences in responses to nutrition recommendations and dietary guidelines. Investigation is needed into possible underlying differences in lifestyle factors, attitudes and beliefs, that impact on \ngenerational responses to dietary recommendations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".