nutrition

Vitamin D regulates bone homeostasis,1 and epidemiologic studies suggest that lower vitamin D levels may be associated with increased risk of RTIs, cardiovascular disease, malignancy, and metabolic disorders.2,3 Increased awareness of possible health benefits associated with higher 25(OH)D levels has resulted in widespread vitamin D testing and supplementation in the general US population. Nonetheless, there is no consensus on a threshold value below which people should be offered vitamin D supplementation.3,4 In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force reported that there was insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening of asymptomatic adults for vitamin D deficiency.4 Rates of marked vitamin D deficiency (25[OH]D ≤12 ng/mL) vary by race and ethnicity, with higher rates in non-Hispanic Asian (8%), non-Hispanic Black (18%), and Hispanic (6%) people compared with non-Hispanic White people (2%).3

Author/s:

Eva S Liu, Andrew M Davis, Sherri-Ann M Burnett-Bowie

Eating Family Meals Together at Home

Erin Blanchette — Tue, 26 Mar 2024 16:55:00 +0000

Date Added:

March 26, 2024

Journal/Publication:

JAMA Pediatrics

Publisher:

American Medical Association

Publication Date:

March 25, 2024

URL:

Eating Family Meals Together at Home

Type:

Patient Education Materials

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.6669

Keywords

PMID (1):

38526499

MeSH

child development

child

adolescent

Feeding and Eating Disorders

Feeding and Eating Disorders of Childhood/psychology*

Information for parents regarding the benefits of family meals together. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Eating meals at home together as a family is important for both parents and children.

Eating dinner together at least 3 or 4 times per week has positive effects on child development and has been linked to children’s lower rates of overweight and obesity, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, depression, and eating disorders; higher self-esteem; and better academic performance. Eating family meals also has nutritional benefits. Families who eat dinner together eat more fruits and vegetables and fewer fried foods and sugary drinks. Family meals also help adults and children learn to like a variety of foods.

Author/s:

Callie L Brown, Melissa C Kay, Lindsay A Thompson

Can We Say What Diet Is Best for Health?

John Bayhi — Thu, 16 Jan 2020 16:26:48 +0000

Date Added:

January 16, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Annual Review of Public Health

Publisher:

Annual Reviews

Publication Date:

March 1, 2014

Volume:

Pages:

83-103

URL:

Can we say what diet is best for health?

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182351

Keywords

PMID (1):

24641555

MeSH

Dietary Carbohydrates

An evidence-based review of what we currently know about what we should be eating. It appears that Michael Pollan was right when he wrote, in The Omnivore’s Dilemma, “Eat good food, not too much, mostly vegetables.” The only thing he left out was to try to avoid highly processed food of any kind. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Diet is established among the most important influences on health in modern societies. Injudicious diet figures among the leading causes of premature death and chronic disease. Optimal eating is associated with increased life expectancy, dramatic reduction in lifetime risk of all chronic disease, and amelioration of gene expression. In this context, claims abound for the competitive merits of various diets relative to one another. Whereas such claims, particularly when attached to commercial interests, emphasize distinctions, the fundamentals of virtually all eating patterns associated with meaningful evidence of health benefit overlap substantially. There have been no rigorous, long-term studies comparing contenders for best diet laurels using methodology that precludes bias and confounding, and for many reasons such studies are unlikely. In the absence of such direct comparisons, claims for the established superiority of any one specific diet over others are exaggerated. The weight of evidence strongly supports a theme of healthful eating while allowing for variations on that theme. A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention and is consistent with the salient components of seemingly distinct dietary approaches. Efforts to improve public health through diet are forestalled not for want of knowledge about the optimal feeding of Homo sapiens but for distractions associated with exaggerated claims, and our failure to convert what we reliably know into what we routinely do. Knowledge in this case is not, as of yet, power; would that it were so.

Author/s:

Katz, DL, Meller, S

Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption: Dietary Guideline Recommendations From the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium

John Bayhi — Thu, 03 Oct 2019 13:31:55 +0000

Date Added:

October 9, 2019

Journal/Publication:

Annals of Internal Medicine

Publisher:

American College of Physicians

Publication Date:

October 1, 2019

URL:

Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption: Dietary Guideline Recommendations From the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

Keywords

MeSH

This guideline suggests that there is very little evidence that limiting intakes of red meat and processed meats cause significant harm to the person. Environmental harms are not considered. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

DESCRIPTION:

Dietary guideline recommendations require consideration of the certainty in the evidence, the magnitude of potential benefits and harms, and explicit consideration of people's values and preferences. A set of recommendations on red meat and processed meat consumption was developed on the basis of 5 de novo systematic reviews that considered all of these issues.

METHODS:

The recommendations were developed by using the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) guideline development process, which includes rigorous systematic review methodology, and GRADE methods to rate the certainty of evidence for each outcome and to move from evidence to recommendations. A panel of 14 members, including 3 community members, from 7 countries voted on the final recommendations. Strict criteria limited the conflicts of interest among panel members. Considerations of environmental impact or animal welfare did not bear on the recommendations. Four systematic reviews addressed the health effects associated with red meat and processed meat consumption, and 1 systematic review addressed people's health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The panel suggests that adults continue current unprocessed red meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:

None. (PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017074074; PROSPERO 2018: CRD42018088854)

Author/s:

Johnston, BC, Zeraatkar, D, Han, MA, Vernooij RWM, Valli, C, El Dib, R, Marshall, C, Stover, PJ, Fairweather-Taitt, S, Wojcik, G, Bhatia, F, de Souza, R, Brotons, C, Meerpohl, JJ, Patel, CJ, Djulbegovic, B, Alonso-Coello, P, Bala, MM, Guyatt, GH