Evidence Hub

Temporal Changes in Micronutrient Intake Among U.S. Adults, NHANES 2003 through 2018: A Cross-Sectional Study

M. Freedman, V. Fulgoni, Harris R. Lieberman

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2024

39,925 participants · 19 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Changes in the U.S. food supply and food choices make examination of temporal changes in micronutrient intake and their effect on meeting nutrient recommendations necessary.

OBJECTIVES

Examine 15-year trends of the contribution of foods and beverages (FB) and dietary supplements (DS) to meeting nutrient recommendations among U.S. adults 19+ y, and compare usual mean intake distributions of FB alone and FB+DS to Dietary Reference Intakes [percent below the Estimated Average Requirement (%AI)].

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used food, beverage and DS intake data from NHANES 2003-2018 (n = 39,925) to determine usual mean intakes for 21 micronutrients. Changes in intakes from FB and from FB+DS, by sex, were compared in a time-trend analysis of 2-y cycles. Changes in mean intake as %AI were determined.

RESULTS

Over the time studied, U.S. adults underconsumed vitamins A, C, D, E, K; calcium; potassium; magnesium; and choline, even when DS intake was included. Sodium was overconsumed. In males, there were significant increases in percentage <EAR for thiamin, riboflavin, vitamin C, iron, copper and zinc for intakes from FB. When FB+DS were considered, there were significant increases in percentage <EAR for thiamin, riboflavin, vitamin B-12, vitamin C, copper and zinc and significant decreases in percentage <EAR for vitamins D and E. In females, there were significant increases in percentage <EAR for vitamin C and zinc for intakes from FB and from FB+DS; significant…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 39,925 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free