Food, water, energy, and macronutrient intake of non-breastfed infants and young children (0–3 years)

16Citations
Citations of this article
41Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Purpose: The French Nutri-Bébé 2013 study aimed to assess the nutritional intake of infants and young children in comparison with the recommendations of the 2013 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Methods: This cross-sectional study enrolled a random sample of families selected according to the Quota sampling method. A 3-day dietary record was conducted and supervised by two face-to-face interviews. All foods and beverages consumed were qualitatively and quantitatively reported in a diary, and their composition calculated using a food composition database. Results: A total of 1035 non-breastfed children were included. Formula was abandoned early, amounting to approximately 50% of the total food intake at 7 months in 50% of infants and 22% at 1 year. A similar trend was observed for specific complementary foods. After 1 year, 50% of children consumed cow’s milk, which was semi-skimmed in 88% of cases. Drinking water intake was low. Protein intake reached 1.4 times the average requirements before 3 months, 2 times at 8–9 months, and > 4 times at 30–35 months. Fat intake was below the EFSA adequate intake (AI) in > 90% of children. Alpha-linolenic acid intake was equal to or greater than the AI in all infants < 3 months, 85% of children at 6 months, 34% at 12–17 months, and 8% >24 months. Regardless of age, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) intake was less than the AI. Conclusion: Strong discrepancies are observed between the actual and recommended intake in young, non-breastfed children namely, a high-protein intake, and a low fat intake, especially DHA.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chouraqui, J. P., Tavoularis, G., Simeoni, U., Ferry, C., & Turck, D. (2020). Food, water, energy, and macronutrient intake of non-breastfed infants and young children (0–3 years). European Journal of Nutrition, 59(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-018-1883-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free