Next Article in Journal
Implementing a Health and Wellbeing Programme for Children in Early Childhood: A Preliminary Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Association between Dietary Patterns of Meat and Fish Consumption with Bone Mineral Density or Fracture Risk: A Systematic Literature
Previous Article in Journal
Insights into the Hexose Liver Metabolism—Glucose versus Fructose
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Satiating Properties of Pork are not Affected by Cooking Methods, Sousvide Holding Time or Mincing in Healthy Men—A Randomized Cross-Over Meal Test Study
Article Menu
Issue 9 (September) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessReview
Nutrients 2017, 9(9), 1027; doi:10.3390/nu9091027

Broad and Inconsistent Muscle Food Classification Is Problematic for Dietary Guidance in the U.S.

1
Department of Animal Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
2
Department of Nutrition Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
These authors contributed equally to this work.
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 5 August 2017 / Revised: 5 September 2017 / Accepted: 12 September 2017 / Published: 16 September 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Meat Consumption and Human Health)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [1723 KB, uploaded 18 September 2017]   |  

Abstract

Dietary recommendations regarding consumption of muscle foods, such as red meat, processed meat, poultry or fish, largely rely on current dietary intake assessment methods. This narrative review summarizes how U.S. intake values for various types of muscle foods are grouped and estimated via methods that include: (1) food frequency questionnaires; (2) food disappearance data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service; and (3) dietary recall information from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. These reported methods inconsistently classify muscle foods into groups, such as those previously listed, which creates discrepancies in estimated intakes. Researchers who classify muscle foods into these groups do not consistently considered nutrient content, in turn leading to implications of scientific conclusions and dietary recommendations. Consequentially, these factors demonstrate a need for a more universal muscle food classification system. Further specification to this system would improve accuracy and precision in which researchers can classify muscle foods in nutrition research. Future multidisciplinary collaboration is needed to develop a new classification system via systematic review protocol of current literature. View Full-Text
Keywords: muscle foods; assessment methods; nutrient content; dietary recommendations; classification; specification muscle foods; assessment methods; nutrient content; dietary recommendations; classification; specification
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Gifford, C.L.; O’Connor, L.E.; Campbell, W.W.; Woerner, D.R.; Belk, K.E. Broad and Inconsistent Muscle Food Classification Is Problematic for Dietary Guidance in the U.S.. Nutrients 2017, 9, 1027.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Nutrients EISSN 2072-6643 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top