Premium
Vitamin D intake of adults differs by income, gender, and ethnicity in the United States, 2007–2010
Author(s) -
Moore Carolyn E,
Radcliffe John,
Liu Yan
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.27.1_supplement.841.3
Subject(s) - national health and nutrition examination survey , medicine , vitamin , fortification , ethnic group , nutrition facts label , dietary reference intake , vitamin d and neurology , zoology , environmental health , food science , population , nutrient , biology , ecology , sociology , anthropology
Total, dietary and supplemental vitamin D intakes in the US were compared by poverty income ratio (PIR), ethnicity, and gender using dietary intake and dietary supplement use from 24‐h recalls and supplement questionnaires of the 2007–2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). Statistical analyses of weighted data were performed (SAS V 9.2) to estimate means ± SE. Ethnic intake differences controlling for age, gender and PIR were assessed by ANCOVA. Total (dietary and supplement) vitamin D intake was greater in the high versus the medium PIR category, 10.6 ± 0.4 vs 8.1±0.3 ug/d, respectively. Total vitamin D intake of Whites (11.7±0.9 ug/d) was greater than Hispanics (8.9±0.4 ug/d) and Blacks (8.02±0.6 ug/d). Although dietary and total vitamin D intake did not differ by gender, supplemental vitamin D intake by females (5.8±0.4 ug/d) was greater than males (4.4±0.6). Adults19–30 y had the lowest (6.4 ± 0.2 ug/d) vitamin D intake (77% did not meet the EAR). Adults >; 70 y had the highest (16.8±1.4 ug/d) vitamin D intake (49% did not meet the EAR). Increasing supplementation use and fortification of foods with vitamin D is warranted. Funding: TWU Chancellor's Research Fellowship