RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In Canada, regulatory changes have expanded marketing opportunities for voluntarily fortified products (VFPs), with micronutrient additions permitted at levels well in excess of human requirements. OBJECTIVE: To examine how the consumption of VFPs relates to usual nutrient intakes in the Canadian population. DESIGN: The 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey comprises single 24-h dietary intake recalls on a population-representative sample of 20,487 individuals aged 1 year and older, with second recalls on a subset of 7,608. The intake data included 15 food codes denoting VFP (e.g. energy drinks, fortified beverages, cereals, and bars). We assessed VFP consumption and estimated usual intake distributions for riboflavin, niacin, zinc, and vitamins A, B6, B12, and C for VFP consumers and non-consumers 14-50 years old (n = 8,442) using the National Cancer Institute method. We applied the 'shrink and add' method to estimate usual intakes among supplement users and assessed apparent benefits and risks by comparing usual intake distributions to EARs and ULs. RESULTS: Only 2.4% of the population reported any consumption of VFP on the first 24-h recall. VFP consumers were overrepresented in the upper quartile of population intake distributions for niacin, riboflavin, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, and zinc. The median usual intakes of VFP consumers were 24-111% higher than the median usual intakes of non-consumers, and VFP consumers had significantly lower prevalence of inadequacy for riboflavin and vitamins A, B6, B12, and C. Irrespective of VFP consumption, usual intake distributions reached the ULs for vitamin A and zinc with the addition of supplement intakes. DISCUSSION: Given the limited differentiation of VFP in this survey, we have likely underestimated nutrient exposure levels. CONCLUSIONS: VFP consumption was associated with elevated usual nutrient intakes, but we found limited evidence that it protected consumers from nutrient inadequacies or propelled intakes above tolerable upper levels.
RESUMEN
Background: Recent evidence suggests that the association between dietary saturated fatty acids (SFAs) and coronary artery disease risk varies according to food sources. How SFAs from butter and cheese influence HDL-mediated cholesterol efflux capacity (CEC), a key process in reverse cholesterol transport, is currently unknown. Objective: In a predefined secondary analysis of a previously published trial, we have examined how diets rich in SFAs from either cheese or butter influence HDL-mediated CEC, compared with diets rich in either monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) or polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). Methods: In a randomized crossover controlled consumption trial, 46 men and women with abdominal obesity consumed 5 isocaloric diets, each for 4 wk. Two diets were rich in SFAs either from cheese (CHEESE) or butter (BUTTER) [12.4-12.6% of energy (%E) as SFAs, 32%E as fat, 52%E as carbohydrates]. In 2 other diets, SFAs (5.8%E) were replaced with either MUFAs from refined olive oil (MUFA) or PUFAs from corn oil (PUFA). Finally, a lower fat and carbohydrate diet was used as a control (5.8%E as SFAs, 25.0%E as fat, 59%E as carbohydrates; CHO). Post-diet HDL-mediated CEC was determined ex vivo using radiolabelled J774 macrophages incubated with apolipoprotein B-depleted serum from the participants. Results: Mean (±SD) age was 41.4 ± 14.2 y, and waist circumference was 107.6 ± 11.5 cm in men and 94.3 ± 12.4 cm in women. BUTTER and MUFA increased HDL-mediated CEC compared with CHEESE (+4.3%, P = 0.026 and +4.7%, P = 0.031, respectively). Exploring the significant diet × sex interaction (P = 0.044) revealed that the increase in HDL-mediated CEC after BUTTER compared with CHEESE was significant among men (+6.0%, P = 0.047) but not women (+2.9%, P = 0.19), whereas the increase after MUFA compared with CHEESE was significant among women (+9.1%, P = 0.008) but not men (-0.6%, P = 0.99). Conclusion: These results provide evidence of a food matrix effect modulating the impact of dairy SFAs on HDL-mediated CEC with potential sex-related differences that deserve further investigation. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02106208.