Investigation of Amino Acid and Fatty Acid Profiles of Japanese Diets Using the Food Exchange Lists for Diabetes Diet.

Dietary Reference Intakes for Japanese provide target values for proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. However, they do not provide information on reference values for amino acids (AAs) and fatty acids (FAs), which determine the quality of foods in detail. Therefore, we evaluated AAs and FAs using the Food Exchange Lists-Dietary Guidance for Persons with Diabetes (in Japanese) Utilization, Second Edition Sample Menus and Practice (FELD) as an ideal Japanese diet. Based on FELD, 15 different daily meal patterns were employed with combinations of three levels of carbohydrates %energy (high carbohydrate [HC], 60%; middle carbohydrate [MC], 55%; and low carbohydrate [LC], 50%) and five levels of energy (1,200-2,000 kcal). Using the Japanese Food Composition Table 2020 adjusted for 1,000 kcal, 18 AAs, 49 FAs, and calorie densities (CDs, kcal/g) were calculated and compared among the three groups. Dietary AA was rich in glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and leucine; in order, no significant differences were observed among HC, MC, and LC for 18 AAs. Dietary FA was higher for 18:1 total, 16:0, and 18:2 n-6. Moreover, 16:0, 20:0, and 18:1 total in LC and 22:0 and 18:3 n-3 in MC were significantly higher than those in HC. The HC, MC, and LC CD was low at 0.82, 0.84, and 0.93 kcal/g, respectively. No significant differences in 18 AAs and CD were noted among HC, MC, and LC in FELD; however, significant differences were observed in the FA profiles. This study suggests the importance of evaluating diet using AA and FA units.

Are popular books about diet and health written based on scientific evidence? A comparison of citations between the USA and Japan.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare the references cited in popular books about diet and health between the USA and Japan. DESIGN: Books were selected based on their best-seller rankings in the diet and health category of online bookstores. We identified references throughout all pages of the books and examined the number of references, reference format (identifiable or not) and presence of specific types of references, such as systematic reviews of human research. We compared the characteristics of references between the two countries and examined related factors to citation. SETTING: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Books (n 100 in each country). RESULTS: Among 100 books from each country, sixty-five US and sixty-six Japanese books had references. Forty-five US books cited more than 100 references, against only five Japanese books. The number of books that cited systematic reviews of human research differed between the USA (n 49) and Japan (n 9). Additionally, the number of books that provided identifiable information for all references was significantly higher in the USA (n 63) than in Japan (n 42). Books whose first authors have licences of medical doctors were more likely to cite references than those without in both countries. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of books about diet and health cited references in both the USA and Japan, but Japanese books cited fewer references and were less likely to cite systematic reviews and provide identifiable references than US books. Further research into the scientific reliability of information in books about diet and health is warranted.