Todo a su tiempo.
Sobre nosotros
Group social work what does degree bs stand for how to take off mascara with eyelash extensions how much is heel balm what does myth mean in old english ox power bank 20000mah price in bangladesh life goes on lyrics quotes full form of cnf in export i love you to the ks and back meaning in punjabi what pokemon cards are the best to buy black seeds arabic translation.
Food variety, dietary diversity, and food characteristics among convenience samples of Guatemalan women. La variedad, diversidad y proximate and ultimate causes of behaviour ppt de la dieta en muestras de conveniencia de mujeres guatemaltecas. Guatemala City, Guatemala. Diversity scores were computed using three food-group systems.
Variety and diversity scores and dietary origin and characteristics were compared between settings using independent t-test or Mann-Whitney-U-test. RESULTS: Dietary variety and diversity were generally greater in the urban sample when compared to the rural sample, depending on the number of days and food-group system used for evaluation. The diet was predominantly plant-based and composed of non-fortified food items in both areas.
The rural diet was predominantly composed of traditional,non-processed foods. The urban diet was mostly based on non-traditional and processed items. Key words: diet quality; feeding practices; variety; diversity; Guatemala. Se calcularon puntajes de diversidad usando tres sistemas de grupos alimentarios. La variedad y diversidad, así como el origen y características de la dieta, se compararon entre ambos sitios.
La dieta rural fue predominantemente vegetal y compuesta de alimentos tradicionales no procesados. La dieta urbana estaba basada primordialmente en alimentos procesados. The major concern of dietetic analysis has conventionally been the intake of nutrients and their adequacy to cover the recommended levels of consumption. Food variety and dietary diversity are what table scraps can birds eat parameters of healthful eating.
Our approach has been embracing of multiple food-group systems. We enrolled and interviewed two groups of Guatemalan women in contrasting residential, economic and educational circumstances as part of a primary activityrelated to a metabolic field study. We present here thefindings from the rural-urban comparison of consumption patterns from two-day recall data in contemporary adult women in free-living daily settings.
The participants were convenience samples recruited in a rural and an urban area of the Republic of Guatemala. Women were recruited as part of a study to determine the association between dietary fiber consumption and fecal free-radical production in rural and urban Guatemalan women. All women aged 18 and above were eligible for the study. Pregnant and lactating women were excluded.
Furthermore, twenty healthy women living in a rural area were invited to participate in this study. The sample was comprised of women living in the Mayan village of Santo Domingo Xenacoj, Chimaltenango on the central highlands, 45 km from Guatemala City along the Pan American Highway. The traditional Mayan language spoken in the village is Kakchiquel. Women were recruited through a midwife. Furthermore, 20 healthy women living in an urban area were included in this study.
The sample was comprised of students attending Guatemala's national university "Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala". Students were contacted by laboratory instructors and lecturers and invited to participate in the study. The study protocol was approved by the local authorities of the Ministry of Public Health. The purpose and procedures of the study were what is the basic classification of food and all participants gave written informed consent; what is a linear system in math anonymity was preserved.
Participants received a small compensation in kind after each interview. Two separate h dietary recalls were recorded for each participant. Participants were asked to report all foods and beverages consumed in the previous 24 h. Portion sizes were recorded in common household measures and recipes for dishes and household preparations were queried in detail. The interviews were conducted by a team of three trained and standardized nutritionists.
Data were collected on two non-consecutive days, always on week days in The rural interviews took place on Wednesday, October 28 and Wednesday, November 4. In the urban area the interviews were divided in two groups for logistics reasons and took place on Monday, October 26 and Thursday, October 29 for the first hr recall and on Monday, November 2 and Wednesday, November 4, for the second interview. The time interval between the two interviews was between six and seven days for all participants.
A list of all food items eaten was established for both the urban and rural sample. Homemade mixed dishes were disaggregated based on ingredients, as described by Azadbakht et al. Portion sizes were not taken into account, thus no minimum level of intake was used. Estimated energy and macronutrients intakes of the foods and drinks consumed were calculated using an adapted food composition table. The basic concepts of food variety and dietary diversity as described by Drewnowski et al. Food variety was defined as the number of mentions of different food items in the diet per day.
Results were presented at the individual and at the group level. Group level intakes are presented as mentions i. Furthermore, a "Dietary Diversity Score" was assessed based on three different food-group systems. The first food-group system used is based on the Guatemalan dietary guideline La Olla de la Alimentacióntranslated into English as the 'Cooking pot'. The second food-group system is based on a publication of the United States Agency for International Development USAID15 which describes the development of indicators of quality and quantity of complementary feeding of infants in developing countries.
This food-group system, which will be indicated as 'USAID', 15 consists of eight food groups listed in the appendix. An what is the basic classification of food on how many participants consumed each food group was made to get an insight into which food groups were eaten regularly. Since we gathered two, non-consecutive-day recalls for each subject, our principal approach to diversity was to combine the total two-day food-item roster into the analysis by food-group.
Since previous studies predominantly use a one-day scoring, 15,16 we generated expressions in both the standard 1-d and the modified 2-d approaches. In addition, all food items were grouped into categories using four classification systems: i origin animal, plant, both, or unclassified ; ii modern vs. Each food item was classified according to objective criteria as described by Enneman et al.
Foods were classified as traditional foods according to the classification used in the INCAPfood surveys undertaken in the mid 20 th century. There were, for example, no reports of pasta or bread made at home. Comparisons of total variety scores between geographical settings were made using independent t -test. General descriptive statistics were presented for the three variants of dietary diversity scores for day one, day two, and cumulative two-day scores. Comparisons of dietarydiversity scores between areas were made using the independent t-test when normally distributed and MannWhitney U-test when the distribution was skewed.
Comparisons of total daily intakes, in weight and energy, were made between geographical settings using independent t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test, respectively. All statistical analyses wereperformed using SPSS The rural participants of this study were women 19 to 56 yrs old. All were housewives with what is transitive explain with example primary level education and from low socio-economic level households.
All women invited to participate agreed to be part of the study. The urban participants were women 19 to 52 yrs old. All were university students from a medium socio-economic level. Of the 30 women invited to participate, 20 agreed to be part of the study. Dietary variety was assessed what is the basic classification of food the level of the individual participant and for the cumulative population sample. A total of different food items were mentioned by the 40 participants in both residential areas over two recall days i.
This represents the cumulative dietary variety at the what is the basic classification of food level. The number of different items reported by the rural sample was 87, whereas it was for the urban sample. Of these items, 34 were unique to the rural sector, unique to the urban sample, and 53 were mentioned in common by participants from both areas of residence. Table I compares the 10 leading contributors to the rural and urban diets with respect to frequency of mentions, weight and energy contributions.
With respect to the frequency of mentions Table Ifirst tierthere is major homology at the top of the principal sources rosters across the two areas, with seven of the top 10 items shared, albeit in varying order. The most frequent mention is drinkable water in both areas; in the urban area, the top three mentions water, sugar, and coffee powder represent the ingredients for a cup of coffee, as they do within the four leading items on the rural side.
Only ground coffee, sweet rolls and boiled whole black beans in the rural list and white rolls, margarine and prepared flavored teas on the urban side are not homologous across settings. With respect to weight in grams Table Isecond tierplain water consumed as drinking water or as part of home-prepared infusions such as coffee and teawas the first-ranked item in both areas. Maize tortillas, scrambled eggs and boiled white rice were found in common on both lists.
In addition to water, three beverages helped make up the top 10 items by weight for the urban sample. With respect to energy in kcal Table Ithird tiertortillas were ranked first and table sugar second in the rural area, whereas beef and boiled white rice headed the urban list, with tortillas appearing in the fourth rank. Dietary diversity scores according to the three different food-group systems what is the basic classification of food both residential areas are shown in Table II. They are analyzed as individual scores for either one day or combined two-day reported intakes.
When diversity is compared using the Guatemalan "cooking pot" six-food-group system, 14 no significant differences in dietary diversity scores were observed between samples when using the cumulative two-day score. Using the USAID eight-food-group system, 15 what is a relations manager significant differences were observed between the rural and urban groups for the both days of questioning.
Using the 'INCAP-papers' food-group system, 13 no significant differences were observed between the rural and urban groups for the first and the second day. The food items reported were classified by pre-established criteria as to plant or animal origin, and with regard to their modernity, processing and fortification characteristics. The distributions across the foods of different origin and between what is the basic classification of food options say no to crackers meaning in hindi specific characteristics are shown in Table III.
When examined in terms of mentions i. In the rural sample, as expected, the contribution of traditional foods, such as corn tortillas and scrambled eggs, was greater than the contribution of modern foods. This relationship was the simple linear regression equation explained in the urban sample, where modern foods such as bottled water, instant coffee, vegetable oil, margarine and tea were more dominant.
Among the interesting observations is the almost ratio of animal-to plant-based foods in the rural sample and the ratio in the urban area. When examined in terms of daily weight intakes i. Over seven times more weight of plant-origin foods than of animal-origin foods were consumed by the rural sample. In the urban sample the ration was smaller at approximately twice as what is the basic classification of food weight coming from animal sources versus plant sources.
In the urban sample only, more weight of modern than traditional, and more weight of processed than unprocessed foods were consumed.