Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Nutrients. 2017 Sep 16;9(9). pii: E1027. doi: 10.3390/nu9091027.

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

Author information

1
Department of Animal Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. cody.gifford@rams.colostate.edu.
2
Department of Nutrition Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA. leoconno@purdue.edu.
3
Department of Nutrition Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA. campbellw@purdue.edu.
4
Department of Animal Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. dale.woerner@colostate.edu.
5
Department of Animal Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. keith.belk@colostate.edu.

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.

KEYWORDS:

assessment methods; classification; dietary recommendations; muscle foods; nutrient content; specification

PMID:
28926963
PMCID:
PMC5622787
DOI:
10.3390/nu9091027
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Conflict of interest statement

During the time this manuscript was being developed and written, W.W.C. received research support for other projects from American Egg Board–Egg Nutrition Center, Beef Checkoff, National Dairy Council, Pork Checkoff, and National Institutes of Health and USDA; received travel reimbursement from Barilla Co., National Dairy Council and Beef Checkoff to attend scientific consulting meetings. D.R.W. and K.E.B. have received research support for other projects from The Beef Checkoff and American Lamb Board. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center