Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:50:03.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of meals cooked by large-scale methods: a comparison of chemical analysis and calculation from food tables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2010

Anne L. Stock  and
Erica F. Wheeler
Anne L. Stock
Affiliation:
Nutrition Department, Queen Elizabeth College, London W8 7AH
Erica F. Wheeler
Affiliation:
Department of Human Nutrition, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1 7HT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Energy, protein, fat and iron have been determined by chemical analysis in a number of meals and whole days' diets prepared by large-scale catering methods. The results have been compared with the results of calculation from food composition tables.

2. There were wide differences between calculated and analytical values for all the constituents, especially for fat and iron. For energy and fat, calculation from food tables gave constantly higher results than did analysis.

3. Large differences in calculated and analysed fat and energy intakes occurred especially when there was frequent use of certain foods that are generally prepared in a non-standard way.

4. The range of differences between average calculated and analytical results depended on the duration of surveys. We have estimated that in a 7 d survey, calculated 7 d protein and energy intakes would fall within ± 20% of the analytical value in 90% of individuals; for iron and probably for other minerals, the range would be ± 50% of the analytical value.

Type
Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , March 1972 , pp. 439 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1972

References

Bransby, E. R., Daubney, C. G. & King, J. (1948–9a). Br. J. Nutr. 2, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransby, E. R., Dauhney, C. G. & King, J. (1948–9b). Br. J. Nutr. 2, 232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, K. J., Eddy, T. P., Hibbs, A., Stock, A. L. & Wheeler, E. F. (1971). Br. J. ind. Med. 28, 246.Google Scholar
Eagles, J. A., Whiting, M. G. & Olson, R. E. (1966). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 19, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exton-Smith, A. N. & Stanton, B. R. (1965). Report of an Investigation into the Dietary of Elderly Women Lioing Alone. King Edward's Hospital Fund for London.Google Scholar
Grant, M. (1944). Nature, Land. 154, 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, P. V. J. (1966). Investigations of anaemogenic diets. PhD Thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Krauze, S., Bozyk, Z. & Zaniewska, A. (1965). Roczn. pań Zakl. Hig. 16, 161.Google Scholar
Marr, J. W. (1971). Wld Rew. Nutr. Diet. 13, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCance, R. A. & Widdowson, E. M. (1960). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun. no. 297.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Donoso, G. (1963). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 14, 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1959). Br. J. Nutr. 13, 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, M. L. &Watt, B. K. (1967). Home Eon. Res. Rep. no. 4. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Pellett, P. L. & Eddy, T. P. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellett, P. L. & Wheeler, E. F. (1965). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 24, xli.Google Scholar
Salvosa, C. B., Payne, P. R. & Wheeler, E. F. (1971). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 24, 1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takagi, K. & Sato, S. (1969). J. Sci. Labour 45, 304.Google Scholar
Whiting, M. G. & Leverton, R. M. (1960). Am. J. publ. Hlth 50, 815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. & McCance, R. A. (1943). Lancet i, 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, I. D. P. (1958). Biochem. J. 68, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar