We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To determine the effect of a fish protein isolate (FPi), administered over 6 months, on the growth of children aged 6–36 months, measured by Z-scores of height-for-age (HAZ) and weight-for-height (WHZ), compared with the standard meal without FPi; and to determine the safety and acceptability of FPi daily consumption.
Design
Cluster-randomized community-based controlled trial. For 6 months, the centres received either FPi replacing 50 % of total proteins in the diet or standard protein. HAZ and WHZ were used to determine the effect on growth. Acceptability was determined by daily consumption, measured by weighing the servings before and after consumption.
Setting
Day care centres and community nutritional centres in northern Lima, Peru.
Subjects
Children (n 441) aged 6–36 months.
Results
Four centres were randomized to the intervention with FPi, five centres were randomized to the standard control diet. More than 36 900 meals were prepared and administered in a supervised manner. Both groups received the same amounts of energy and proteins daily (proteins about 12–15 % of total energy). Growth of children who received the FPi diet was similar to that of children with the standard diet. Consumption was similar in the FPi and control groups (70 v. 80 % of amount offered, respectively). The protein was safe and well tolerated. No adverse events were reported. However, the cost of the intervention with FPi was 20–40 % lower v. the standard diet with animal protein derived from beef, chicken, eggs or liver.
Conclusions
The FPi was well accepted and there was no significant difference in growth between both groups. FPi is a potential source of animal protein at lower cost.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.