K Michael Hambidge1, Leland V Miller2, Manolo Mazariegos3, Jamie Westcott2, Noel W Solomons4, Victor Raboy5, Jennifer F Kemp2, Abhik Das6, Norman Goco6, Ty Hartwell6, Linda Wright7, Nancy F Krebs2. 1. Section of Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; michael.hambidge@ucdenver.edu. 2. Section of Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. 3. Institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panama, Guatemala City, Guatemala. 4. Center for Studies of Sensory Impairments, Aging, and Metabolism (CeSSIAM), Guatemala City, Guatemala. 5. USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Aberdeen, ID. 6. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC; and. 7. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, MD.
Abstract
Background: Estimated physiologic requirements (PRs) for zinc increase in late pregnancy and early lactation, but the effect on dietary zinc requirements is uncertain.Objective: The aim of this study was to determine changes in daily fractional absorbed zinc and total absorbed zinc (TAZ) from ad libitum diets of differing phytate contents in relation to physiologic zinc requirements during pregnancy and lactation. Methods: This was a prospective observational study of zinc absorption at 8 (phase 1) and 34 (phase 2) wk of gestation and 2 (phase 3) and 6 (phase 4) mo of lactation. Participants were indigenous Guatemalan women of childbearing age whose major food staple was maize and who had been randomly assigned in a larger study to either of2 ad libitum feeding groups: low-phytate maize (LP; 1.6 mg/g; n = 14) or control maize (C; 7.1 mg/g; n = 8). Total dietary zinc (milligrams per day, TDZ) and phytate (milligrams per day) were determined from duplicate diets and fractional absorption (FAZ) by dual isotope ratio technique (TAZ = TDZ × FAZ). All variables were examined longitudinally and by group and compared with PRs. TAZ values at later phases were compared with phase 1. Measured TAZ was compared with predicted TAZ for nonpregnant, nonlactating (NPNL) women. Results:TAZ was greater in the LP group than in the C group at all phases. All variables increased from phase 1 to phases 2 and 3 and declined at phase 4. TAZ increased by 1.25 mg/d (P = 0.045) in the C group and by 0.81 mg/d (P = 0.058) in the LP group at phase 2. At phase 3, the increases were 2.66 mg/d (P = 0.002) in the C group and 2.28 mg/d (P = 0.0004) in the LP group, compared with a 1.37-mg/d increase in PR. Measured TAZ was greater than predicted values in phases 2-4.Conclusions: Upregulation of zinc absorption in late pregnancy and early lactation matches increases in PRs of pregnant and lactating women, regardless of dietary phytate, which has implications for dietary zinc requirements of pregnant and lactating women.
RCT Entities:
Background: Estimated physiologic requirements (PRs) for zinc increase in late pregnancy and early lactation, but the effect on dietary zinc requirements is uncertain.Objective: The aim of this study was to determine changes in daily fractional absorbed zinc and total absorbed zinc (TAZ) from ad libitum diets of differing phytate contents in relation to physiologic zinc requirements during pregnancy and lactation. Methods: This was a prospective observational study of zinc absorption at 8 (phase 1) and 34 (phase 2) wk of gestation and 2 (phase 3) and 6 (phase 4) mo of lactation. Participants were indigenous Guatemalan women of childbearing age whose major food staple was maize and who had been randomly assigned in a larger study to either of 2 ad libitum feeding groups: low-phytate maize (LP; 1.6 mg/g; n = 14) or control maize (C; 7.1 mg/g; n = 8). Total dietary zinc (milligrams per day, TDZ) and phytate (milligrams per day) were determined from duplicate diets and fractional absorption (FAZ) by dual isotope ratio technique (TAZ = TDZ × FAZ). All variables were examined longitudinally and by group and compared with PRs. TAZ values at later phases were compared with phase 1. Measured TAZ was compared with predicted TAZ for nonpregnant, nonlactating (NPNL) women. Results: TAZ was greater in the LP group than in the C group at all phases. All variables increased from phase 1 to phases 2 and 3 and declined at phase 4. TAZ increased by 1.25 mg/d (P = 0.045) in the C group and by 0.81 mg/d (P = 0.058) in the LP group at phase 2. At phase 3, the increases were 2.66 mg/d (P = 0.002) in the C group and 2.28 mg/d (P = 0.0004) in the LP group, compared with a 1.37-mg/d increase in PR. Measured TAZ was greater than predicted values in phases 2-4.Conclusions: Upregulation of zinc absorption in late pregnancy and early lactation matches increases in PRs of pregnant and lactating women, regardless of dietary phytate, which has implications for dietary zinc requirements of pregnant and lactating women.
Authors: K Michael Hambidge; John W Huffer; Victor Raboy; Gary K Grunwald; Jamie L Westcott; Lei Sian; Leland V Miller; John A Dorsch; Nancy F Krebs Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Carmen M Donangelo; Carmiña L Vargas Zapata; Leslie R Woodhouse; David M Shames; Ratna Mukherjea; Janet C King Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Lei Sian; Nancy F Krebs; Jamie E Westcott; Li Fengliang; Li Tong; Leland V Miller; Bakary Sonko; Michael Hambidge Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: K Michael Hambidge; Yewelsew Abebe; Rosalind S Gibson; Jamie E Westcott; Leland V Miller; Sian Lei; Barbara J Stoecker; Isabel Arbide; Akilu Teshome; Karl B Bailey; Nancy F Krebs Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Rebecca L Lander; K Michael Hambidge; Jamie E Westcott; Gabriela Tejeda; Tshilenge S Diba; Shivanand C Mastiholi; Umber S Khan; Ana Garcés; Lester Figueroa; Antoinette Tshefu; Adrien Lokangaka; Shivaprasad S Goudar; Manjunath S Somannavar; Sumera Aziz Ali; Sarah Saleem; Elizabeth M McClure; Nancy F Krebs; On Behalf Of The Women First Preconception Nutrition Trial Group Journal: Nutrients Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Marisol Castillo-Castrejon; Ivana V Yang; Elizabeth J Davidson; Sarah J Borengasser; Purevsuren Jambal; Jamie Westcott; Jennifer F Kemp; Ana Garces; Sumera A Ali; Sarah Saleem; Robert L Goldenberg; Lester Figueroa; K Michael Hambidge; Nancy F Krebs; Theresa L Powell Journal: J Nutr Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: James Curtis Dring; Alicja Forma; Zuzanna Chilimoniuk; Maciej Dobosz; Grzegorz Teresiński; Grzegorz Buszewicz; Jolanta Flieger; Tomasz Cywka; Jacek Januszewski; Jacek Baj Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Winston J Craig; Ann Reed Mangels; Ujué Fresán; Kate Marsh; Fayth L Miles; Angela V Saunders; Ella H Haddad; Celine E Heskey; Patricia Johnston; Enette Larson-Meyer; Michael Orlich Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: James B B Adams; Jacob C C Sorenson; Elena L L Pollard; Jasmine K K Kirby; Tapan Audhya Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 5.717