DIETARY AND ANTHROPOMETRIC PROFILE OF INSTITUTIONALIZED AND NONINSTITUTIONALIZED BOYS

Article Id: ARCC5336 | Page : 59 . 63
Citation :- DIETARY AND ANTHROPOMETRIC PROFILE OF INSTITUTIONALIZED AND NONINSTITUTIONALIZED BOYS.Asian Journal Of Dairy and Food Research.2005.(24):59 . 63
Rajbir Sachdeva*, Simran Chugh and Paramjit Chawla
Address : Department of Food and Nutrition. College of Home Science. Punjab Agricultural University. Ludhiana . 141 004. India

Abstract

A sample of sixty boys aged 10–12 years i.e. 30 living in institutions of Ludhiana and Amritsar (Group I) and 30 living in homes belonging to lower socio-economic group of Ludhiana (Group II) were selected. The average per capita income in Group II was Rs.437/month whereas in the Group I, the authorities of Red Cross and Chief Khalsa Diwan spent Rs.500/month on each subject. The dietary survey was conducted for seven consecutive days by “24 hour recall method“ uSing standardized containers. The results of the study revealed that daily intake of cereals, green leafy vegetables, visible fat, sugar and jaggery was inadequate in both the groups. However, the consumption of pulses, roots and tubers, fruits and milk and milk products exceeded the RDA's in Group I but were grossly deficient in Group II. The average height and weight of the subjects in Group I and II was 140.16±12.2 cm and 29.6±8.58 kg and 134.45±5.98 cm and 25.7±2.61 kg, respectively. On the basis of Waterlow's classification of height for age 70% subjects of Group I was normal against 43.3% subjects of Group II. The results indicated that better dietary and anthropometric profile in Group I was due to food intake in adequate amounts provided by authorities and people as charity. Majority of subjects in Group n were undernourished due to nutritional deprivation as their parents were unable to provide food in adequate amounts due to poverty and large family size.

Keywords

References

  1. Bakhetia, P (1994). M. Sc. Thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
  2. Chowdhary, p.o. (1993). Social Welfare, 39: 17-19. Vol. 24. No.1. 2005 63
  3. Gibson, R.S. (1990). Principles ofNutritional Assessment. Oxford Univ. Press. Oxford. pp. 170-179.
  4. ICMR (1984). Recommended dietary intake for Indians. Indian Council of Medical Research. New Delhi.
  5. JelUffe; 0.8. (1966). The Assessment of Nutritional Status of Community. World Health Organisation, Geneva.
  6. Khan. S. et al. (1995). Indian Paed., 33: 226-28.
  7. Mittal. R. (1998). M. Sc. Thesis. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. India.
  8. NIN (1986). Indian Council of Medical Research. Hyderabad. pp. 164-65.
  9. Saran. S. et al. (1999). Scientific Programme and Abstracts NSI XXII Annual meeting. Avinashilingam University. COimbator. Tamil Nadu. India. pp. 58.
  10. Sarupriya. S. and Mathew. S. (1988). Indian J. Nutr. Dietics. 25: 281-87.
  11. Song. W.O. et al. (1992). Asian Indian Foods Nutrition. USA.
  12. Vazir. S. (1998). Proc. Nutr. Soc. India. NIN. Hyderabad. 45: 69-83.
  13. Yegammai. C. and Lakshmi.J. (1998). Indian J. Nutr. Dietet. 35: 231-34.

Global Footprints