General Characteristics
To assess the nutritional status of the study sample, anthropometric measurement was done as it is a non-invasive method and is also helpful for calculating body mass index (BMI) in a simple and convenient way. Table 1 shows the anthropometric measurements of the given participants.
Table 1. Comparison between males and females according to anthropometric measurements
|
Total (n = 171)
|
Males (n = 77)
|
Females (n = 94)
|
Test of Sig.
|
p
|
Age (years)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
20.9 ± 2.37
|
21.2 ± 2.30
|
20.7 ± 2.42
|
t=1.472
|
0.143
|
Median (Min. – Max.)
|
20 (15 – 28)
|
21 (16 – 25)
|
20 (15 – 28)
|
Weight (kg)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
66.5 ± 15.39
|
74.2 ± 14.58
|
60.1 ± 12.94
|
t=6.732*
|
<0.001*
|
Height (cm)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
168.9 ± 9.96
|
177.1 ± 7.12
|
162.2 ± 6.31
|
t=14.441*
|
<0.001*
|
BMI (kg/m2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
23.2 ± 4.57
|
23.7 ± 4.40
|
22.8 ± 4.69
|
t=1.219
|
0.225
|
Nutritional status by BMI kg/m2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underweight (<18.5)
|
22 (12.9%)
|
7 (9.1%)
|
15 (16.0%)
|
χ2=2.058
|
0.560
|
Normal range (18.5–24.9)
|
102 (59.6%)
|
47 (61.0%)
|
55 (58.5%)
|
Overweight (25.0–29.9)
|
32 (18.7%)
|
15 (19.5%)
|
17 (18.1%)
|
Obese (≥30)
|
15 (8.8%)
|
8 (10.4%)
|
7 (7.4%)
|
Class 1 (30–34.9)
|
10 (66.7%)
|
5 (62.5%)
|
5 (71.4%)
|
χ2= 0.134
|
FEp= 1.000
|
Class 2 (35.0–39.9)
|
5 (33.3%)
|
3 (37.5%)
|
2 (28.6%)
|
Class 3 (≥40.0)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
SD: Standard deviation
t: Student t-test
c2: Chi-square test
FE: Fisher’s Exact
p: p-value for comparing males and females
*: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05
As per the data, the mean age of the sample was 20.9 ± 2.37. According to the BMI, the majority of the participants (59.6%) had a normal range of weight ranging between 18.5–24.9. Only a minority of individuals were underweight (12.9%) and overweight 32 (18.7%). Moreover, the study also has participants (8.8%) who were identified as person living with obesity owing to their weight range (≥30). However, none of the participants was reported from class 3. Therefore, it can be said that although it didn't represent the majority, the study still has a relatively high percentage of person living with overweight and person living with obesity (27.5% in total).
The biochemical analysis of the study sample was done to measure the overall health status. Table 2 offers the data from the testing. According to the results, the levels of total hemoglobin were normal in both males and females. The normal range of hemoglobin is 138 to 172 g/L in males and 121 to 151 g/L in females [ 22]. Thus, our results were within the normal range. The packed cell volume was also within a normal range as it was close to 0.46 [ 23]. The values for fasting blood glucose concentration were also normal as they lie between a normal range of 3.9-5.6mmol/L as per the WHO (2023) report [ 24] .The total cholesterol serum levels in the given sample were optimal, as the value of <5.17 mmol/L is considered normal [ 25]. Since triglyceride serum levels were less than 1.7, they also fell within a normal range. The HDL-Cholesterol levels were normal as they were close to 1.55 mmol/L [ 25]. The cholesterol/HDL ratio was normal. Moreover, the LDL-Cholesterol was less than 3.4 mmol/L; hence it showed a good range [ 26]. The normal levels of total protein are 60 to 83 g/L [ 26]. Therefore, the total protein levels of the participants were also good, as they were within the ideal limit (77.6 g/L). Lastly, the Albumin, Globulins, and Albumin-Globulin serum ratio were also within normal ranges as they fell into the optimal ranges of between 34-54g/L [ 27], 20-39 g/L [ 28], and 1-2 A/G [ 29], respectively. Overall, the results of the biochemical testing were good, and the values fell within the normal ranges.
Table 2. Biochemical analysis of the studied sample (N=166)
Biochemical test
|
All (M+F)
|
M
|
F
|
LSD
|
Total Hemoglobin (g/L)
|
142.9
|
159.40 a
|
126.40 b
|
10.22
|
Packed cell volume (l/l)
|
0.43
|
0.47 a
|
0.39 b
|
0.03
|
Fasting blood glucose, serum level (mmol/L)
|
4.75
|
4.75 a
|
4.75 a
|
0.29
|
Cholesterol total, serum level (mmol/L)
|
4.07
|
3.92 a
|
4.22 a
|
0.65
|
Triglycerides, serum level (mmol/L)
|
1.1
|
1.40 a
|
0.80 b
|
0.47
|
HDL-Cholesterol, serum level (mmol/L)
|
1.39
|
1.20 a
|
1.58 b
|
0.19
|
Cholesterol/HDL ratio
|
3.025
|
3.32 a
|
2.73 b
|
0.60
|
LDL-Cholesterol, serum level (mmol/L)
|
2.17
|
2.08 a
|
2.26 a
|
0.55
|
Total protein, serum level (g/L)
|
77.6
|
78.00 a
|
77.20 a
|
4.27
|
Albumin, serum level (g/L)
|
48.05
|
49.00 a
|
47.10 a
|
2.45
|
Globulins, serum level (g/L)
|
29.55
|
29.00 a
|
30.10 a
|
2.81
|
Albumin-Globulin serum ratio
|
1.63
|
1.70 a
|
1.56 a
|
0.16
|
Note: Different letters in a column indicate significant differences at p≤ 0.05, according to Fisher's Protected LSD.
Multiple factors, including calories, proteins, carbs, fat, and cholesterol, were considered. The mean intake of energy and macronutrients of the studied sample is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Comparison between males and females according to the mean intake of energy and macronutrients
Nutrients
|
Total (n = 171)
|
Males (n = 77)
|
Females (n = 94)
|
p
|
Cals (kcal)
|
|
|
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
1450 ± 801
|
1455 ± 796
|
1445 ± 809
|
0.886
|
Median (Min. – Max.)
|
1265 (232 – 4963)
|
1309 (304 – 4292)
|
1232 (232 – 4963)
|
Prot (g)
|
|
|
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
63.8 ± 42.78
|
68.3 ± 53.26
|
60.0 ± 31.55
|
0.818
|
Carb (g)
|
|
|
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
173 ± 108
|
174 ± 103
|
172 ± 112
|
0.572
|
Fat (g)
|
|
|
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
57.1 ± 42.21
|
54.6 ± 40.44
|
59.2 ± 43.71
|
0.506
|
Cholesterol (mg)
|
|
|
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
246 ± 233
|
236 ± 269
|
253 ± 200
|
0.100
|
Median (Min. – Max.)
|
167 (0 – 1476)
|
145 (0 – 1476)
|
188 (4 – 831)
|
SD: Standard deviation
p: p-value for comparing males and females
The outcomes presented in Table 3 indicate that the mean daily calorie intake of participants was somewhat low in both genders, as typically, an average level of the calorie intake of 1,800-2,000 is considered sedentary for females and 2,400-2,600 for males whose age ranges between 19-30 years [ 30]. However, changes in these ranges are expected because these levels are based on Estimated Energy Requirements (EER) according to the Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes macronutrients report [ 31]. The mean protein intake of the participants from both genders was noted to be 63.8 ± 42.78. which was somewhat high for their weights, as an average daily protein intake should be 0.8 g/kg of body weight [ 32]. The mean intake of carbs was 173 ± 108 of the sample, which was normal for females but low for males as typically, the daily carbs intake of a person considering the average weight, height, and other similar characteristics should be between 173-324 grams for females and 224-419 for males. Moreover, the mean fat intake of the participants was within a suitable range (57.1 ± 42.21) as a normal fat allowance for males and females of the given anthropometric properties is between 48–83 grams and 37-64 grams, respectively. Besides, the cholesterol levels were not high nor low and showed a satisfactory level of daily consumption as typically, the cholesterol intake per day shouldn't exceed 300 milligrams for a healthy person [ 33]. To sum up, all together, the total intake of energy and macronutrients was considered good as, for some cases, the intake was high, and some were low, which somehow balanced out the overall intake.
Afterward, the mean intake of micronutrients was compared for the sample. Vitamin D intake and Vitamin D serum levels of participants are shown in Table 4. From the values given in the table, it was noted that the mean intake of micronutrients was relatively low in both males and females.
Table 4. Comparison between females and males according to the mean intake of micronutrients
|
Total
|
Males
|
Females
|
p
|
Vit B1 (mg)
|
(n = 169)
|
(n = 76)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
0.56 ± 0.61
|
0.53 ± 0.52
|
0.59 ± 0.67
|
0.672
|
Vit B2 (mg)
|
(n = 168)
|
(n = 75)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
0.72 ± 0.56
|
0.69 ± 0.47
|
0.75 ± 0.62
|
0.989
|
Vit B3 (mg)
|
(n = 169)
|
(n = 76)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
6.57 ± 7.98
|
6.07 ± 7.63
|
6.97 ± 8.28
|
0.486
|
Vit B3-NE (mg)
|
(n = 169)
|
(n = 76)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
10.56 ± 11.55
|
10.13 ± 10.98
|
10.92 ± 12.03
|
0.907
|
Vit B6 (mg)
|
(n = 167)
|
(n = 74)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
0.56 ± 0.65
|
0.44 ± 0.50
|
0.65 ± 0.75
|
0.036*
|
Vit B12 (mcg)
|
(n = 168)
|
(n = 75)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
1.54 ± 4.83
|
0.97 ± 1.71
|
2.0 ± 6.28
|
0.106
|
Biot (mcg)
|
(n = 151)
|
(n = 65)
|
(n = 86)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
11.03 ± 17.50
|
11.25 ± 18.32
|
10.86 ± 16.97
|
0.384
|
Vit C (mg)
|
(n = 171)
|
(n = 77)
|
(n = 94)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
48.17 ± 52.53
|
46.79 ± 46.96
|
49.3 ± 56.9
|
0.836
|
Vit E-a-Toco (mg)
|
(n = 166)
|
(n = 73)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
3.1 ± 7.7
|
3.4 ± 10.8
|
2.74 ± 4.02
|
0.461
|
Vit E-aTE (mg)
|
(n = 166)
|
(n = 73)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
3.1 ± 7.7
|
3.6 ± 10.8
|
2.76 ± 4.01
|
0.707
|
Vit E-IU (IU)
|
(n = 166)
|
(n = 73)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
4.56 ± 11.55
|
5.17 ± 16.09
|
4.08 ± 5.99
|
0.454
|
Vit E-mg (mg)
|
(n = 166)
|
(n = 73)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
3.04 ± 7.75
|
3.44 ± 10.80
|
2.73 ± 4.02
|
0.445
|
Folate (mcg)
|
(n = 167)
|
(n = 74)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
137 ± 143
|
123 ± 132
|
147 ± 150
|
0.300
|
Vit K (mcg)
|
(n = 166)
|
(n = 73)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
32.30 ± 74.34
|
25.82 ± 64.05
|
37.39 ± 81.50
|
0.054
|
SD: Standard deviation
p: p-value for comparing males and females
*: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05
After comparing the mean intake of micronutrients, another assessment was made. The mean energy, macronutrient, and selected nutrient intakes were determined. Table 5 recapitulates the results of the comparison between the sample as per the biochemical analysis. Similar to Table 3, the results also showed lower levels of consumption in this regard as well for both males and females.
Table 5. Comparison between males and females according to biochemical analysis
|
Total
|
Males
|
Females
|
p
|
Iodine (mcg)
|
(n = 105)
|
(n = 45)
|
(n = 60)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
29.9 ± 26.1
|
31.2 ± 30.2
|
28.9 ± 22.7
|
1.000
|
Iron (mg)
|
(n = 171)
|
(n = 77)
|
(n = 94)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
7.62 ± 5.89
|
7.05 ± 4.82
|
8.08 ± 6.62
|
0.613
|
Magn (mg)
|
(n = 168)
|
(n = 75)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
96.5 ± 113
|
91.7 ± 86.8
|
100 ± 130
|
0.790
|
Mang (mg)
|
(n = 167)
|
(n = 74)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
1.13 ± 1.91
|
1.03 ± 1.54
|
1.22 ± 2.17
|
0.621
|
Moly (mcg)
|
(n = 111)
|
(n = 43)
|
(n = 68)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
18.46 ± 25.44
|
18.88 ± 23.33
|
18.20 ± 26.86
|
0.462
|
Phos (mg)
|
(n = 168)
|
(n = 75)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
420 ± 480
|
429 ± 536
|
412 ± 432
|
0.901
|
Pot (mg)
|
(n = 169)
|
(n = 76)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
925 ± 740
|
897 ± 748
|
949 ± 737
|
0.632
|
Sel (mcg)
|
(n = 166)
|
(n = 73)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
48.66 ± 87.21
|
51.37 ± 94.77
|
46.52 ± 81.24
|
0.877
|
Sod (mg)
|
(n = 171)
|
(n = 77)
|
(n = 94)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
2540 ± 2263
|
2545 ± 2426
|
2536 ± 2134
|
0.600
|
Zinc (mg)
|
(n = 167)
|
(n = 74)
|
(n = 93)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
3.34 ± 4.37
|
3.02 ± 3.93
|
3.60 ± 4.69
|
0.728
|
SD: Standard deviation
p: p-value for comparing males and females
Furthermore, the daily mean intake of food groups according to MyPlate serving was determined. The results of the comparison of the mean daily intake of food groups among the sample are offered in Table 6.
Table 6. Comparison between females and males according to the average daily intake of food groups
Food group (serving)
|
Total
|
Males
|
Females
|
P
|
Grains
|
(n = 171)
|
(n = 76)
|
(n = 94)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
3.19 ± 5.42
|
3.28 ± 4.23
|
3.12 ± 6.24
|
0.328
|
Vegetables
|
(n = 171)
|
(n = 76)
|
(n = 94)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
1.57 ± 3.07
|
1.17 ± 2.30
|
1.88 ± 3.55
|
0.033*
|
Fruit
|
(n = 171)
|
(n = 76)
|
(n = 94)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
1.01 ± 1.60
|
1.25 ± 2.12
|
0.83 ± 0.99
|
0.587
|
Milk
|
(n = 171)
|
(n = 76)
|
(n = 94)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
0.30 ± 0.50
|
0.29 ± 0.60
|
0.30 ± 0.40
|
0.186
|
Meat
|
(n = 171)
|
(n = 76)
|
(n = 94)
|
|
Mean ± SD.
|
3.52 ± 4.97
|
3.59 ± 5.35
|
3.45 ± 4.67
|
0.835
|
SD: Standard deviation
p: p-value for comparing males and females
*: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05
To the results (Table 6), it was noted that meat (3.52 ± 4.97) and grains (3.19 ± 5.42) have the highest intake among all other food groups. The daily intake of milk was found to be the lowest (0.30 ± 0.50), followed by fruits (1.01 ± 1.60) and vegetables (1.57 ± 3.07). Since the consumption patterns of food groups were noted, it was time to make an overall comparison of the sample's vitamin D intake and vitamin D serum levels.
Correlation between vitamin D levels and vitamin D intake among males, and females are shown in figure 1, and figure 2, respectively. The linear regression model showed a slight positive impact of vitamin D intake on vitamin D levels among males and females, (r = 0.967, p = 0.001), and (r = 0.970, p = 0.001), respectively.