| |
|
| Title of the thesis |
Dietary Survey of Young adults (18-25 age) to assess their Energy Intake. |
| Name of Author |
Dr. Ghulam Abbas Nasir Tarar |
| Address |
Vill Sahnian wala Atrannal Bus stop P/o Sahanpal Via Jokalian Phalia, Mandi Bahauddin. |
| Reg # |
95-PMB-0863 |
| Roll # |
E-5719192 |
| Student’s Batch # |
1st |
| Research Supervisor |
Dr. Iftikhar Hussain Hashmi |
| Address |
Cardiologist, DHQ Hospital Mandi Bahauddin. |
ABSTRACT
This study “ Dietary Survey of Young Adults 18-25 Years to assess their Energy intake” was conducted in a village of population 6666. The objectives of the study were to assess energy intake of young adults of both sexes, to compare the results between both sexes, to find out relationship of height and weight with energy intake of the subject and to compare the study with previous studies. The major hypothesis was “Majority of Young Adults had Low Energy Intakes”. Research method adopted for the study was cross sectional survey. A sample of 100 males and 100 females was interviewed by simple random sampling without any selection. A 24 dietary recall was conducted to estimate the dietary intake of the individuals. Food Composition Tables were used for translating portion size into nutrients. The mean (Average) intake X was higher (2335Kcal) in males than (1550Kcal) females in the community. Mean energy intake in both sexes was lower than standard. Standard of reference man with moderate activity was 2550Kcal and for reference women 2160Kcal per 24 hour. There was positive correlation coefficient l among height and energy; weight and energy intake and males and females energy intakes. Males in the community were taking energy from milk; beef, mutton, eggs and poultry while females were taking energy from poultry, milk, beef eggs and pakoras in descending order for energy intake. Significance was tested by comparisons of means. Difference between Mean X in both sexes (2335-1550= 785) was more than 2s (56.4 x 2= 112.8). Similarly the difference between standard errors of the mean (4.3-3.6 =0.7) was more than twice the standard error of the difference (0.066 x 2 =0.132). As the observed difference exceeds 2s the probability is high that the difference was not due to chance alone.
[Back]
