Contract No.: 43-3AEM-1-80080 

MPR Reference No.: 8824-200 

Assessing the Nutrient 

Intakes of Vulnerable 

Subgroups 

Final Report

October 2005 

Barbara Devaney 

Myoung Kim 

Alicia Carriquiry 

Gabriel Camaño-García 

Submitted to: 

US Department of Agriculture 

Economic Research Service, FRED 

1800 M Street, NW, Room N4101 

Washington, DC 20036-5831 

Project Officer: 

Katherine Ralston 

Submitted by: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

P.O. Box 2393 

Princeton, NJ 08543-2393 

Telephone: (609) 799-3535 

Facsimile: (609) 799-0005 

Project Director: 

Barbara Devaney 
t No. 11 

Assessing the Nutrient 

Intakes of Vulnerable 

Subgroups

By Barbara Devaney, Myoung Kim, Alicia Carriquiry, 

and Gabriel Camaño-Garcia, Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc. 

ERS project representative: Katherine Ralston, 

kralston@ers.usda.gov, 202-694-5463

Abstract 

This study is a comprehensive analysis of the nutrient adequacy of segments of the 

population at risk of inadequate nutrient intake, excessive intake, or dietary imbalances, 

based on the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals conducted in 1994-96 

and 1998. The segments include adolescent females, older adults, children and adults at 

risk of overweight, individuals living in food-insufficient households, low-income 

individuals, and individuals targeted by and participating in food and nutrition assistance 

programs. The study adds to a growing literature that uses current, improved knowledge 

of nutrient requirements and recommended nutrient assessment methods to analyze 

nutrient intakes. The study indicates generally inadequate intakes of key micronutrients, 

especially magnesium, calcium, folate, and vitamin E; energy intakes less than 

recommended energy requirements for adults; and consumption of too much food energy 

from fat and not enough from carbohydrates; and inadequate intakes of fiber. In addition, 

diet adequacy deteriorates as individuals get older. Children—especially infants and 

young children—have diets that are more nutritionally adequate than those of adolescents 

and adults. 

This report was prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., under

a cooperative agreement with the Economic Research Service. The

views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those

of ERS or USDA.
 iii 

CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

 

 I INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1 

A. BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................2 

B. STUDY OVERVIEW..............................................................................................6 

1. Data Sources ....................................................................................................8 

2. Analysis Subgroups .......................................................................................10 

3. Nutrients Examined .......................................................................................13 

 II ANALYSIS METHODS...............................................................................................15 

A. DIETARY REFERENCE INTAKES....................................................................15 

B. STUDY QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ....................16 

1. What Are the Characteristics of the Distribution of Usual Intake? ...............17 

2. What Proportion of the Subgroup Has Inadequate Usual Intake? .................19 

3. What Proportion Is At Risk of Excessive Intake Levels?..............................21 

4. How Does the Day-to-Day Variation in Nutrient Intake Vary Across 

Subgroups?.....................................................................................................21 

C. IMPORTANT DATA AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ........22 

 III ANALYSIS RESULTS.................................................................................................25 

A. SUMMARY OF KEY ANALYSIS RESULTS ....................................................25 

B. DETAILED ANALYSIS RESULTS.....................................................................27 

C. PREVALENCE OF EXCESSIVE USUAL INTAKE LEVELS...........................62 
CONTENTS (continued) 

Chapter Page 

 iv 

 IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................65 

REFERENCES..............................................................................................................71 

APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................A.1 
v 

TABLES 

Table Page 

 

1 ANALYSIS SUBGROUPS.......................................................................................... 11 

2 DIETARY REFERENCE INTAKES .......................................................................... 15 

3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OUTCOME MEASURES ..................................... 16 

4a USUAL NUTRIENT INTAKE: MICRONUTRIENTS, ADOLESCENT 

 FEMALES.................................................................................................................... 27 

4b ESTIMATED ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND USUAL INTAKE OF 

 FOOD ENERGY: ADOLESCENT FEMALES.......................................................... 28 

4c USUAL NUTRIENT INTAKE: MACRONUTRIENTS, ADOLESCENT 

 FEMALES.................................................................................................................... 29 

4d USUAL INTAKE OF DIETARY FIBER: ADOLESCENT FEMALES ................... 29 

5a USUAL NUTRIENT INTAKE: MICRONUTRIENTS, OLDER ADULTS ............. 30 

5b ESTIMATED ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND USUAL INTAKE OF 

 FOOD ENERGY: OLDER ADULTS......................................................................... 31 

5c USUAL NUTRIENT INTAKE: MACRONUTRIENTS, OLDER ADULTS............ 32 

5d USUAL INTAKE OF DIETARY FIBER: OLDER ADULTS................................... 33 

6a USUAL NUTRIENT INTAKE: MICRONUTRIENTS, OVERWEIGHT 

 STATUS....................................................................................................................... 34 

6b ESTIMATED ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND USUAL INTAKE OF 

 FOOD ENERGY: OVERWEIGHT STATUS ............................................................ 38 

6c USUAL NUTRIENT INTAKE: MACRONUTRIENTS, OVERWEIGHT 

 STATUS....................................................................................................................... 40 

6d USUAL INTAKE OF DIETARY FIBER: OVERWEIGHT STATUS...................... 41 

7a USUAL NUTRIENT INTAKE: MICRONUTRIENTS, LOW-INCOME 

INDIVIDUALS ............................................................................................................ 42 
TABLES (continued)

Table Page 

 vi 

7b ESTIMATED ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND USUAL INTAKE OF FOOD 

ENERGY: LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS ............................................................. 46 

7c USUAL NUTRIENT INTAKE: MACRONUTRIENTS, LOW-INCOME 

INDIVIDUALS ............................................................................................................ 47 

7d USUAL INTAKE OF DIETARY FIBER: LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS ........... 48 

8a USUAL NUTRIENT INTAKE: MICRONUTRIENTS, FSP AND WIC 

PARTICIPANTS.......................................................................................................... 49 

8b ESTIMATED ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND USUAL INTAKE OF FOOD 

ENERGY: FSP AND WIC PARTICIPANTS ............................................................ 54 

8c USUAL NUTRIENT INTAKE: MACRONUTRIENTS, FSP AND WIC 

PARTICIPANTS.......................................................................................................... 55 

8d USUAL INTAKE OF DIETARY FIBER: FSP AND WIC PARTICIPANTS .......... 57 

9a USUAL NUTRIENT INTAKE: MICRONUTRIENTS, NSLP AND SBP 

PARTICIPANTS.......................................................................................................... 58 

9b ESTIMATED ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND USUAL INTAKE OF FOOD 

ENERGY: NSLP AND SBP PARTICIPANTS.......................................................... 60 

9c USUAL NUTRIENT INTAKE: MACRONUTRIENTS, NSLP AND SBP 

PARTICIPANTS.......................................................................................................... 61 

9d USUAL INTAKE OF DIETARY FIBER: NSLP AND SBP PARTICIPANTS........ 62 
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

In recent years, concerns about the nutritional adequacy of the diets of certain population 

subgroups have arisen. The prevalence of obesity and overweight among children, adolescents, 

and adults has steadily increased over the past four decades (Kuczmarski et al. 1994; Ogden et al. 

2002; and Flegal et al. 2002). Despite increases in overweight, food insecurity persists among 

some subgroups of the population (Nord et al. 2004), and poor diet quality—especially the 

consumption of high-fat, energy-dense foods—characterize other subgroups (Kant 2000, 2003). 

Subgroups of particular concern include adolescent females, older adults, overweight and 

obese children and adults, individuals living in food-insecure or food–insufficient households, 

low-income individuals, and individuals targeted by and participating in food and nutrition 

assistance programs. This report presents detailed analysis findings from a study assessing the 

diets of these subgroups using the set of dietary reference standards developed by the Institute of 

Medicine over the past decade. Assessing the diets of these subgroups focuses on the risk of 

either inadequate or excessive nutrient intakes, as well as other dietary imbalances. 

The study uses data from the 1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by 

Individuals to address two primary research questions: 

1. What are the characteristics of the distributions of usual nutrient intake for these 

subgroups? 

- What proportion of the subgroup has inadequate nutrient intake? 

- What proportion of the subgroup is at risk of excessive nutrient intake? 

- How variable are usual nutrient intakes? 

2. Does the day-to-day variation (within-person standard deviation) in nutrient intake 

vary across population subgroups? For example, 

- Do individuals living in food-insecure households have more or less day-today variation in nutrient intake than other individuals? 
2 

- Do teenage females have greater or smaller day-to-day variation in nutrient 

intakes relative to other population subgroups? 

This report focuses on the first question related to assessing nutrient adequacy, while a 

separate report examines the second question on the day-to-day variation in nutrient intake. The 

remainder of this chapter provides some background information on the nutritional adequacy of 

the diets of specific population subgroups, presents an overview of the study, and describes the 

report organization and important study considerations. Chapter II describes the outcomes 

examined and methods used to address the main research questions. Chapter III presents the 

results from analyses of the usual nutrient intakes. The concluding chapter summarizes the main 

findings and their implications. An appendix presents tables with usual intake distributions of 

selected subgroups. 

A. BACKGROUND 

As knowledge of the relationship between diet and long-term health has increased, so have 

concerns about the diets of certain population subgroups. Areas of concern include the 

increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity, the well-established links between chronic 

disease and dietary practices, and the persistence of hunger and food insecurity. Several groups 

appear at risk of nutrient deficiencies, dietary imbalances, or excessive intake. In some cases, 

these assessments were based on inappropriate methods; new assessments using methods 

proposed by the Institute of Medicine are needed to confirm these concerns. 

Adolescent Females. Adolescence is a unique period of growth and development. In 

addition to maturing physically, teenagers begin to make a greater number of independent 

decisions about food consumption. Dietary concerns include thinness and overweight, 

inadequate intakes of micronutrients, meal-skipping, frequent dieting, and eating disorders. 
3 

Adolescent females, particularly low-income ones, appear to have low intakes of several 

micronutrients—iron, calcium, folate, magnesium, phosphorus, zinc, and vitamins A, C, and E 

(Herbert 1991; Eck and Hackett-Penner 1992; Life Sciences Research Office 1995; Suitor and 

Gleason 2002; and Stang and Bayerl 2002). At the same time, the prevalence of overweight and 

obesity among adolescent females has increased over time (Ogden et al. 2002), and intakes of fat 

and saturated fat exceed levels recommended by the Dietary Guidelines (Life Sciences Research 

Office 1995; Munoz et al. 1997; Troiano et al. 2000; and Gleason and Suitor 2001). Adolescent 

females also are more likely to skip breakfast (Devaney and Stuart 1998; and Gleason and Suitor 

2001). 

Older Adults. Demographic trends document an increasing proportion of the population that 

are older Americans. The challenges that older people face in their living arrangements, as well 

as physical and emotional health, income, and means of transportation, can profoundly influence 

eating patterns, nutrient intake, and health. Diet-related health problems among older adults 

include obesity, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension (Dwyer 1991). 

Empirical evidence on the dietary status of older Americans suggest potential inadequacies 

in the intakes of calcium, magnesium, zinc, and vitamins D, B6, and B12 (Munro et al. 1987; 

Ponza et al. 1994; Ryan et al. 1992; and Briefel et al. 2000). A substantial proportion also report 

skipping meals (Ryan et al. 1992). 

Overweight and Obese Children, Adolescents, and Adults. Overweight and obesity are 

associated with a host of adverse diet-related health outcomes. In addition, analyses of data 

collected through the National Health, and Nutrition Examination Surveys over the past three 

decades document a substantial increase in the prevalence of overweight and obesity among 

many age and gender subgroups (Kuczmarski et al. 1994; Mei et al. 1998; Troiano 1995; Ogden 
4 

et al. 2002; and Flegal et al. 2002). Moreover, the prevalence of obesity is highest among lowincome and low-education population subgroups (Drewnowski and Specter 2004). 

Empirical evidence shows that the consumption of energy-dense foods is associated with 

lower intakes of several micronutrients (Kant 2000, 2003), suggesting that overweight subgroups 

may show evidence of excess energy consumption at the same time as inadequate nutrient intake. 

Other studies also document the association between overweight and the consumption of energydense foods and soft drinks (Bandini et al. 1999; St-Onge et al. 2003; and Drewnowski and 

Specter 2004). 

Food-Insecure Individuals. Although nutrient deficiency diseases are rare in the United 

States, some Americans do not have adequate access to enough food all the time. Food security, 

defined as access by all people at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life, 

continues to be important in assessing the adequacy of the diets of population subgroups 

(Andrews et al. 2000). Recent estimates suggest that 89 percent of U.S. households were food 

secure in 2001, and 11 percent were food insecure sometime during the year. About 3.5 percent 

of all U.S. households in 2001 experienced food insecurity with hunger (Nord et al. 2004). 

Food-insecure subgroups are considered at nutritional risk for reasons other than the 

potential for overall low energy intake. Even if overall food energy intake is low, intake of 

specific key nutrients may or may not be low. In addition, if the fear or risk of not having 

enough to eat at all times leads to the consumption of energy-dense foods, food insecurity could 

also lead to overconsumption and overweight. 

 Existing research suggests that adult and elderly women living in households that sometimes 

or often do not have enough to eat (food insufficient) have lower nutrient intakes than other 

similar women (Rose et al. 1991; and Rose and Oliveira 1997). This relationship does not 

appear to hold for children (Cristofar and Basiotis 1992; and Rose and Oliveira 1997). A recent 
5 

study finds that food-insufficient groups are less likely to have adequate zinc intakes but equally 

likely to have adequate intakes of other key nutrients (Gleason and Suitor 2001). 

Low-Income Individuals. Poverty in the United States affects individuals of all ages, from 

all racial and ethnic groups, and from all regions of the country. Poverty puts individuals at risk 

for virtually all chronic diseases. Among the dietary concerns associated with low household 

income are some nutrient deficiencies, dietary excesses and imbalances, increased prevalence of 

overweight and obesity, and poor diet quality. 

Despite overwhelming evidence documenting health disparities by income, including 

nutrition-related health disparities, evidence on the relationship between household income and 

nutrient intake levels is mixed, and that relationship has varied considerably over time (Adrian 

and Daniel 1976; Basiotis et al. 1983; Johnson et al. 1994; and Gleason and Suitor 2001). The 

third Nutrition Monitoring Report in the United States concludes that low-income adolescents 

and adults have lower mean intakes of the vitamins and minerals considered to be of public 

health concern—vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin B6, folate, calcium, iron, and zinc (Life Sciences 

Research Office 1995). In addition, tables prepared from tabulations from the 1994-1996 

Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals show that the percentage of individuals with 

average intakes less than various cutoff levels decreases with income for some, but not all, 

nutrients (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1999). 

Participants in USDA Food and Nutrition Assistance Programs. In the past four decades, 

a safety net of food and nutrition assistance programs has been created to help low-income 

individuals obtain nutritious diets. The largest of these programs are the Food Stamp Program 

(FSP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the 

National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). Together, 

these programs affect the daily food consumption of millions of Americans. 
6 

A large body of literature exists on the dietary effects of food and nutrition assistance 

programs. Although the effects of these programs on nutrient intake vary by program, age, and 

over time, empirical evidence suggests a relationship between program participation and nutrient 

intakes (Basiotis et al. 1987; Gordon et al. 1995; Rossi 1998; Oliviera et al. 2000; Gleason and 

Suitor 2003; and Fox et al. 2004). Food and nutrition assistance programs also appear to mediate 

the effects of other risk factors for poor dietary outcomes. For example, results from one study 

indicates that girls 5 to 12 years of age from households with food insecurity are less likely to be 

at risk of obesity-related health problems if they participate in the FSP, NSLP, and SBP (Jones et 

al. 2003). However, concerns about the fat content of school meals and the increasing 

prevalence of overweight and obesity among low-income children have caused some to ask 

whether the food and nutrition assistance programs are meeting the nutritional needs of lowincome individuals and school-age children (Besharov and Germanis 2001). 

Summary. A large body of literature suggests that several population subgroups are at risk 

of inadequate or excessive nutrient intake levels. However, much of this literature is dated; 

many of the studies use old data sets and (even for the most recent analyses) inappropriate 

methods to assess nutrient adequacy. In particular, while the existing literature typically focuses 

on a comparison of mean nutrient intake levels across population subgroups, conclusions about 

the nutrient adequacy of diets (prevalence of either inadequate or excessive intake levels) cannot 

be based on mean intake levels. This report uses data from the 1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing 

Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) and methods proposed by the Institute of 

Medicine to update our knowledge of the nutrient adequacy of the diets of vulnerable population 

subgroups. 
7 

B. STUDY OVERVIEW 

Despite a host of empirical studies analyzing the dietary status of the U.S. population and 

various subgroups, several factors suggest the need for updated research on the dietary status of 

vulnerable subgroups. First, over the past decade, knowledge of nutrient requirements has 

increased significantly, resulting in a set of new dietary reference standards called the Dietary 

Reference Intakes (DRIs) (Institute of Medicine 1997, 1998, 2000b, 2001, 2002). The DRIs 

replace the 1989 Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) and are the appropriate standards to 

use in determining whether diets are nutritionally adequate without being excessive. The DRIs 

differ from the 1989 RDAs in several respects: (1) they are based on a reduction in the risk of 

chronic disease, rather than merely the absence of signs of deficiency; (2) when data are 

available, tolerable upper intake levels are established to avoid the risk of adverse effects from 

excess consumption; and (3) when data are available, reference values are provided for other 

non-nutrient food components. 

Second, studies that assess nutrient adequacy of diets have typically compared mean intake 

levels to the RDAs. The RDAs, however, are not the appropriate standard for assessing nutrient 

adequacy of diets. In addition, mean intake levels should not be used to assess either the 

prevalence of inadequate intake levels or the risk of excessive intake levels (Institute of Medicine 

2000a). 

A third reason motivating this analysis is the importance of learning more about the 

variation in individual intake. Individuals vary considerably in the amount of food they eat from 

day to day; yet it is their usual intakes—not their intakes on a given day—that determine whether 

their diet is nutritionally adequate. As a result, dietary assessment studies should focus on the 

usual nutrient intakes of subgroups. An unexplored and interesting question, however, is how 
8 

 

the day-to-day variation in individual intake varies across population subgroups.1

 For example, 

adolescent females—especially those at risk of eating disorders, such as binge eating or 

dieting—may exhibit greater day-to-day variation in their diets. Or it is possible that individuals 

living in food-insecure households may have much less variety in their diets, resulting in less 

day-to-day variation in intake levels. Recent research suggests that, even controlling for energy 

intakes, diet variety is related to aggregate measures of nutrient adequacy (Murphy et al. 2004). 

1. Data Sources 

The primary data set used in this analysis is the 1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Survey of 

Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). The 1994-1996 CSFII provides information on food and 

nutrient intake over two non-consecutive days for 16,103 individuals of all ages and gender, and 

of a variety of income levels, racial and ethnic groups, and sociodemographic characteristics. 

The survey, conducted over three years, was designed so that the information collected on any 

one year would constitute a nationally representative sample of individuals of all ages. The 

samples were selected using stratified, clustered multi-stage sampling procedures, with an 

oversampling of low-income individuals. Food intake data were collected using 24-hour dietary 

recall questionnaires, which included information on the type and amounts of all foods consumed 

by individuals over two non-consecutive days. In addition, sociodemographic information, 

including income and participation in food assistance programs, is provided by the survey. 

The 1998 Supplemental Children’s Survey was designed to be a one-time supplement to the 

1994-1996 CSFII, using the same design and survey methodology of the CSFII. Dietary intake 

data were collected from 5,559 infants and children aged 0 through 9 years over two non1

 As discussed above, the methods and results from the analysis of the day-to-day variation 

in nutrient intake are the focus of a companion report (Carriquiry et al. 2004). 
9 

consecutive days between November 1997 and October 1998. The sample was designed to be a 

stand-alone, nationally representative sample of children in that age range; also, however, it 

could be combined with the dietary information collected for infants and children up to nine 

years of age in the 1994-1996 CSFII. Combining the data from the Supplemental Children’s 

Survey sample and the 1994-96 CSFII sample of children in the same age range (4,253 children) 

provides a large sample of children birth through age 9. This large sample of children is 

particularly useful in this study, since one of the high-risk subgroups is that of overweight and 

obese children. 

One disadvantage of the CSFII is that it does not collect information on supplement intakes. 

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), however, does collect some 

information on supplement use. Using complex, multi-stage stratified clustered samples of the 

civilian, non-institutionalized population aged two months and older, NHANES III includes both 

a 24-hour dietary recall and a food frequency-like questionnaire to elicit from respondents 

information on the consumption of a large variety of vitamin, mineral, and herbal supplements, 

including usual dosage and brands. While the supplement intake data do not permit estimation 

of the day-to-day variability in intakes of nutrients from supplement sources (as individuals 

provided only a self-assessment of “usual” supplement intake), they can still be used, with some 

caution, to obtain an adjusted distribution of nutrient intakes from all sources. 

NHANES III includes a second recall day for only a small subsample of the original sample. 

Of those who completed a 24-hour recall questionnaire during the first-day interview, a small 

self-selected sample equal to approximately 5 percent of the original sample received a second 

24-hour recall questionnaire, on a non-consecutive day. The replicate sample, though small and 

non-random, permits estimation of the usual nutrient intake distributions using the methods 

proposed by the National Research Council (1986) or by Nusser et al. (1996). However, because 
10 

 

of small samples for the replicate observations, NHANES III does not allow a full analysis of the 

subgroups defined and analyzed for this study. For a few subgroups, though, NHANES III data 

(intakes from foods, beverages, and supplements) are used to determine whether the analysis 

findings from the NHANES data differ from those based on CSFII data (intakes from foods and 

beverages, excluding supplements). 

2. Analysis Subgroups 

Table 1 lists the subgroups analyzed and the unweighted sample sizes for each subgroup. 

Nine subgroups are the focus of the analysis: 

• Adolescent females: Female individuals ages 14 to 18 years, excluding pregnant or 

lactating females 

• Older adults: Individuals age 60 and older 

• Individuals at risk of overweight: Individuals ages 20 and under with Body Mass 

Index (BMI) greater than or equal to the 85th percentile of national standards and 

individuals age 20 and older with BMI greater than or equal to 25 

• Individuals in food-insufficient households: Because data on food insecurity are not 

available from the CSFII data, this high-risk category was defined as individuals 

living in food-insufficient households. Households that reported (1) “enough of the 

kinds of food we want to eat” or (2) “enough but not always the kinds of food we 

want to eat” were defined as food sufficient. Households that reported (3) 

“sometimes not enough to eat” or (4) “often not enough to eat” were defined as food 

insufficient.

• Individuals in low-income households: Individuals in households with income less 

than or equal to 185 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). 

• FSP participants: Individuals in households who participated in the FSP.

• WIC participants: Children under 4 who participated in the Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.2

2

 Because the DRIs differ for children 1 to 3 years of age and children 4 to 8 years of age, 

the WIC analysis focuses on children 1 to 3 years of age, even though children 4 years of age are 

eligible for WIC. 
TABLE 1

Analysis Subgroups

High-Risk Subgroup Sample Size Comparison Group Sample Size

Adolescent Females

14 to 18 years 449 na na

Older Adults

Males 60 to 70 years 914 na na

Males 71 years and over 722 na na

Females 60 to 70 years 844 na na

Females 71 years and over 670 na na

Risk of Overweight Nonoverweight

Kids 4 to 8 years 1,407 Kids 4 to 8 years 1,819

Kids 9 to 13 years 328 Kids 9 to 13 years 775

Males 14 to 18 years 114 Males 14 to 18 years 352

Males 19 to 30 years 411 Males 19 to 30 years 500

Males 31 to 50 years 1,167 Males 31 to 50 years 620

Males 51 to 70 years 1,131 Males 51 to 70 years 534

Males 71 years and over 357 Males 71 years and over 356

Females 14 to18 years 100 Females 14 to18 years 341

Females 19 to 30 years 290 Females 19 to 30 years 561

Females 31 to 50 years 792 Females 31 to 50 years 874

Females 51 to 70 years 904 Females 51 to 70 years 645

Females 71 years and over 324 Females 71 years and over 325

From Food Insufficient Households From Food Sufficient Households

Kids 4 to 13 years 173 Kids 4 to 13 years 4,949

Males 14 to 30 years 58 Males 14 to 30 years 1,317

Males 31 to 50 years 56 Males 31 to 50 years 1,741

Males 51 years and over 25 Males 51 years and over 2,361

Females 14 to 30 years 43 Females 14 to 30 years 1,286

Females 31 to 50 years 50 Females 31 to 50 years 1,674

Females 51 years and over 25 Females 51 years and over 2,222

Income below 185% FPL Income above 185% FPL

Kids 4 to 8 years 1,906 Kids 4 to 8 years 2,029

Kids 9 to 13 years 496 Kids 9 to 13 years 705

Males 14 to 18 years 188 Males 14 to 18 years 286

Males 19 to 30 years 366 Males 19 to 30 years 554

Males 31 to 50 years 523 Males 31 to 50 years 1,283

Males 51 to 70 years 488 Males 51 to 70 years 1,192

Males 71 years and over 309 Males 71 years and over 413

Female 14 to 18 years 181 Female 14 to 18 years 274

Females 19 to 30 years 378 Females 19 to 30 years 504

Females 31 to 50 years 559 Females 31 to 50 years 1,175

Females 51 to 70 years 548 Females 51 to 70 years 1,057

Females 71 years and over 346 Females 71 years and over 324

11
Table 1 (continued)

High-Risk Subgroup Sample Size Comparison Group Sample Size

FSP participants Income-eligible FSP nonparticipants

Kids 4 to 8 years 745 Kids 4 to 8 years 706

Kids 9 to 13 years 187 Kids 9 to 13 years 158

Males 14 to 18 years 77 Males 14 to 18 years 66

Males 19 to 30 years 67 Males 19 to 30 years 188

Males 31 to 50 years 139 Males 31 to 50 years 226

Males 51 years and over 142 Males 51 years and over 389

Female 14 to 18 years 65 Female 14 to 18 years 68

Females 19 to 30 years 130 Females 19 to 30 years 179

Females 31 to 50 years 209 Females 31 to 50 years 198

Females 51 years and over 174 Females 51 years and over 426

WIC participants Income-eligible WIC nonparticipants

Kids under 1 year 618 Kids under 1 year 270

Kids 1 to 3 years

a 883 Kids 1 to 3 yearsa 1,113

NSLP participantsb NSLP nonparticipants

Kids 4 to 8 years 854 Kids 4 to 8 years 682

Kids 9 to 13 years 666 Kids 9 to 13 years 458

Males 14 to 18 years 212 Males 14 to 18 years 149

Females 14 to 18 years 163 Females 14 to 18 years 168

SBP participantsb SBP nonparticipants

Kids 4 to 8 years 355 Kids 4 to 8 years 727

Kids 9 to 13 years 204 Kids 9 to 13 years 556

Males 14 to 18 years 40 Males 14 to 18 years 169

Females 14 to 18 years 20 Females 14 to 18 years 179

Source: 1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals.

Note: FPL=federal poverty level; FSP=Food Stamp Program; WIC=Special Supplemental Nutrition

Program for Women, Infants and Children; NSLP=National School Lunch Program; SBP=School

Breakfast Program.

na = not applicable.

a

Because the DRIs differ for children 1 to 3 years of age and children 4 years of age, this subgroup

includes children 1 to 3 years of age only. b

Defined as usually participating 5 days per week. 

12
13 

• NSLP participants: Children and adolescents who reported that they usually 

participated in the NSLP five times per week

• SBP participants: Children and adolescents who reported that they usually 

participated in the SBP five times per week 

For some of these subgroups, comparison groups also are examined: non-overweight 

individuals, individuals in food-sufficient households, higher-income individuals, and incomeeligible nonparticipants. In addition, all subgroups are subdivided into age and gender groupings 

that typically correspond to the DRI age/gender groupings, resulting in 107 analysis subgroups. 

3. Nutrients Examined 

Because of the large number of high-risk subgroups and their comparison counterparts 

included in the analysis, it is necessary to focus the nutrient assessment on those nutrients and 

dietary components of public health significance. The following nutrients are the focus of the 

analysis and conducted in this report. 

Nutrients Included in the Dietary Assessment

Micronutrients 

Vitamin C Vitamin E 

Folate Calcium 

Magnesium Vitamin A 

Iron Zinc 

Vitamin B12 (older adults only) 

Macronutrients and Other Dietary Components 

Food energy Percent of food energy from 

Carbohydrate Fat 

Protein Carbohydrate 

Fiber Protein 

II. ANALYSIS METHODS 

This study uses the DRIs to assess the nutrient adequacy of the diets of population 

subgroups at risk of either inadequate or excessive intake levels. Nutrient adequacy involves 

determining whether the diets of the various subgroups meet their nutrient requirements without 

being excessive. This chapter first describes the DRIs, then presents the research questions and 

methods used to address them. 

A. DIETARY REFERENCE INTAKES 

Table 2: Dietary Reference Intakes 

Estimated Average Requirement (EAR): usual 

intake level that is estimated to meet the 

requirement of half the healthy individuals in a life 

stage and gender group. At this level of intake, the 

other half of the healthy individuals in the 

specified group would not have their needs met. 

Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA): usual 

intake level that is sufficient to meet the nutrient 

requirement of nearly all healthy individuals in a 

particular age and gender group (97.5 percent of 

the individuals in a group). If the distribution of 

requirements in the group is assumed to be normal, 

the RDA can be derived as the EAR plus two 

standard deviation of requirements. 

Adequate Intake (AI): usual intake level based on 

experimentally derived intake levels or 

approximations of observed mean nutrient intakes 

by a group (or groups) of apparently healthy 

people who are maintaining a defined nutritional 

state or criterion of adequacy –used when an EAR 

and RDA cannot be determined. 

Tolerable Upper Intake Level(UL): highest level 

of usual nutrient intake that is likely to pose no 

risks of adverse health effects to individuals in the 

specified life stage group. As intake increases 

above the UL, the risk of adverse effects increases.

Source: Institute of Medicine, Dietary Reference 

Intakes: Applications in Dietary Assessment. 

Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 

2000a.

The DRIs for micronutrients include four 

reference standards—the Estimated Average 

Requirement (EAR), the Recommended Dietary 

Allowance (RDA), the Adequate Intake (AI), and the 

Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) (see Table 2). 

When sufficient information is available on the 

distribution of nutrient requirements, a nutrient will 

have an EAR and an RDA. When information is not 

sufficient to determine an EAR (and, thus, an RDA), 

then an AI is set for the nutrient. In addition, many 

nutrients have a UL. For some nutrients, however, 

data are not sufficient to estimate the UL reliably. 

The absence of a UL does not imply that the nutrient 

does not have a tolerable upper intake level, but, 

rather, that the available evidence at this times does 

not permit its estimation. 

15 
16 

For macronutrients and fiber, a somewhat different set of DRIs have been developed 

(Institute of Medicine 2002). In the case of food energy, dietary requirements are expressed in 

terms of estimated energy requirements (EERs). An adult EER is defined as the dietary energy 

intake needed to maintain energy balance in a healthy adult of a given age, gender, weight, 

height, and level of physical activity. In children, the EER is defined as the sum of the dietary 

energy intake predicted to maintain energy balance for an individual’s age, weight, height, and 

activity level, plus an allowance for normal growth and development. For fat, protein, and 

carbohydrate, the DRIs include Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDRs) for 

intakes as a percentage of energy intakes. In addition, the DRIs for carbohydrate and protein 

include an EAR and an RDA. For fiber, the DRI is expressed as an AI. 

B. STUDY QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH 

Table 3 provides an overview of the main study questions and outcome measures used in the 

analysis. The following discussion provides additional detail on this table. 

Table 3: Research Questions and Outcome Measures 

Outcome Measures Comments 

What are the characteristics of the distribution of usual intake of the high-needs subgroups? 

Mean and median usual nutrient intake 

Percentiles of the usual nutrient intake 

distribution 

For energy, mean usual intake will be compared with the mean EER for each 

age/gender subgroup. 

For nutrients with an AI, mean intake will be compared with the AI. 

What proportion of the subgroup has inadequate usual intake? 

Percentage with usual intake < EAR 

Percentage with usual fat, protein, and 

carbohydrate intakes outside the AMDR 

Measures cannot be used for nutrients for which an EAR has not been determined. 

For iron in women, prevalence of inadequacy must be estimated using the 

probability approach (NRC 1986). 

What proportion of the subgroup is at risk of excessive intake levels? 

Percentage with usual intake > UL Measure cannot be used for nutrients for which a UL has not yet been determined. 

How does the day-to-day variation in nutrient intake vary across subgroups? 

Estimate of the within-person standard 

deviation in intake 

Of particular interest are the differences in day-to-day variability in intakes across 

population subgroups 
17 

1. What Are the Characteristics of the Distribution of Usual Intake? 

In order to describe the characteristics of the usual intake distribution, and to use the DRIs in 

assessing diets, it is important to have a good estimator for the distribution of usual nutrient 

intakes in the group. The usual intake of a nutrient is defined as the long-run average intake of 

the nutrient by the individual (National Research Council [NRC] 1986). Usual intake seldom, if 

ever, can be observed. Rather, dietary recalls provide data on observed nutrient intakes over 

some specified period of time. Observed daily intake measures individual usual intake with 

error. That is, nutrient intake varies from individual to individual in the group, but it also varies 

from day to day within an individual. The day-to-day variability is “noise,” since what we are 

typically interested in is the individual-to-individual variability in usual nutrient intake. Because 

for most nutrients, the day-to-day variability in intakes can be larger than the individual-toindividual variability, it is very important to “remove” the effect of this additional variability 

when estimating the distribution of usual intakes (Beaton et al. 1979). 

A simple additive measurement error model that permits adjusting the data for the presence 

of day-to-day variability was proposed by the NRC (1986). The model proposed by NRC simply 

posits that the observed daily intake for an individual can be written as a deviation from the 

individual’s usual intake. That is: 

Xij = xi + eij, 

where Xij denotes the observed intake for individual i on day j, xi denotes the usual intake of the 

nutrient by individual i, and eij is the measurement error associated with that individual on that 

day. In the NRC report, it was assumed that the mean of the distribution of measurement errors 

is zero, so that the expectation of the daily intakes (conditional on the individual) is equal to the 
18 

individual’s long-run average intake of the nutrient. More precisely, the assumption used in the 

NRC (1986) report is 

eij ~ N(0, σ≅e), 

so that E(Xij | i) = xi and Var(Xij ) = σ≅x + σ≅e , where σ≅x denotes the individual-to-individual 

variance in nutrient intake. 

 Notice that under this simple model, the mean of a few days of observed intakes for an 

individual, denoted Xbari, is an unbiased estimator of the individual’s usual intake. However, 

the distribution of the observed individual mean intakes over a few days is not an unbiased 

estimate of the distribution of usual intakes in the group. If we assume that daily intakes for a 

sample of individuals in a group are observed over d days for each individual, then the variance 

of the distribution of observed means Xbar is equal to σ≅x + (σ≅e / d). This follows from the 

assumptions of the measurement error model above, and implies that unless the number of days 

of intake d available for each individual in the sample is very large, or unless the variance of the 

measurement error σ≅e is very small, the distribution of individual observed means will have a 

spread that is too large relative to the distribution of usual intakes. 

Researchers at Iowa State University (ISU) have developed and modified approaches that 

permit estimating the usual intake distributions with a higher degree of accuracy. The method 

proposed by Nusser et al. (1996) is known as the ISU method for estimating usual nutrient intake 

distributions, and is now widely used by the nutrition community (see, for example, Beaton 

1994; Carriquiry 1999; and Institute of Medicine 2000a). Software packages are available, 

which produce estimates of the mean and variance of usual intake in the group, as well as of any 

percentile of interest (Carriquiry et al. 1995). Standard errors for all quantities that take into 

account the design of the survey that collected the data are also produced by the software. 
19 

2. What Proportion of the Subgroup Has Inadequate Usual Intake?

Assessing the prevalence of nutrient inadequacy in a group requires estimating the 

proportion of individuals in the group whose usual intakes of a nutrient do not meet 

requirements. To determine this prevalence accurately requires information on both usual 

intakes and nutrient requirements for each individual in the subgroup. With this information, 

determining how many individuals have usual intakes less than their requirements is 

straightforward: one could simply count them. 

Direct observation of the prevalence of nutrient inadequacy is impractical, however, because 

neither the requirement for the nutrient nor the usual intake of an individual can be observed. 

Typically, the only nutrient intake information available for a sample of individuals in a group is 

the daily intake of a nutrient observed over a few days (which can be adjusted at the group level, 

as discussed above); but nothing is known about individual requirements for the nutrient. 

It is possible to show, however, that the proportion of individuals in a group whose usual 

nutrient intakes do not meet requirements can be approximated if the EAR for the nutrient for the 

appropriate gender age group and a reliable estimate of the distribution of usual nutrient intakes 

in the group is available. Beaton (1994) proposed a method for assessing the prevalence of 

nutrient inadequacy in a group that consists of simply estimating the proportion in the group 

whose usual intakes do not meet the EAR. Carriquiry (1999) showed that the approach proposed 

by Beaton (1994) can produce a nearly unbiased estimate of the prevalence of nutrient 

inadequacy, and recent analyses suggest that this method should be used in assessing the nutrient 

adequacy of group diets (Institute of Medicine 2000a). The approach, known as the EAR cutpoint method, produces a reliable estimate of the prevalence of nutrient inadequacy in a group 

when the following assumptions hold: 
20 

• The distribution of requirements in the group is symmetric around the EAR. 

• The requirements for the nutrient and the usual nutrient intake are independent. 

• The variance of the distribution of requirements is smaller than the variance of the 

distribution of usual intakes. 

Given the available information about the distribution of requirements, it appears that the 

above assumptions hold for many nutrients, with notable exceptions being energy and iron in 

pre-menopausal women. In the case of energy, intakes and requirements are highly correlated as 

long as individuals in the group are maintaining body weight. In the case of iron requirements, it 

has been established that the distribution of requirements for some subgroups is skewed with a 

long tail to the right. While the EAR cut-point method generally cannot be used to assess the 

prevalence of iron inadequacy, it is still possible to assess iron inadequacy by using the 

probability approach that was proposed in the NRC report (1986). To use this approach, a 

probability model based on the requirement distribution for iron is used to estimate the 

probability of inadequacy at each level of usual intake. 

The analysis for this study used the EAR cut-point method to estimate the prevalence of 

inadequacy for each of the nutrients with an EAR, except iron; to assess iron adequacy, the 

probability approach is used. Some nutrients have EARs that differ by characteristics such as 

smoking status (vitamin C) or weight (protein). In these cases, observed intakes are divided by 

the EAR for each individual, the resulting ratios are adjusted to get “usual” intake-EAR ratios, 

and the percentages with ratios less than one are estimates of the prevalence of inadequacy. 

For micronutrients without an EAR—that is, for nutrients with an AI—usual intakes 

distributions are presented and mean intakes are compared with the AI. However, for nutrients 

with an AI, it is important to note that limited inferences can be made regarding the prevalence 

of inadequacy. If mean intake levels are equal to or exceed the AI, it is likely that the prevalence 
21 

of inadequacy is low; but if mean intakes are less than the AI, no conclusions can be drawn about 

the prevalence of inadequacy (Institute of Medicine 2000a). 

For food energy, neither the EAR cut-point method nor the probability approach is the 

approach to assessing energy adequacy. Energy requirements are expressed in terms of 

estimated energy requirements (EERs). Since populations in balance should have usual intake 

and EERs distributions with roughly equal mean values, we compare the mean usual intake of 

food energy to mean EER for each subgroup to assess energy adequacy. EERs are calculated 

based on the equations provided in the macronutrient report (Institute of Medicine 2002). For 

age and gender subgroups where the equations depend on an assumed level of physical activity, 

the low active level is assumed. 

For fat, protein, and carbohydrate, tables present usual distributions of intake as a percentage 

of energy intake and the percentage outside the AMDR. In addition, usual intake distributions of 

protein and carbohydrate are presented along with percentage below the EAR. 

3. What Proportion Is At Risk of Excessive Intake Levels? 

To estimate the proportion of each subgroup at risk of excessive intake levels, we calculate 

the percentage with usual intake exceeding the UL. Because ULs have not been established for 

all nutrients, this research question can be addressed only for those nutrients with ULs. In 

addition, since some ULs refer to intakes from supplements, and since the CSFII data do not 

include intakes from supplements, those nutrients cannot be examined with respect to the 

percentage exceeding the UL. 

4. How Does the Day-to-Day Variation in Nutrient Intake Vary Across Subgroups? 

Daily nutrient intakes are more variable from day-to-day for an individual than they are 

across individuals in a group (Sempos et al. 1985; and Nusser et al. 1996). In addition, it has 
22 

been argued that the day-to-day variability in intakes is not homogeneous across individuals in a 

group (Nusser et al. 1996; and Institute of Medicine 2000a). For example, it has been shown that 

the within-individual variance of daily intake is positively associated with individual mean 

intake, so that those individuals with higher daily consumption of a nutrient also tend to have a 

larger variability of intake. A companion report investigates whether the day-to-day variability 

in intakes of different subgroups is a function of such factors as food insufficiency, gender and 

age group, and other sociodemographic characteristics (Carriquiry et al. 2004). 

C. IMPORTANT DATA AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 

Some important issues need to be considered when interpreting the results presented in the 

following chapter. The first is that the CSFII data do not include intakes from food supplements. 

Although we conducted a limited analysis of supplement use using data from NHANES III, 

small sample sizes and methodological issues associated with combining supplement use and 

dietary recall data limit the usefulness of that analysis. 

A second important data consideration is the accuracy of 24-hour dietary recalls, and how 

the accuracy may vary across subgroups. Many studies have documented the underestimation of 

energy intakes among adult subgroups, especially among overweight adults (Mertz et al. 1991; 

Johannsson et al. 1998; and Schoeller 2002). To the extent that lower reported energy intakes 

are related to lower nutrient intake levels, the prevalence of inadequacy is overestimated for 

subgroups that exhibit underreporting. In addition, some studies suggest that food and nutrient 

intakes are overreported for young children (Devaney et al. 2004). If this overreporting of 

energy intakes is associated with higher nutrient intakes, the prevalence of inadequacy for these 

subgroups would be underestimated. 

Another data issue concerns folate intakes. The data used in this analysis are from the 1994-

1996 and 1998 CSFII, which were collected prior to the mandatory folic acid fortification of the 
23 

food supply. Thus, folate intakes in this analysis underestimate current folate intakes. In 

addition, folate intakes from the CSFII are not in Dietary Folate Equivalents, which are the form 

in which the folate DRIs are expressed. 

In addition, usual fiber intake from the CSFII is the intake of dietary fiber, while fiber 

requirements are expressed as total fiber, defined as the sum of dietary fiber and functional fiber. 

Thus, intake of dietary fiber is less than total fiber intake. Estimates suggest that total fiber 

intakes are, on average, 5.1 grams higher than dietary fiber intakes (Institute of Medicine 2002). 

Finally, in interpreting the nutrient adequacy results for NSLP and SBP participants, it is 

important to note that the NSLP and SBP programs underwent significant changes in the mid 

1990s, with the design and implementation of the School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children. 

In particular, USDA regulations in June 1995 required school food authorities to prepare meals 

that met new nutrition standards for fat, saturated fat, and other key nutrients. These 

requirements were not imposed on most schools during the period covered by the 1994-1996 

CSFII, so dietary intakes of NSLP and SBP participants surveyed during that time period may 

not accurately reflect current intakes of program participants. 

25

III. ANALYSIS RESULTS 

This study assessing the nutrient adequacy of the diets of vulnerable subgroups has yielded a 

comprehensive and very detailed set of analysis results on the usual intake distributions of the 

various subgroups and how intakes compare with requirements. This chapter presents these 

results. For each subgroup examined, four tables summarizing the usual nutrient intake 

distributions are presented: (1) micronutrient intake; (2) estimated energy requirements and 

usual energy intake; (3) macronutrient intake; and (4) dietary fiber intake. Because of small 

sample sizes for food-insufficient households, these results are presented in the appendix. 

The analysis presented in this report is descriptive only. Some of the high-risk subgroups 

have data presented on comparison subgroups: overweight and non-overweight individuals, lowincome and higher-income individuals, food assistance program participants and income-eligible 

nonparticipants, and school nutrition program participants and nonparticipants. These 

comparison subgroups are intended to provide a context for interpreting the nutrient adequacy of 

the diets of the high-risk subgroups and should not be interpreted as suggesting impacts of the 

factors or characteristics that distinguish the groups. The individual comparisons do not account 

for other factors affecting nutrient intake, or for potential selection bias affecting comparisons of 

program participants and nonparticipants who may differ in important and unobservable ways. 

A. SUMMARY OF KEY ANALYSIS RESULTS 

Overall, the empirical findings show inadequate intakes of key micronutrients, imbalances in 

fat and carbohydrate intake, and inadequate intake of fiber. In general, children have more 

nutritionally adequate diets than adults. Dietary intakes appear to be underreported for adults 

and overreported for children, and overweight females appear to have higher levels of 

underreporting than other subgroups. The following is a summary of the key empirical findings: 
26

• Most adolescent and adult subgroups have inadequate intakes of micronutrients. 

All eight key micronutrients examined—vitamin C, vitamin E, folate, calcium, 

magnesium, vitamin A, iron, and zinc—have moderate to high proportions with 

inadequate usual intakes for male and female subgroups 14 years and older. 

- Magnesium, folate and vitamin E have very high proportions with inadequate 

intake. Estimates of the prevalence of inadequacy for these nutrients typically 

exceed 70 percent for the adult subgroups and are 90 percent or higher for 

adolescent females. 

- Although the adequacy of calcium intake cannot be determined, mean intakes 

of calcium are far below the AI. 

- The prevalence of inadequate iron intake is lower than for other 

micronutrients, yet some subgroups—adolescent females and women in the 

reproductive years—have substantial proportions (10 to 20 percent) not 

meeting iron requirements. 

- The prevalence of inadequate intakes is typically higher for low-income 

subgroups relative to higher-income subgroups, and for some (but not all) 

overweight subgroups relative to their non-overweight counterparts. 

• Reported energy intakes are less than estimated energy requirements for most 

adolescent and adult subgroups. Mean usual intake of food energy is less than 

mean Estimated Energy Requirement (EER) for the vast majority of the adolescent 

and adult subgroups. The difference is so large that underreporting of foods 

consumed must be at least a partial explanation. 

- The difference between mean EER and mean energy intake is greater for the 

overweight subgroups, especially female overweight subgroups, suggesting 

that underreporting may be associated with being overweight. 

- The difference between mean EER and mean energy intake is less for male 

subgroups than for female subgroups. Some male subgroups—nonoverweight males 19 to 50 years of age, for example—have mean energy 

intake close to mean EER. 

• For almost all adult subgroups, high proportions have usual intakes of fat outside 

the AMDR. Of those with usual fat intakes outside the AMDR, most exceed the 

upper bound of the AMDR. More than a third of most adult subgroups have usual 

intakes of fat greater than 35 percent of food energy. 

• Dietary fiber intakes of all subgroups are low. For every subgroup examined, mean 

intake of dietary fiber is less than the AI for total fiber. Even the 90th percentile of 

dietary fiber intake is less than the AI for total fiber, suggesting inadequate intake of 

total fiber. 

• The nutrient adequacy of diets deteriorates as individuals age. Children 1 to 3 

years have the most nutritionally adequate diets, and children 4 to 8 years and 9 to 13 

years have more nutritionally adequate diets than the older subgroups.
27

- The prevalence of inadequate usual intake for micronutrients is less for 

children than for adolescents and adults, and differences by income and 

overweight status are less. 

- In contrast to adults, children 1 to 3 years and 4 to 8 years have reported 

energy intakes that exceed energy requirements. At least part of this 

difference may be the result of overreporting of intakes by parents of young 

children, a finding reported in other studies of intakes of infants and toddlers 

(Devaney 2004). 

- Similar to adults, a high proportion of children 4 to 8 years and 9 to 13 years 

have usual fat intakes exceeding the upper limit of the AMDR. In contrast, 

high proportions of very young children 1 to 3 years have usual fat intakes 

less than the lower bound of the AMDR, partly reflecting the difference in the 

AMDR by age. 

B. DETAILED ANALYSIS RESULTS 

Adolescent Females. Adolescent females have low intakes of all micronutrients examined. 

The prevalence of inadequacy—percentage with usual intake less than requirements—is high, 

ranging from 18.7 percent for zinc to more than 90 percent for vitamin E, folate, and magnesium 

(Table 4a). The prevalence of inadequate vitamin E intake is almost 100 percent. Although the 

prevalence of inadequate calcium intake cannot be estimated precisely, mean calcium intake is 

far below the AI, suggesting low calcium intakes for adolescent females. 

Table 4a 

Usual Nutrient Intake: Micronutrients, Adolescent Females

Usual Intake Percentiles Assessing Inadequacy

10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th EARa % Inadeqb

Vitamin C (mg/d) 39 56 81 91 115 155 56 28.9

Vitamin E (mg/d) 5 6 7 7 8 9 12 99.5

Folate (mcg/d) 130 163 208 218 262 320 330 91.6

Calcium (mg/d) 434 551 704 732 882 1,065 1,300 ...

Magnesium (mg/d) 151 180 215 220 253 295 300 90.1

Vitamin A (mcg RAE) 286 389 539 593 737 966 485 41.3

Iron (mg/d) 8.7 10.6 12.9 13.6 15.8 19.3 7.9 12.3

Zinc (mg/d) 6.4 7.8 9.6 9.9 11.6 13.8 7.3 18.7

Source: 1994-1996 CSFII. 

a

EAR = Estimated Average Requirement. For vitamin C, the EAR is 35 mg/d higher for smokers. For 

calcium, the value is an AI = adequate intake. 

b

For most nutrients, the % Inadequate = % with usual intakes < EAR. For iron, the probability approach is 

used to estimate the % Inadequate. 
28

Both the mean and median of usual energy intake of adolescent females, as well as the 

estimated percentiles of the usual energy intake distributions, are less than the comparable 

percentiles of the EER distributions (Table 4b). Of particular importance in assessing energy 

intakes is that mean energy intake of 1901 kilocalories (kcal) is approximately 200 kcal less than 

the mean EER. This difference between mean usual intake and mean energy requirement is most 

likely the result of underreporting of foods consumed, since a deficit of 200 kcal per day over a 

period of time would lead to weight loss of approximately 10 pounds per year (Butte and Ellis 

2003). Recent studies document that not only is this not the case, but that, in fact, increasing 

proportions of adolescent females, as well as many subgroups, are overweight (Ogden et al. 

2002). Weight gain, not weight loss, is the observed problem. 

Table 4b 

Estimated Energy Requirements And Usual Intake Of Food Energy: Adolescent Females 

Distribution Percentiles (kcal) 

10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th

Usual intake 1,365 1,594 1,872 1,901 2,177 2,473

EERa 1,833 1,943 2,077 2,107 2,214 2,407

Source: 1994-1996 CSFII 

a

EER = Estimated Energy Requirement. 

The usual intake of macronutrients shows that a high percentage of adolescent females has 

usual intake of fat that falls outside the AMDR of 25 to 35 percent of food energy (Table 4c). 

Almost one third of female adolescents have usual fat intakes as a percent of food energy outside 

the AMDR—slightly more than one quarter have usual fat intakes greater than 35 percent of 

food energy and 5 percent have usual fat intakes as a percent of food energy less than 25 percent. 

The percentage outside the AMDR for carbohydrate and protein is low, and the prevalence of 

inadequate intake of carbohydrate and protein intake is also low. 
29

Table 4c 

Usual Nutrient Intake: Macronutrients, Adolescent Females

 Fat Carbohydrate Protein 

 % < AMDRa %> AMDR % Inadeqb % < AMDR % Inadeq 

% outside 

AMDR 

Females 14-18 4.8 25.9 < 1 3.4 5.5 < 1 

Source: 1994-1996 CSFII. 

a

AMDR = Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range. 

b

% Inadequate = % with usual intakes < EAR (Estimated Average Requirement) 

Usual intakes of dietary fiber for adolescent females are far below the AI set for total fiber 

(Table 4d). Mean usual dietary fiber intake is 13 grams per day, compared with an AI for total 

fiber of 26 grams. Even if the average difference between total and dietary fiber (5.1 grams) is 

added to usual intakes, mean intake will still be below the AI. 

Table 4d 

Usual Intake of Dietary Fiber: Adolescent Females 

Usual Intake Distributions (g/d) 

 AIa 10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th 

Females 14-18 26 9 10 12 13 15 17 

Source: 1994-1999 CSFII. 

a

AI = Adequate Intake. 

Older Adults. With the exception of iron and vitamin B12, each of the four subgroups of 

older adults shows a high prevalence of inadequacy of the micronutrients examined (Table 5a). 

For vitamin E, more than 90 percent of older women and more than three-quarters of older men 

had usual intakes less than their requirement. Magnesium and folate intakes also indicate a high 

prevalence of inadequacy, ranging from about 70 to 85 percent. The prevalence of inadequacy is 

lower for vitamin C, vitamin A, and zinc, though a substantial proportion (from 21 to 43 percent) 
10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th EARa % Inadeqb

Males 60-70 38 59 91 104 135 186 75 42.7

Males 71+ 32 53 88 102 135 190 75 42.8

Females 60-70 36 55 84 95 123 167 60 35.0

Females 71+ 37 56 85 93 121 161 60 31.5

Males 60-70 5 7 9 9 12 15 12 78.2

Males 71+ 4 6 8 9 10 14 12 83.2

Females 60-70 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 94.7

Females 71+ 3 4 6 6 8 10 12 95.3

Males 60-70 158 205 269 290 351 448 320 67.1

Males 71+ 140 189 260 283 352 456 320 67.6

Females 60-70 125 161 210 222 270 336 320 87.4

Females 71+ 122 161 215 230 283 357 320 83.9

Males 60-70 435 568 750 794 971 1,210 1,200 ...

Males 71+ 398 526 700 741 911 1,137 1,200 ...

Females 60-70 314 423 570 604 748 936 1,200 ...

Females 71+ 311 413 550 580 714 888 1,200 ...

Males 60-70 196 242 300 311 368 440 350 69.5

Males 71+ 171 215 270 281 334 405 350 79.5

Females 60-70 149 184 226 232 273 323 265 71.6

Females 71+ 136 171 216 222 267 318 265 74.4

Males 60-70 418 589 869 1,017 1,263 1,784 625 28.3

Males 71+ 368 548 823 987 1,228 1,786 625 32.2

Females 60-70 309 434 631 726 905 1,245 500 33.7

Females 71+ 349 488 709 828 1,024 1,445 500 26.3

Males 60-70 10.5 13.1 16.3 17.3 20.4 25.3 6.0 <1

Males 71+ 8.8 11.5 15.1 16.4 19.9 25.5 6.0 2.4

Females 60-70 7.5 9.4 11.8 12.4 14.8 18.1 5.0 2.8

Females 71+ 7.1 9.1 11.7 12.4 14.9 18.5 5.0 3.2

Males 60-70 7.9 9.6 11.8 12.3 14.4 17.4 9.4 22.5

Males 71+ 6.7 8.3 10.6 11.3 13.6 16.7 9.4 37.2

Females 60-70 5.4 6.6 8.2 8.5 10.0 12.1 6.8 27.5

Females 71+ 5.2 6.4 8.0 8.3 9.8 11.9 6.8 30.6

Males 60-70 2.3 3.3 5.2 7.1 8.3 13.6 2.0 2.5

Males 71+ 2.2 3.1 4.6 5.9 7.1 10.5 2.0 4.7

Females 60-70 1.5 2.3 3.5 4.5 5.5 8.4 2.0 12.5

Females 71+ 1.5 2.0 3.4 4.9 5.6 9.5 2.0 20.4

Source: 1994-1996 CSFII.

b

For most nutrients, the % Inadequate = % < EAR. For iron, the probability approach is used to estimate the % Inadequate.

a

EAR = Estimated Average Requirement. For vitamin C, the EAR is 35 mg/d higher for smokers. For calcium, the value is an AI = Adequate Intake.

Folate (mcg/d)

Calcium (mg/d)

Vitamin A (mcg RAE)

Iron (mg/d)

Magnesium (mg/d)

Vitamin B12 (mcg/d)

Table 5a

Usual Nutrient Intake: Micronutrients, Older Adults

Vitamin E (mg/d)

Assessing Inadequacy

Vitamin C (mg/d)

Usual Intake Percentiles

Zinc (mg/d)

 30
31

still has usual intakes less than requirements. For vitamin B12—a nutrient of concern among 

older adults—the prevalence of inadequacy is low for males (3 to 5 percent) and higher for 

females (13 to 20 percent). The prevalence of inadequacy for iron is low for all subgroups of 

older adults. 

As with adolescent females, both the mean and median of usual energy intake of older 

adults, as well as the estimated percentiles of the usual energy intake distributions, are 

considerably less than the comparable percentiles of the EER distributions (Table 5b). Mean 

energy intakes are about 20 percent lower (about 500 kcal) than estimated EERs for older adult 

males and about 25 percent lower than estimated EERs for older adult females. This difference 

between mean usual intake and mean EER is even larger than for other subgroups examined and 

is most likely the result of either underreporting of foods consumed, since a deficit of 400-500 

kcal per day over a period of time would lead to unsustainable weight losses. As with almost all 

U.S. population subgroups, the prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased for older 

results over the past four decades (Flegal et al. 2002; and Kuczmarski et al. 1994). 

Table 5b 

Estimated Energy Requirements And Usual Intake Of Food Energy: Older Adults 

Distribution Percentiles (kcal) 

10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th 

Males 60-70 

Usual intake 1,397 1,681 2,018 2,066 2,397 2,794 

EERa 2,136 2,328 2,540 2,544 2,767 2,962 

Males 71+ 

Usual intake 1,176 1,440 1,773 1,821 2,150 2,527 

EER 1,899 2,118 2,336 2,330 2,556 2,738 

Females 60-70 

Usual intake 1,022 1,218 1,451 1,481 1,710 1,979 

EER 1,658 1,806 1,989 1,997 2,168 2,345 

Females 71+ 

Usual intake 952 1,134 1,356 1,381 1,602 1,842 

EER 1,481 1,640 1,814 1,827 1,996 2,162 

Source: 1994-1996 CSFII 

a

EER = Estimated Energy Requirement. 
32

The usual intake of macronutrients shows a substantial proportion of older adults have usual 

intakes of fat and carbohydrate that fall outside the AMDRs (Table 5c). About one third of older 

females and about 40 percent of older males have usual fat intakes that exceed the upper value of 

the AMDR. In addition, the percent with usual intake less than the AMDR for carbohydrate is 

also high—12 to 16 percent of older females and between one fifth and one quarter of older 

males. The percent outside the AMDR for protein is low (less than 1 percent), though the 

prevalence of inadequate protein intake is about 20 percent for older females and 8 to 16 percent 

for older males. 

Table 5c 

Usual Nutrient Intake: Macronutrients, Older Adults

 Fat Carbohydrate Protein 

 % < AMDRa % > AMDR % Inadeqb % < AMDR % Inadeq 

% outside 

AMDR 

Males 60-70 1.4 40.5 < 1 26.2 8.0 < 1 

Males 71+ 1.5 36.6 1.6 20.6 15.6 < 1 

Females 60-70 1.6 31.1 3.5 16.0 18.2 < 1 

Females 71+ 2.3 28.3 4.3 11.6 20.4 < 1 

Source: 1994-1996 CSFII. 

a

AMDR = Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range. 

b

% Inadequate = % with usual intakes < EAR (Estimated Average Requirement). 

For older adults, usual intakes of dietary fiber are far below the AI set for total fiber (Table 

5d). Mean usual dietary fiber intake is 19 and 18 grams per day for older males ages 60 to 70 

and 71 and older, respectively, compared with an AI for total fiber of 30 grams. For older 

females, mean dietary fiber intake is 14 grams, compared with an AI of 21 grams. For both older 

males and females, the 90th percentile of usual dietary fiber intake is less than or close to the AI. 

 
33

Table 5d 

Usual Intake of Dietary Fiber: Older Adults 

 Usual Intake Distributions (g/d) 

 AIa 10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th 

Males 60-70 30 10 13 18 19 23 28 

Males 71+ 30 9 12 17 18 22 27 

Females 60-70 21 8 11 14 14 18 22 

Females 71+ 21 8 10 14 14 17 21 

Source: 1994-1999 CSFII. 

a

AI = Adequate Intake. 

Overweight Individuals.1 Overall, the adequacy of micronutrient intake does not differ by 

overweight status (Table 6a). For adolescents and adults, the prevalence of inadequate usual 

intakes of vitamin C, vitamin E, folate, magnesium, and vitamin A is generally high for both 

overweight and non-overweight individuals and for both male and female subgroups. There is a 

low prevalence of inadequacy for iron, while for zinc, the prevalence of inadequacy is low 

among children but increases with age. 

Most differences between overweight and non-overweight subgroups in the percentage with 

inadequate intakes are small, with the following exceptions: 

• Adolescent overweight males have a higher prevalence of inadequate vitamin C 

intakes than adolescent non-overweight males (34 percent versus 21 percent). The 

opposite pattern is observed for vitamin C intakes for the adolescent female 

subgroups (17 percent versus 29 percent). 

• For folate, overweight children aged 9 to 13 years, overweight adolescent females, 

and overweight females aged 19 to 50 years have a higher prevalence of inadequate 

intakes compared with comparable age and gender groups who are not overweight.

 1

 Overweight for children and adolescents means at risk of overweight and is defined as 

BMI greater than the 85th percentile for children up through age 20. For adults over 20 years of 

age, overweight is defined as BMI greater than 25. 
10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th EARa % Inadeqb 10th 25th Median Mean 

Kids 4 - 8, overweight 50 69 96 103 129 165 22 0.4 4 5 66Kids 4 - 8, not overweight 48 65 90 97 121 154 22 0.4 4 5 66Kids 9 - 13, overweight 44 61 84 91 114 147 39 6.6 5 6 7 7 Kids 9 - 13, not overweight 48 67 95 105 132 174 39 5.1 5 6 7 8 Males 14 - 18, overweight 35 55 86 102 132 187 63 33.8 6 7 9 9 Males 14 - 18, not overweight 51 74 109 124 158 216 63 20.7 * 6 7 9 9 Males 19 - 30, overweight 44 64 94 107 136 185 75 33.2 6 8 10 10 Males 19 - 30, not overweight 47 71 110 128 164 232 75 40.6 6 8 10 10 Males 31 - 50, overweight 37 57 90 104 136 190 75 45.8 7 8 10 10 Males 31 - 50, not overweight 43 64 96 108 138 188 75 43.2 6 8 10 11 Males 51 - 70, overweight 38 59 91 104 135 188 75 42.9 5 7 9 9 Males 51 - 70, not overweight 39 62 99 114 149 207 75 41.6 5 7 9 9 Males 71+, overweight 29 50 84 98 130 184 75 45.3 4 6 8 9 

34Males 71+, not overweight 35 57 92 106 139 194 75 39.9 4 6 7 8 

Females 14 - 18, overweight 57 65 75 76 86 97 56 16.9 4 5 7 7 Females 14 - 18, not overweight 37 55 83 95 121 168 56 29.4 * 6 6 7 7 Females 19 - 30, overweight 45 61 84 91 114 147 60 36.4 5 6 7 7 Females 19 - 30, not overweight 38 55 81 90 115 154 60 34.9 4 6 7 8 Females 31 - 50, overweight 36 52 76 85 109 147 60 42.6 4 5 7 7 Females 31 - 50, not overweight 32 49 76 88 113 158 60 43.6 4 6 7 7 Females 51 - 70, overweight 38 56 83 93 120 162 60 34.3 4 5 7 7 Females 51 - 70, not overweight 35 55 86 96 125 170 60 36.7 4 5 7 7 Females 71+, overweight 43 62 88 96 122 158 60 25.8 4 5 6 6 Females 71+, not overweight 35 54 82 91 118 158 60 34.5 3 4 6 6 Kids 4 - 8, overweight 163 205 259 271 323 393 160 9.2 551 686 851 872 Kids 4 - 8, not overweight 161 205 262 272 326 395 160 9.6 582 711 874 896 Kids 9 - 13, overweight 149 187 239 251 301 369 250 55.3 633 751 898 917 

Kids 9 - 13, not overweight 173 215 271 285 340 414 250 40.6 ** 598 747 941 975 

Males 14 - 18, overweight 162 204 263 281 338 422 330 73.0 641 830 1,093 1,168 

Males 14 - 18, not overweight 170 226 306 329 406 519 330 57.1 645 841 1,108 1,175 

Males 19 - 30, overweight 175 225 294 314 382 479 320 58.5 572 729 940 988 

Males 19 - 30, not overweight 176 224 294 321 390 501 320 57.9 556 716 937 997 

Males 31 - 50, overweight 162 209 274 294 357 450 320 65.1 469 626 850 922 

Table 6a

Usual Nutrient Intake: Micronutrients, Overweight Status

Vitamin E 

Assessing 

Inadequacy

Vitamin C (mg/d)

Usual Intake Percentiles Usual Intake Percentiles

Folate (mcg/d) Calcium 

Table 6a
10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th EARa % Inadeqb 10th 25th Median Mean 

Assessing 

Inadequacy Usual Intake Percentiles Usual Intake Percentiles

Males 31 - 50, not overweight 171 223 293 318 384 494 320 58.7 518 665 862 906 

Males 51 - 70, overweight 156 203 267 289 349 447 320 67.6 435 567 748 794 

Males 51 - 70, not overweight 156 206 275 293 361 455 320 64.6 402 539 728 776 

Males 71+, overweight 138 187 256 278 345 445 320 69.1 373 502 683 733 

Males 71+, not overweight 143 194 265 287 356 458 320 66.5 428 551 715 748 Females 14 - 18, overweight 157 180 207 211 238 270 330 98.9 461 552 665 681 

Females 14 - 18, not overweight 126 161 208 220 266 328 330 90.3 * 443 564 721 749 

Females 19 - 30, overweight 135 164 202 209 246 292 320 94.7 376 480 617 644 

Females 19 - 30, not overweight 129 168 222 236 289 362 320 82.8 ** 408 523 677 707 

Females 31 - 50, overweight 122 156 202 214 259 322 320 89.7 339 449 597 631 

Females 31 - 50, not overweight 119 160 217 234 290 370 320 82.0 ** 379 492 642 674 

Females 51 - 70, overweight 123 158 203 217 261 327 320 89.0 322 428 570 601 

Females 51 - 70, not overweight 126 163 215 229 279 351 320 85.0 352 453 589 621 

Females 71+, overweight 122 159 210 223 273 341 320 86.6 296 393 527 564 

Females 71+, not overweight 130 169 223 236 288 358 320 83.2 343 443 571 592 

Kids 4 - 8, overweight 155 182 215 220 252 290 110 0.9 419 526 667 702 Kids 4 - 8, not overweight 159 184 216 220 251 286 110 0.5 452 560 704 731 

35Kids 9 - 13, overweight 166 197 236 241 280 324 200 26.9 371 479 630 672 

Kids 9 - 13, not overweight 178 209 246 253 289 335 200 20.0 471 592 752 788 Males 14 - 18, overweight 190 232 288 299 354 424 340 70.6 383 513 704 775 Males 14 - 18, not overweight 213 256 312 322 377 445 340 61.9 418 588 838 926 Males 19 - 30, overweight 214 265 329 344 405 491 330 50.4 360 493 689 762 Males 19 - 30, not overweight 196 246 313 328 394 481 330 56.2 384 510 693 758 Males 31 - 50, overweight 210 259 323 335 398 477 350 60.0 364 512 730 829 Males 31 - 50, not overweight 211 264 331 342 409 487 350 56.8 389 537 750 833 Males 51 - 70, overweight 197 244 301 311 367 438 350 69.7 389 544 791 921 Males 51 - 70, not overweight 189 241 307 319 385 465 350 65.0 427 597 881 995 Males 71+, overweight 170 213 270 282 339 410 350 78.1 377 559 850 999 Males 71+, not overweight 169 213 269 279 334 400 350 79.7 357 532 812 955 Females 14 - 18, overweight 142 166 197 202 231 267 300 96.3 367 461 587 618 Females 14 - 18, not overweight 151 182 219 223 260 301 300 89.7 271 374 525 578 Females 19 - 30, overweight 154 177 204 207 234 264 255 86.6 293 393 536 582 Females 19 - 30, not overweight 154 188 229 237 277 329 255 64.7 ** 279 393 562 640 Females 31 - 50, overweight 148 179 218 225 262 311 265 76.1 321 428 577 628 Females 31 - 50, not overweight 156 195 242 250 295 352 265 62.0 ** 296 415 587 653 Females 51 - 70, overweight 152 184 225 231 272 318 265 72.0 303 420 590 672 Females 51 - 70, not overweight 160 195 238 245 287 340 265 65.2 353 477 652 719 Females 71+, overweight 139 172 213 218 259 304 265 77.7 336 467 703 860 

Magnesium (mg/d) Vitamin A (

Table 6a
10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th EARa % Inadeqb 10th 25th Median Mean 

Assessing 

Inadequacy Usual Intake Percentiles Usual Intake Percentiles

Females 71+, not overweight 139 174 220 227 272 325 265 72.3 407 528 713 773 Kids 4 - 8, overweight 9.4 11.1 13.4 14.0 16.2 19.5 4.1 <1 6.6 7.9 9.5 9.9 Kids 4 - 8, not overweight 9.5 11.2 13.4 14.0 16.2 19.0 4.1 <1 6.8 7.9 9.4 9.6 Kids 9 - 13, overweight 10.5 12.5 15.0 15.5 18.0 21.0 5.9/5.7 <1 7.7 9.0 10.8 11.1 Kids 9 - 13, not overweight 10.8 13.0 15.8 16.6 19.3 23.3 5.9/5.7 <1 7.8 9.2 11.1 11.4 Males 14 - 18, overweight 12.2 14.6 17.9 18.9 22.1 26.7 7.7 <1 10.0 11.7 13.8 14.2 Males 14 - 18, not overweight 12.7 15.6 19.4 20.5 24.2 29.6 7.7 <1 10.1 11.9 14.3 14.7 Males 19 - 30, overweight 12.7 15.3 18.4 19.3 22.3 26.9 6.0 <1 10.2 12.3 14.8 15.3 Males 19 - 30, not overweight 12.5 15.1 18.4 19.6 22.9 28.1 6.0 <1 9.3 11.3 13.9 14.5 Males 31 - 50, overweight 11.7 14.3 17.7 18.8 22.0 27.3 6.0 <1 9.1 11.1 13.7 14.4 Males 31 - 50, not overweight 11.6 14.2 18.0 19.3 23.0 28.7 6.0 <1 9.2 11.2 13.8 14.6 Males 51 - 70, overweight 10.5 12.9 16.1 17.2 20.2 25.2 6.0 <1 8.3 10.0 12.3 12.9 Males 51 - 70, not overweight 10.0 12.6 16.3 17.2 20.8 25.6 6.0 1.2 7.4 9.4 11.9 12.6 Males 71+, overweight 8.9 11.5 15.2 16.4 20.0 25.3 6.0 2.1 7.0 8.7 10.8 11.5 Males 71+, not overweight 8.5 11.2 15.0 16.3 20.0 25.7 6.0 3.2 6.5 8.3 10.5 11.1 

36Females 14 - 18, overweight 8.9 10.5 12.5 13.1 15.0 17.9 7.9 10.9 6.8 8.1 9.8 10.1 

Females 14 - 18, not overweight 8.8 10.7 13.1 13.6 15.9 19.2 7.9 12.2 6.5 7.8 9.5 9.7 Females 19 - 30, overweight 8.9 10.4 12.3 12.6 14.5 16.7 8.1 15.2 6.5 7.6 8.9 9.1 Females 19 - 30, not overweight 8.4 10.3 12.9 13.6 16.1 19.8 8.1 15.7 6.4 7.6 9.2 9.6 Females 31 - 50, overweight 8.0 9.7 12.0 12.6 14.7 17.9 8.1 18.9 6.2 7.4 9.0 9.3 Females 31 - 50, not overweight 7.9 10.1 12.7 13.6 16.1 20.1 8.1 17.2 5.8 7.2 9.1 9.7 Females 51 - 70, overweight 7.7 9.4 11.6 12.2 14.3 17.4 5.0 2.2 5.7 6.9 8.3 8.6 Females 51 - 70, not overweight 8.0 9.8 12.2 12.8 15.1 18.3 5.0 1.5 5.9 7.0 8.4 8.7 Females 71+, overweight 7.4 9.2 11.6 12.2 14.5 17.6 5.0 2.7 5.7 6.8 8.2 8.4 Females 71+, not overweight 7.2 9.1 11.8 12.6 15.2 18.9 5.0 2.9 4.8 6.1 7.7 8.2 Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

aEAR = Estimated Average Requirement. For Vitamin C, the EAR is 35 mg/d higher for smokers. For calcium, the value is an AI = Adequate Intake.bFor most nutrients, the % Inadequate = % < EAR. For iron, the probability approach is used to estimate the % Inadequate.

*(**): p-value for difference between overweight and non-overweight is < 0.05(0.01)

Iron (mg/d) Zinc (m

Table 6a
37

• Mean calcium intakes of overweight females are consistently less than mean calcium 

intakes of non-overweight females, although the differences are not statistically 

significant. 

• For magnesium, overweight females generally have a higher prevalence of 

inadequacy than non-overweight females. 

As observed for the adolescent and older adult subgroups, both the mean and median of 

usual energy intake of the adult subgroups, as well as the estimated percentiles of the usual 

energy intake distributions, are less than the comparable percentiles of the EER distributions 

(Table 6b). The difference between mean energy intake and mean EER is greater for the 

overweight subgroups, especially female overweight subgroups, a finding reported in previous 

studies (Briefel et al. 1997, 1995). For overweight females, mean energy intakes are about 40 

percent lower (550 to 700 kcal) than mean EER for all age subgroups. As before, this difference 

between mean usual intake and mean EER is most likely the result of underreporting of foods 

consumed, since the reported deficit in energy intake is inconsistent with both overweight status 

and the increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity. 

For the non-overweight subgroups, the difference between energy requirements and mean 

energy intakes is much less (Table 6b). In fact, for non-overweight adolescent males and adult 

males 19 to 50 years of age, mean energy intake and mean EERs are close in value. 

For overweight and non-overweight children 4 to 8 years of age, mean energy intakes 

exceed mean EERs (Table 6b). Although the excess consumption of energy relative to energy 

requirements is consistent with the increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity, the 

magnitude of the difference—more than 200 kcal—would imply a weight gain in excess of what 

has been observed. For example, an excess of 200 kcal per day over a period of time implies a 

weight gain of approximately 10 pounds per year (Butte and Ellis 2003), which appears large 

even in the context of the increasing prevalence of overweight among children. 
Table 6b

Estimated Energy Requirements and Usual Intake of Food Energy: Overweight Status

Distribution Percentiles (kcal) Distribution 

10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th 10th 25th Media

Kids 4 - 8, overweight Kids 4 - 8, not overweight Usual intake 1,358 1,556 1,786 1,823 2,053 2,337 Usual intake 1,364 1,542 1,75 EERa 1,226 1,344 1,531 1,563 1,759 1,945 EER 1,301 1,411 1,53

Kids 9 - 13, overweight Kids 9 - 13, not overweight Usual intake 1,444 1,703 2,027 2,073 2,394 2,763 Usual intake 1,559 1,792 2,07 EER 1,696 1,875 2,165 2,237 2,529 2,887 EER 1,608 1,770 1,94Males 14 - 18, overweight Males 14 - 18, not overweight Usual intake 1,833 2,168 2,614 2,716 3,151 3,730 Usual intake 1,930 2,306 2,78 EER 2,857 3,089 3,282 3,343 3,582 3,937 EER 2,375 2,595 2,81Males 19 - 30, overweight Males 19 - 30, not overweight Usual intake 1,852 2,231 2,711 2,784 3,258 3,812 Usual intake 1,843 2,242 2,73 EER 2,702 2,828 3,044 3,071 3,254 3,531 EER 2,401 2,571 2,78Males 31 - 50, overweight Males 31 - 50, not overweight Usual intake 1,700 2,045 2,494 2,579 3,019 3,566 Usual intake 1,709 2,049 2,44 EER 2,519 2,702 2,886 2,909 3,107 3,311 EER 2,268 2,411 2,60Males 51 - 70, overweight Males 51 - 70, not overweight Usual intake 1,459 1,747 2,103 2,148 2,501 2,895 Usual intake 1,393 1,713 2,12 EER 2,333 2,521 2,719 2,728 2,917 3,134 EER 2,027 2,214 2,41Males 71+, overweight Males 71+, not overweight

38 Usual intake 1,178 1,435 1,771 1,836 2,167 2,579 Usual intake 1,193 1,456 1,77

 EER 2,102 2,271 2,481 2,473 2,689 2,825 EER 1,836 2,017 2,18Females 14 - 18, overweight Females 14 - 18, not overweight Usual intake 1,277 1,482 1,729 1,751 1,996 2,254 Usual intake 1,421 1,662 1,92 EER 2,124 2,232 2,371 2,416 2,546 2,755 EER 1,806 1,904 2,02Females 19 - 30, overweight Females 19 - 30, not overweight Usual intake 1,244 1,469 1,750 1,789 2,067 2,384 Usual intake 1,308 1,545 1,82 EER 2,137 2,270 2,502 2,495 2,642 2,877 EER 1,859 1,970 2,09Females 31 - 50, overweight Females 31 - 50, not overweight Usual intake 1,174 1,395 1,657 1,696 1,953 2,265 Usual intake 1,181 1,410 1,67 EER 2,028 2,170 2,352 2,379 2,538 2,746 EER 1,755 1,871 2,01Females 51 - 70, overweight Females 51 - 70, not overweight Usual intake 1,039 1,247 1,502 1,532 1,785 2,063 Usual intake 1,098 1,281 1,50 EER 1,859 2,005 2,156 2,177 2,334 2,499 EER 1,609 1,727 1,87Females 71+, overweight Females 71+, not overweight Usual intake 973 1,161 1,386 1,405 1,629 1,861 Usual intake 964 1,129 1,33 EER 1,665 1,781 1,968 1,958 2,112 2,264 EER 1,426 1,540 1,71Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

aEER = Estimated Energy Requirement.

*: p-value for difference in mean intakes between overweight and non-overweight is < 0.05
39

The intake of macronutrients shows high percentages with usual intakes of fat and 

carbohydrate that fall outside the AMDRs (Table 6c). The percentage with usual fat intakes 

exceeding the upper bound of the AMDR is higher for overweight individuals than for nonoverweight individuals in most age-gender groups. For carbohydrate, the percentage with usual 

intake below the lower bound of the AMDR does not differ much between overweight and nonoverweight females, but is larger for overweight children and adult males than for nonoverweight children and adult males. The percent outside the AMDR for protein is low (less 

than 1 percent), although the prevalence of inadequate protein intake is between 20 and 30 

percent for the overweight adult female subgroups. For almost all age and gender subgroups, the 

percentage with inadequate usual intake is significantly higher for overweight than for nonoverweight individuals, presumably reflecting the higher protein requirements for overweight 

individuals. 

 Usual intakes of dietary fiber for both the overweight and non-overweight subgroups are far 

below the AI set for total fiber (Table 6d). For all subgroups, mean usual dietary fiber intake is 

considerably less than the AI. For most subgroups, even the 90th percentile of usual dietary fiber 

intake is less than the AI. 

Low-Income Individuals. As shown for other subgroups, the prevalence of inadequate 

usual intakes of folate, magnesium, vitamin A, and zinc for adolescent and adult subgroups is 

generally high for both low-income and higher-income individuals (Table 7a). However, the 

prevalence of inadequate intakes for these nutrients is usually higher for low-income subgroups, 

especially for low-income elderly subgroups compared with higher-income elderly subgroups. 

For calcium, a similar pattern is observed; mean usual intake of calcium for low-income age and 

gender subgroups is less than the mean usual intake for the higher-income age and gender 
Table 6c

Usual Nutrient Intake: Macronutrients, Overweight Status

Fat Carbohydrate Protein

% < AMDRa % > AMDR % Inadeq % < AMDR % Inadeq

% outside 

AMDR

Kids 4 - 8, overweight 1.4 25.0 <1 2.0 <1 <1

Kids 4 - 8, not overweight 2.0 19.5 <1 <1 * <1 <1

Kids 9 - 13, overweight <1 28.6 <1 1.9 4.6 <1

Kids 9 - 13, not overweight <1 22.2 <1 <1 <1 ** <1

Males 14 - 18, overweight <1 38.9 <1 8.4 13.3 <1

Males 14 - 18, not overweight 2.9 26.3 <1 <1 * <1 ** <1

Males 19 - 30, overweight <1 25.3 <1 21.8 4.4 <1

Males 19 - 30, not overweight <1 27.3 <1 15.5 1.1 ** <1

Males 31 - 50, overweight <1 42.4 <1 29.6 4.8 <1

Males 31 - 50, not overweight <1 32.3 ** <1 19.3 ** 1.1 ** <1

Males 51 - 70, overweight <1 44.2 <1 31.7 9.9 <1

Males 51 - 70, not overweight 2.1 34.6 ** 1.1 22.8 ** 3.7 ** <1

Males 71+, overweight <1 40.3 1.6 21.9 21.7 <1

Males 71+, not overweight 2.9 33.2 1.3 18.5 9.0 ** <1

Females 14 - 18, overweight 3.3 42.4 <1 4.4 19.3 <1

Females 14 - 18, not overweight 5.2 21.8 * <1 2.6 2.7 * 1.1

Females 19 - 30, overweight <1 35.9 <1 12.8 26.3 2.4

Females 19 - 30, not overweight 1.7 25.2 <1 10.3 3.0 ** 2.0

Females 31 - 50, overweight <1 38.5 1.7 18.6 23.9 <1

Females 31 - 50, not overweight 1.7 31.8 * 2.3 16.1 5.4 ** <1

Females 51 - 70, overweight 1.2 36.6 3.0 19.0 27.3 <1

Females 51 - 70, not overweight 2.7 25.4 ** 2.0 15.0 4.1 ** <1

Females 71+, overweight <1 30.1 4.1 11.2 30.1 <1

Females 71+, not overweight 3.9 ** 25.4 2.8 9.4 11.0 ** <1

Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

a

AMDR = Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range.

b

% Inadequate = % < EAR (Estimated Average Requirement).

*(**): p-value for difference between overweight and non-overweight is < .05(0.01)

 40
Table 6d

Usual Intake of Dietary Fiber: Overweight Status

Usual Intake Distributions (g/d)

AIa 10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th

Kids 4 - 8, overweight 25 8 10 12 12 14 17

Kids 4 - 8, not overweight 25 9 10 12 12 14 16

Kids 9 - 13, overweight 31/26 9 11 13 14 16 19

Kids 9 - 13, not overweight 31/26 10 11 14 14 16 19

Males 14 - 18, overweight 38 10 13 16 17 20 24

Males 14 - 18, not overweight 38 12 14 17 18 21 25

Males 19 - 30, overweight 38 10 13 18 18 23 28

Males 19 - 30, not overweight 38 10 13 17 19 23 29

Males 31 - 50, overweight 38 11 14 18 19 22 27

Males 31 - 50, not overweight 38 11 14 19 20 24 29

Males 51 - 70, overweight 30 10 13 18 18 23 28

Males 51 - 70, not overweight 30 10 13 18 19 23 29

Males 71+, overweight 30 9 12 16 17 22 27

Males 71+, not overweight 30 9 12 17 18 22 27

Females 14 - 18, overweight 26 9 11 12 12 13 15

Females 14 - 18, not overweight 26 8 10 12 13 15 18

Females 19 - 30, overweight 25 8 10 12 12 14 17

Females 19 - 30, not overweight 25 8 10 13 14 * 16 20

Females 31 - 50, overweight 25 8 10 13 13 16 19

Females 31 - 50, not overweight 25 8 10 14 15 ** 18 23

Females 51 - 70, overweight 21 8 11 14 14 17 21

Females 51 - 70, not overweight 21 9 11 14 15 18 22

Females 71+, overweight 21 8 10 13 14 17 21

Females 71+, not overweight 21 8 11 14 14 18 22

Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

a

AI = Adequate Intake.

*(**): p-value for difference in mean intakes between overweight and non-overweight is <0.05(0.01)

 41
10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th EARa % Inadeqb 10th 25th Median Mean 75

Kids 4 - 8, LE 185% FPLb 50 68 94 101 126 161 22 < 1 4 5 6 6 

Kids 4 - 8, GT 185% FPL 50 67 92 100 124 159 22 < 1 4566 

Kids 9 - 13, LE 185% FPL 44 61 87 95 120 157 39 6.9 5 6 7 7 

Kids 9 - 13, GT 185% FPL 49 68 96 105 132 173 39 4.5 5 6 7 8 

Males 14 - 18, LE 185% FPL 43 65 98 112 144 197 63 28.1 6 8 9 9 1

Males 14 - 18, GT 185% FPL 49 72 108 125 158 220 63 20.5 6 7 9 9 1

Males 19 - 30, LE 185% FPL 50 71 102 114 144 192 75 35.1 6 8 10 10 1Males 19 - 30, GT 185% FPL 43 66 102 120 154 218 75 37.9 6 8 10 10 1Males 31 - 50, LE 185% FPL 38 60 95 111 144 205 75 47.4 5 7 9 10 1Males 31 - 50, GT 185% FPL 40 60 91 104 134 186 75 44.0 6 8 10 10 1Males 51 - 70, LE 185% FPL 31 52 85 101 133 192 75 50.7 4 6 8 8 1

Males 51 - 70, GT 185% FPL 40 62 95 109 141 195 75 40.4 ** 6 7 9 10 1Males 71+, LE 185% FPL 26 41 65 75 98 138 75 61.2 3 4 6 6 

Males 71+, GT 185% FPL 39 63 101 115 151 208 75 34.4 ** 5 6 9 10 1Females 14 - 18, LE 185% FPL 46 62 84 91 113 145 56 23.5 4 5 6 7 

Females 14 - 18, GT 185% FPL 37 54 79 89 114 155 56 30.5 5 6 7 7 

Females 19 - 30, LE 185% FPL 37 56 84 94 122 165 60 36.2 4 5 6 7 

42Females 19 - 30, GT 185% FPL 40 57 80 88 111 147 60 36.2 5 6 7 7 

Females 31 - 50, LE 185% FPL 34 50 76 86 110 151 60 46.4 4 5 6 7 

Females 31 - 50, GT 185% FPL 33 50 76 87 111 154 60 42.1 4 6 7 8 

Females 51 - 70, LE 185% FPL 32 46 68 77 98 132 60 48.1 4 5 6 6 

Females 51 - 70, GT 185% FPL 39 60 90 100 130 175 60 31.3 ** 4 5 7 7 

Females 71+, LE 185% FPL 36 53 78 87 111 148 60 35.9 3 4 5 5 

Females 71+, GT 185% FPL 40 60 90 99 128 169 60 27.6 4 5 7 7 

Kids 4 - 8, LE 185% FPL 165 207 265 278 334 409 160 8.7 568 691 841 863 1,01Kids 4 - 8, GT 185% FPL 163 207 262 271 324 388 160 9.2 581 714 881 903 * 1,06Kids 9 - 13, LE 185% FPL 156 193 243 253 302 365 250 53.6 592 713 862 886 1,03

Kids 9 - 13, GT 185% FPL 171 213 271 286 343 421 250 40.8 * 623 774 969 1,001 ** 1,19

Males 14 - 18, LE 185% FPL 173 218 278 294 353 434 330 68.5 609 785 1,024 1,081 1,31

Males 14 - 18, GT 185% FPL 166 223 305 333 412 534 330 57.0 677 872 1,141 1,214 1,47

Males 19 - 30, LE 185% FPL 201 245 304 316 373 446 320 56.6 598 747 947 992 1,18

Males 19 - 30, GT 185% FPL 161 213 289 317 390 509 320 58.9 530 696 927 992 1,21

Males 31 - 50, LE 185% FPL 159 207 271 287 350 436 320 66.7 439 602 837 914 1,14

Males 31 - 50, GT 185% FPL 164 213 282 305 372 474 320 61.9 502 652 858 911 1,11

Males 51 - 70, LE 185% FPL 136 180 245 266 329 424 320 73.0 378 500 668 712 87

Males 51 - 70, GT 185% FPL 159 205 275 297 363 460 320 64.2 441 576 761 806 ** 98

Males 71+, LE 185% FPL 119 160 218 237 294 379 320 80.9 323 438 599 646 80

Table 7a

Usual Nutrient Intake: Micronutrients, Low-Income Individuals

Vitamin E (mg/

Assessing 

Inadequacy

Vitamin C (mg/d)

Usual Intake Percentiles Usual Intake Percentiles

Folate (mcg/d) Calcium (mg/d

Table 7a
10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th EARa % Inadeqb 10th 25th Median Mean 75

Assessing 

Inadequacy Usual Intake Percentiles Usual Intake Percentiles

Males 71+, GT 185% FPL 159 211 284 306 377 480 320 61.0 ** 466 590 753 788 ** 94

Females 14 - 18, LE 185% FPL 132 159 194 200 234 276 330 97.6 484 581 703 720 84

Females 14 - 18, GT 185% FPL 135 170 217 229 275 338 330 88.7 * 428 550 711 743 90

Females 19 - 30, LE 185% FPL 115 154 209 226 280 360 320 84.0 374 483 628 656 79

Females 19 - 30, GT 185% FPL 137 172 220 230 276 336 320 87.0 404 520 675 707 85

Females 31 - 50, LE 185% FPL 106 138 187 204 250 323 320 89.6 316 424 576 619 76

Females 31 - 50, GT 185% FPL 126 165 218 232 284 357 320 83.8 382 492 638 667 81

Females 51 - 70, LE 185% FPL 111 142 184 197 238 298 320 93.0 290 398 546 582 72

Females 51 - 70, GT 185% FPL 128 165 216 230 280 351 320 84.8 ** 355 456 592 622 75

Females 71+, LE 185% FPL 117 151 198 212 258 324 320 89.4 298 391 512 534 65

Females 71+, GT 185% FPL 128 171 231 246 304 383 320 79.1 * 338 444 586 618 ** 75

Kids 4 - 8, LE 185% FPL 157 182 214 220 251 289 110 < 1 398 507 653 698 83Kids 4 - 8, GT 185% FPL 159 185 218 221 254 289 110 < 1 439 553 700 732 87Kids 9 - 13, LE 185% FPL 170 196 227 232 262 299 200 28.0 404 516 659 701 83Kids 9 - 13, GT 185% FPL 179 212 252 259 299 348 200 18.7 * 449 574 743 783 94Males 14 - 18, LE 185% FPL 202 240 290 297 346 403 340 72.8 439 571 755 809 98Males 14 - 18, GT 185% FPL 206 252 314 328 388 467 340 60.0 * 411 580 833 930 1,17Males 19 - 30, LE 185% FPL 212 261 324 336 398 474 330 52.2 365 474 623 661 80Males 19 - 30, GT 185% FPL 199 250 315 333 397 490 330 55.3 365 507 719 825 1,02

43Males 31 - 50, LE 185% FPL 187 241 310 328 400 495 350 62.5 286 414 636 743 95

Males 31 - 50, GT 185% FPL 218 266 328 339 400 475 350 58.5 410 558 771 857 1,05Males 51 - 70, LE 185% FPL 169 215 273 285 341 415 350 77.4 355 527 783 946 1,17Males 51 - 70, GT 185% FPL 202 250 310 320 378 452 350 66.0 ** 422 578 824 933 1,16Males 71+, LE 185% FPL 149 187 235 246 292 356 350 89.1 269 421 674 822 1,05Males 71+, GT 185% FPL 187 231 288 298 355 423 350 73.6 ** 456 639 919 1,046 1,30Females 14 - 18, LE 185% FPL 166 187 212 214 239 265 300 97.9 335 419 532 558 66Females 14 - 18, GT 185% FPL 141 173 214 221 262 310 300 87.7 * 282 390 551 613 76Females 19 - 30, LE 185% FPL 138 171 213 220 262 311 255 72.2 256 357 501 558 69Females 19 - 30, GT 185% FPL 158 188 225 230 266 309 255 69.4 297 414 590 659 82Females 31 - 50, LE 185% FPL 133 166 211 220 263 318 265 75.7 286 382 518 572 70Females 31 - 50, GT 185% FPL 159 195 237 244 285 336 265 65.8 ** 326 445 614 673 83Females 51 - 70, LE 185% FPL 138 168 206 213 250 298 265 80.9 258 366 528 610 75Females 51 - 70, GT 185% FPL 165 198 239 246 286 334 265 65.1 ** 354 475 647 715 87Females 71+, LE 185% FPL 130 159 195 200 236 277 265 86.7 324 461 669 793 97Females 71+, GT 185% FPL 145 185 235 242 291 346 265 64.5 ** 415 542 742 817 1,00Kids 4 - 8, LE 185% FPL 9.5 11.2 13.5 14.0 16.2 19.3 4.1 <1 7.0 8.2 9.7 10.0 11Kids 4 - 8, GT 185% FPL 9.5 11.2 13.4 13.9 16.1 18.8 4.1 <1 6.5 7.7 9.2 9.4 10Kids 9 - 13, LE 185% FPL 10.7 12.6 14.8 15.3 17.5 20.5 5.9/5.7 <1 8.0 9.2 10.7 11.0 12Kids 9 - 13, GT 185% FPL 10.6 12.9 15.9 16.6 19.5 23.5 5.9/5.7 1.2 7.7 9.2 11.1 11.5 13

Iron (mg/d) Zinc (mg/d)

Magnesium (mg/d) Vitamin A (mcg R

Table 7a
10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th EARa % Inadeqb 10th 25th Median Mean 75

Assessing 

Inadequacy Usual Intake Percentiles Usual Intake Percentiles

Males 14 - 18, LE 185% FPL 12.6 15.1 18.5 19.4 22.7 27.5 7.7 <1 9.1 11.2 14.0 14.5 17Males 14 - 18, GT 185% FPL 12.4 15.4 19.5 20.7 24.7 30.6 7.7 <1 10.8 12.3 14.4 14.7 16Males 19 - 30, LE 185% FPL 12.8 15.2 18.1 18.7 21.5 25.2 6.0 <1 9.9 12.0 14.6 15.2 17Males 19 - 30, GT 185% FPL 12.5 15.1 18.6 19.8 23.1 28.5 6.0 <1 9.5 11.5 14.0 14.7 17Males 31 - 50, LE 185% FPL 10.4 13.5 17.7 19.2 23.2 29.9 6.0 1.1 9.1 11.3 14.1 15.0 17Males 31 - 50, GT 185% FPL 11.9 14.3 17.9 18.9 22.1 27.0 6.0 <1 9.2 11.0 13.6 14.2 16Males 51 - 70, LE 185% FPL 9.2 11.9 15.2 16.1 19.3 24.1 6.0 2.2 7.7 9.4 11.4 11.9 13Males 51 - 70, GT 185% FPL 10.7 13.3 16.5 17.5 20.6 25.5 6.0 <1 8.1 9.9 12.3 13.0 15Males 71+, LE 185% FPL 7.7 9.8 13.0 14.1 17.1 21.9 6.0 4.0 5.7 7.1 9.1 9.5 11Males 71+, GT 185% FPL 9.5 12.3 16.3 17.5 21.4 27.1 6.0 1.8 7.4 9.1 11.5 12.3 14Females 14 - 18, LE 185% FPL 8.7 10.7 13.0 13.5 15.8 18.9 7.9 10.7 7.2 8.3 9.8 10.0 11Females 14 - 18, GT 185% FPL 8.7 10.5 12.8 13.5 15.7 19.1 7.9 12.5 6.1 7.5 9.4 9.8 11Females 19 - 30, LE 185% FPL 8.0 9.9 12.6 13.1 15.7 19.1 8.1 16.8 6.3 7.4 8.9 9.1 10Females 19 - 30, GT 185% FPL 8.8 10.6 12.8 13.4 15.6 18.7 8.1 14.8 6.4 7.7 9.3 9.6 11Females 31 - 50, LE 185% FPL 7.2 8.9 11.3 12.1 14.4 18.0 8.1 23.3 5.5 6.9 9.0 9.8 11Females 31 - 50, GT 185% FPL 8.2 10.1 12.6 13.4 15.9 19.6 8.1 16.7 6.3 7.5 9.1 9.5 11Females 51 - 70, LE 185% FPL 6.9 8.6 10.9 11.6 13.7 17.1 5.0 3.6 5.2 6.3 7.7 8.0 9Females 51 - 70, GT 185% FPL 8.4 10.1 12.2 12.8 14.8 17.8 5.0 1.2 6.0 7.1 8.6 8.9 10Females 71+, LE 185% FPL 6.4 8.1 10.5 11.2 13.5 16.9 5.0 5.2 4.5 5.5 6.9 7.3 8Females 71+, GT 185% FPL 8.0 10.1 12.7 13.4 16.0 19.5 5.0 1.8 6.0 7.3 8.9 9.2 10

44Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

aEAR = Estimated Average Requirement. For Vitamin C, the EAR is 35 mg/d higher for smokers. For calcium, the value is an AI = Adequate Intake.bFor most nutrients, the % Inadequate = % < EAR. For iron, the probability approach is used to estimate the % Inadequate.

*(**): p-value for difference between LE 185% FPL and GT 185% FPL is < 0.05(0.01)

Table 7a
45

subgroups. For young children, the prevalence of inadequate usual intake is lower, and the 

differences between low-income and higher-income subgroups are less.

Both the mean and median of usual energy intake of the low-income and higher-income 

adult subgroups, as well as the estimated percentiles of the usual energy intake distributions, are 

considerably less than the comparable percentiles of the EER distributions (Table 7b). In 

contrast, for children 4 to 8 years and 9 to 13 years, mean energy intake exceeds the mean 

estimated energy requirement. 

The usual intake of macronutrients shows results similar to those presented for overweight 

and non-overweight subgroups—high percentages with usual intakes of fat and carbohydrate and 

low percentages with usual protein intake that fall outside the AMDRs (Table 7c). For some 

low-income subgroups—children, males 19 to 30 years, and males 71 years and over—the 

percentage with usual fat intakes above the upper bound of the AMDR is higher than for their 

higher-income counterparts. In addition, low-income adult females have a higher prevalence of 

inadequate protein intakes compared with higher-income adult females. 

Usual intakes of dietary fiber for low-income and higher-income subgroups are far below 

the AI set for total fiber (Table 7d). For all income subgroups, mean usual dietary fiber intake is 

considerably less than the AI. 

FSP and WIC Participants. For FSP participants, all micronutrients show a high 

prevalence of inadequacy for adolescent and adult females; all except iron and zinc have a high 

prevalence of inadequacy for adolescent and adult males; and, with the exception of vitamin E, 

the prevalence of inadequate usual intakes of micronutrients is low for children 4 to 8 years of 

age (Table 8a). (Recall that some FSP participant subgroups—males 14 to 18 and 19 to 30 years 

and females 14 to 18 years—have small sample sizes, making estimates of the usual intake
Table 7b

Estimated Energy Requirements and Usual Intake of Food Energy: Low-Income Individuals

Distribution Percentiles (kcal) Distribution Percentile

10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th 10th 25th Median Mean 

Kids 4 - 8, LE 185% FPLa Kids 4 - 8, GT 185% FPL

 Usual intake 1,327 1,525 1,770 1,806 2,050 2,328 Usual intake 1,375 1,549 1,752 1,776  EERb 1,242 1,357 1,514 1,542 1,682 1,881 EER 1,286 1,402 1,543 1,56

Kids 9 - 13, LE 185% FPL Kids 9 - 13, GT 185% FPL Usual intake 1,516 1,731 1,991 2,017 2,275 2,551 Usual intake 1,518 1,770 2,076 2,130  EER 1,591 1,777 1,971 2,027 2,223 2,529 EER 1,641 1,799 2,009 2,070 Males 14 - 18, LE 185% FPL Males 14 - 18, GT 185% FPL Usual intake 1,984 2,305 2,707 2,764 3,160 3,617 Usual intake 1,850 2,245 2,766 2,876  EER 2,384 2,647 2,897 2,933 3,189 3,517 EER 2,420 2,663 2,912 2,947 Males 19 - 30, LE 185% FPL Males 19 - 30, GT 185% FPL Usual intake 1,892 2,314 2,819 2,919 3,407 4,064 Usual intake 1,838 2,211 2,669 2,763  EER 2,407 2,665 2,873 2,901 3,109 3,414 EER 2,465 2,678 2,889 2,889 Males 31 - 50, LE 185% FPL Males 31 - 50, GT 185% FPL Usual intake 1,615 2,013 2,511 2,639 3,119 3,821 Usual intake 1,723 2,053 2,466 2,524  EER 2,382 2,520 2,739 2,783 3,018 3,222 EER 2,396 2,586 2,807 2,817 Males 51 - 70, LE 185% FPL Males 51 - 70, GT 185% FPL Usual intake 1,300 1,597 1,952 2,010 2,357 2,791 Usual intake 1,468 1,768 2,144 2,194  EER 2,105 2,329 2,554 2,558 2,799 2,984 EER 2,214 2,411 2,646 2,642 

46Males 71+, LE 185% FPL Males 71+, GT 185% FPL

 Usual intake 1,013 1,254 1,543 1,608 1,885 2,281 Usual intake 1,359 1,601 1,894 1,924  EER 1,883 2,069 2,289 2,290 2,498 2,712 EER 1,918 2,132 2,359 2,35Females 14 - 18, LE 185% FPL Females 14 - 18, GT 185% FPL Usual intake 1,500 1,709 1,936 1,959 2,181 2,442 Usual intake 1,324 1,560 1,846 1,874  EER 1,800 1,919 2,069 2,106 2,220 2,454 EER 1,847 1,943 2,084 2,107 Females 19 - 30, LE 185% FPL Females 19 - 30, GT 185% FPL Usual intake 1,213 1,459 1,760 1,792 2,090 2,413 Usual intake 1,285 1,521 1,810 1,842  EER 1,891 2,043 2,218 2,273 2,457 2,683 EER 1,891 2,026 2,161 2,21Females 31 - 50, LE 185% FPL Females 31 - 50, GT 185% FPL Usual intake 1,122 1,357 1,645 1,694 1,976 2,328 Usual intake 1,192 1,417 1,673 1,706  EER 1,838 2,004 2,191 2,220 2,380 2,611 EER 1,812 1,952 2,132 2,162 Females 51 - 70, LE 185% FPL Females 51 - 70, GT 185% FPL Usual intake 955 1,152 1,397 1,427 1,669 1,939 Usual intake 1,111 1,306 1,545 1,572  EER 1,701 1,843 2,016 2,055 2,233 2,453 EER 1,688 1,852 2,034 2,039 Females 71+, LE 185% FPL Females 71+, GT 185% FPL Usual intake 862 1,028 1,232 1,254 1,456 1,675 Usual intake 1,071 1,250 1,467 1,488  EER 1,481 1,671 1,822 1,841 2,013 2,139 EER 1,481 1,611 1,812 1,816 Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

aFPL = Federal Poverty Level.bEER = Estimated Energy Requirement.

*(**): p-value for difference in mean intakes between LE 185% FPL and GT 185% FPL < 0.05(0.01)
Table 7c

Usual Nutrient Intake: Macronutrients, Low-Income Individuals

Fat Carbohydrate Protein

% < AMDRa % > AMDR % Inadeqb % < AMDR % Inadeq

% outside 

AMDR

Kids 4 - 8, LE 185% FPLc < 1 32.9 < 1 2.5 < 1 < 1

Kids 4 - 8, GT 185% FPL 2.3 14.4 ** < 1 0.5 ** < 1 1.3

Kids 9 - 13, LE 185% FPL < 1 33.4 < 1 1.9 1.5 < 1

Kids 9 - 13, GT 185% FPL 1.5 19.3 ** < 1 0.6 1.4 < 1

Males 14 - 18, LE 185% FPL < 1 50.9 < 1 6.4 2.3 < 1

Males 14 - 18, GT 185% FPL 2.3 18.5 ** < 1 0.5 < 1 < 1

Males 19 - 30, LE 185% FPL < 1 37.4 < 1 26.6 2.3 < 1

Males 19 - 30, GT 185% FPL < 1 20.7 * < 1 14.5 * 2.7 < 1

Males 31 - 50, LE 185% FPL < 1 42.1 < 1 28.5 4.4 < 1

Males 31 - 50, GT 185% FPL < 1 38.3 < 1 25.7 3.2 < 1

Males 51 - 70, LE 185% FPL 1.3 40.5 2.1 28.9 13.2 < 1

Males 51 - 70, GT 185% FPL 1.2 41.7 < 1 28.6 7.0 * < 1

Males 71+, LE 185% FPL 1.4 41.3 3.6 25.8 25.2 < 1

Males 71+, GT 185% FPL 1.1 33.0 < 1 16.8 * 9.5 ** < 1

Females 14 - 18, LE 185% FPL < 1 27.2 < 1 2.5 3.8 2.5

Females 14 - 18, GT 185% FPL 8.6 ** 25.2 < 1 3.4 6.7 < 1

Females 19 - 30, LE 185% FPL 1.9 29.2 1.1 10.6 13.4 1.4

Females 19 - 30, GT 185% FPL 1.1 30.1 < 1 12.9 7.0 * 2.6

Females 31 - 50, LE 185% FPL < 1 40.4 2.2 19.1 17.9 < 1

Females 31 - 50, GT 185% FPL < 1 32.0 * 2.1 16.6 10.8 * < 1

Females 51 - 70, LE 185% FPL 1.1 34.9 4.6 14.0 26.9 < 1

Females 51 - 70, GT 185% FPL 2.2 31.1 1.9 18.1 13.4 ** < 1

Females 71+, LE 185% FPL 2.0 26.3 6.8 10.9 31.9 < 1

Females 71+, GT 185% FPL 2.2 29.6 2.1 11.4 10.8 ** < 1

Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

a

AMDR = Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range.

b

% Inadequate = % < EAR (Estimated Average Requirement).

c

FPL = Federal Poverty Level.

*(**): p-value for difference between LE 185% FPL and GT 185% FPL is < 0.05(0.01)

 47
Table 7d

Usual Intake of Dietary Fiber: Low-Income Individuals

Usual Intake Distributions (g/d)

AIa 10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th

Kids 4 - 8, LE 185% FPLb 25 8 10 12 12 14 17

Kids 4 - 8, GT 185% FPL 25 8 10 12 12 14 16

Kids 9 - 13, LE 185% FPL 31/26 8 10 13 13 15 19

Kids 9 - 13, GT 185% FPL 31/26 10 12 14 15 ** 17 20

Males 14 - 18, LE 185% FPL 38 12 14 16 17 19 22

Males 14 - 18, GT 185% FPL 38 11 14 17 18 22 26

Males 19 - 30, LE 185% FPL 38 10 14 18 19 23 28

Males 19 - 30, GT 185% FPL 38 10 13 17 18 22 28

Males 31 - 50, LE 185% FPL 38 10 13 17 19 23 29

Males 31 - 50, GT 185% FPL 38 11 14 18 19 23 28

Males 51 - 70, LE 185% FPL 30 8 11 16 17 21 27

Males 51 - 70, GT 185% FPL 30 10 14 18 19 ** 23 28

Males 71+, LE 185% FPL 30 8 11 14 15 18 22

Males 71+, GT 185% FPL 30 10 13 18 19 ** 23 29

Females 14 - 18, LE 185% FPL 26 10 11 12 12 13 15

Females 14 - 18, GT 185% FPL 26 8 10 13 13 15 18

Females 19 - 30, LE 185% FPL 25 7 9 12 13 15 19

Females 19 - 30, GT 185% FPL 25 8 10 13 13 16 20

Females 31 - 50, LE 185% FPL 25 7 9 12 12 15 19

Females 31 - 50, GT 185% FPL 25 8 11 14 14 ** 18 21

Females 51 - 70, LE 185% FPL 21 8 10 12 13 15 19

Females 51 - 70, GT 185% FPL 21 9 11 14 15 ** 18 22

Females 71+, LE 185% FPL 21 7 9 12 13 15 19

Females 71+, GT 185% FPL 21 8 11 15 15 ** 19 23

Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

a

AI = Adequate Intake.

b

FPL = Federal Poverty Level.

*(**): p-value for difference in mean intakes between LE 185% FPL and GT 185% FPL is < 0.05(0.01)

48
10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th EARa % Inadeqb 10th 25th Median Mean 7

Kids 4 - 8, FSP 57 76 101 107 132 165 22 < 1 4567 Kids 4 - 8, not in FSP 49 67 91 98 122 155 22 < 1 4566 Kids 9 - 13, FSP 45 61 83 89 110 140 39 6.0 5 6 7 7 Kids 9 - 13, not in FSP 48 66 91 100 124 162 39 4.8 4 5 6 7 Males 14 - 18, FSP 44 65 96 107 137 185 63 26.8 6 7 9 9 Males 14 - 18, not in FSP 51 70 99 110 138 183 63 18.8 6 7 8 9 Males 19 - 30, FSP 56 71 90 95 113 139 75 46.0 6 7 9 9 Males 19 - 30, not in FSP 59 81 113 125 155 205 75 20.7 6 8 10 11 Males 31 - 50, FSP 42 61 91 105 133 185 75 54.7 5 7 9 10 Males 31 - 50, not in FSP 37 58 92 109 142 202 75 37.9 5 7 9 9 Males 51+, FSP 28 49 84 106 139 210 75 52.4 4 5 7 7 Males 51+, not in FSP 25 42 70 84 110 161 75 54.2 4 5 6 7 Females 14 - 18, FSP 51 65 86 91 110 137 56 21.0 4 5 6 6 Females 14 - 18, not in FSP 36 48 67 74 91 120 56 35.5 4 5 7 7 Females 19 - 30, FSP 35 53 80 91 117 160 60 43.4 4 5 6 7 Females 19 - 30, not in FSP 44 62 90 100 126 169 60 22.8 4 5 7 7 Females 31 - 50, FSP 40 55 76 83 104 135 60 47.8 4 5 6 7 

49Females 31 - 50, not in FSP 32 48 71 80 103 139 60 38.4 4 5 6 6 

Females 51+, FSP 33 47 67 74 93 123 60 49.9 3 4 6 6 Females 51+, not in FSP 35 51 77 87 111 151 60 33.5 * 3 4 5 5 Infants < 1, WIC 46 69 96 107 134 182 ... ... 4 8 10 10 Infants < 1, not in WIC 30 50 77 84 110 145 ... ... 2 4 9 9 Toddlers 1 - 3, WIC 56 78 110 116 146 184 13 < 1 3455 Toddlers 1 - 3, not in WIC 43 61 87 96 121 159 13 < 1 3455 Kids 4 - 8, FSP 170 217 281 297 359 443 160 7.7 576 708 872 893 1,0

Kids 4 - 8, not in FSP 168 207 258 270 320 387 160 7.7 555 674 819 842 9

Kids 9 - 13, FSP 147 179 221 228 268 316 250 66.5 550 676 838 866 1,0

Kids 9 - 13, not in FSP 157 193 242 253 301 364 250 54.0 688 778 887 898 1,0

Males 14 - 18, FSP 189 220 259 265 304 349 330 85.0 649 798 990 1,023 1,2

Males 14 - 18, not in FSP 181 212 250 254 291 332 330 89.4 573 734 954 1,013 1,2

Males 19 - 30, FSP 181 217 264 274 321 380 320 74.7 440 584 770 800 9

Males 19 - 30, not in FSP 224 278 349 363 433 521 320 39.7 * 658 837 1,078 1,134 * 1,3

Males 31 - 50, FSP 161 196 243 255 303 366 320 80.2 454 621 865 953 1,1

Males 31 - 50, not in FSP 166 211 272 288 348 431 320 67.1 473 601 776 821 9

Males 51+, FSP 114 159 224 246 308 405 320 77.5 319 427 582 631 7

Vitamin E (mg

Assessing 

Inadequacy

Vitamin C (mg/d)

Usual Intake Percentiles Usual Intake Percentiles

WIC participants and income-el

FSP participants and income-e

WICd participants and income-eligible nonparticipants

FSP participants and income-eligible nonparticipants

Folate (mcg/d) Calcium (mg

Table 8a

Usual Nutrient Intake: Micronutrients, FSP and WIC Participants

FSPc participants and income-eligible nonparticipants FSP participants and income-e

Table 8a
10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th EARa % Inadeqb 10th 25th Median Mean 7

Assessing 

Inadequacy Usual Intake Percentiles Usual Intake Percentiles

Males 51+, not in FSP 127 167 224 241 296 377 320 80.7 338 455 617 663 8

Females 14 - 18, FSP 138 169 211 218 259 309 330 93.5 354 471 631 672 8

Females 14 - 18, not in FSP 132 156 188 193 224 261 330 98.8 477 575 695 709 8

Females 19 - 30, FSP 122 154 196 204 246 298 320 93.6 369 473 605 624 7

Females 19 - 30, not in FSP 133 174 231 249 305 388 320 78.7 406 515 657 685 8

Females 31 - 50, FSP 101 134 179 191 236 297 320 93.1 272 376 520 558 6

Females 31 - 50, not in FSP 110 141 185 196 238 297 320 93.3 318 428 581 623 7

Females 51+, FSP 112 139 176 185 220 269 320 96.5 271 356 472 499 6

Females 51+, not in FSP 111 144 191 205 250 316 320 90.6 277 376 509 539 6

Infants < 1, WIC 62 86 116 123 150 189 ... ... 292 446 584 616 7

Infants < 1, not in WIC 32 68 99 107 140 184 ... ... 141 358 548 601 8

Toddlers 1 - 3, WIC 128 168 221 234 286 357 120 7.7 484 630 819 850 1,0

Toddlers 1 - 3, not in WIC 127 162 210 221 267 329 120 7.8 446 586 766 805 9

Kids 4 - 8, FSP 163 190 222 227 259 298 110 < 1 426 538 683 721 8Kids 4 - 8, not in FSP 158 183 214 218 247 283 110 < 1 369 470 614 665 7Kids 9 - 13, FSP 160 185 216 221 252 289 200 36.7 351 438 552 574 6Kids 9 - 13, not in FSP 178 200 227 230 257 286 200 25.0 380 486 635 701 8Males 14 - 18, FSP 212 245 285 290 330 374 340 79.4 513 597 705 726 8

50Males 14 - 18, not in FSP 198 229 265 269 305 344 340 89.0 365 452 568 594 7

Males 19 - 30, FSP 209 246 292 299 344 397 330 69.1 370 455 566 585 6Males 19 - 30, not in FSP 222 279 352 366 438 526 330 42.2 * 495 600 738 767 9Males 31 - 50, FSP 163 219 294 312 385 483 350 66.6 321 458 669 759 9Males 31 - 50, not in FSP 212 257 316 326 384 454 350 63.7 275 383 548 620 7Males 51+, FSP 142 188 249 262 322 398 350 81.8 296 453 687 866 1,0Males 51+, not in FSP 153 194 250 263 318 391 350 83.0 306 460 706 826 1,0Females 14 - 18, FSP 152 178 209 212 243 277 300 95.5 286 387 526 563 6Females 14 - 18, not in FSP 198 209 222 223 236 249 300 100.0 333 392 470 487 5Females 19 - 30, FSP 139 168 203 207 242 280 255 81.2 203 301 446 494 6Females 19 - 30, not in FSP 147 181 225 232 276 327 255 65.9 313 413 554 594 7Females 31 - 50, FSP 129 165 210 220 263 323 265 75.9 268 363 500 543 6Females 31 - 50, not in FSP 140 173 216 224 266 318 265 74.5 290 383 514 565 6Females 51+, FSP 130 156 189 194 226 263 265 90.5 230 319 456 541 6Females 51+, not in FSP 132 161 196 201 236 275 265 87.0 277 399 586 693 8Infants < 1, WIC 41 60 85 93 118 154 ... ... 373 475 626 658 8Infants < 1, not in WIC 26 47 81 91 123 170 ... ... 178 365 544 577 7Toddlers 1 - 3, WIC 128 156 189 194 227 266 65 < 1 357 454 582 620 7Toddlers 1 - 3, not in WIC 122 148 182 186 220 257 65 < 1 353 443 559 587 6

Magnesium (mg/d) Vitamin A (mcg 

WIC participants and income-eligible nonparticipants WIC participants and income-el

FSP participants and income-eligible nonparticipants FSP participants and income-e

WIC participants and income-eligible nonparticipants WIC participants and income-el

Table 8a
10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th EARa % Inadeqb 10th 25th Median Mean 7

Assessing 

Inadequacy Usual Intake Percentiles Usual Intake Percentiles

Kids 4 - 8, FSP 10.0 11.9 14.5 15.1 17.6 21.0 4.1 <1 7.4 8.6 10.2 10.5 1Kids 4 - 8, not in FSP 9.4 10.9 12.9 13.4 15.3 18.0 4.1 <1 6.9 8.0 9.4 9.7 1Kids 9 - 13, FSP 9.6 11.6 14.2 14.8 17.3 20.5 5.9/5.7 <1 7.1 8.6 10.6 11.0 1Kids 9 - 13, not in FSP 10.2 11.7 13.7 14.0 15.9 18.1 5.9/5.7 <1 8.3 9.1 10.1 10.2 1Males 14 - 18, FSP 14.2 15.8 17.8 18.0 20.0 22.1 7.7 <1 10.7 11.8 13.1 13.2 1Males 14 - 18, not in FSP 10.1 12.6 15.9 16.5 19.8 23.9 7.7 4.1 7.6 9.7 12.5 13.2 1Males 19 - 30, FSP 10.6 13.3 16.7 17.2 20.5 24.3 6.0 1.3 9.1 11.2 13.9 14.3 1Males 19 - 30, not in FSP 13.8 16.3 19.4 20.0 23.1 27.1 6.0 <1 9.7 12.0 14.8 15.5 1Males 31 - 50, FSP 11.0 14.2 18.9 20.5 25.3 32.4 6.0 <1 9.3 11.7 14.7 15.5 1Males 31 - 50, not in FSP 11.2 13.5 16.5 17.4 20.3 24.7 6.0 <1 10.1 11.7 13.7 14.0 1Males 51+, FSP 8.6 11.2 14.6 15.2 18.6 22.7 6.0 3.2 7.2 8.6 10.5 10.8 1Males 51+, not in FSP 8.2 10.4 13.5 14.4 17.4 21.8 6.0 3.0 6.4 7.8 9.6 10.0 1Females 14 - 18, FSP 7.9 10.1 13.0 13.5 16.4 19.8 7.9 15.3 6.3 7.8 9.6 9.9 1Females 14 - 18, not in FSP 9.5 11.1 13.2 13.5 15.5 17.9 7.9 5.1 7.3 8.5 9.9 10.1 1Females 19 - 30, FSP 7.8 9.8 12.5 12.9 15.6 18.8 8.1 18.8 5.9 7.3 9.1 9.4 1Females 19 - 30, not in FSP 8.8 10.6 13.0 13.5 15.8 18.8 8.1 14.1 6.8 7.9 9.2 9.4 1Females 31 - 50, FSP 7.1 9.1 11.8 12.4 15.0 18.4 8.1 22.2 5.3 6.7 8.9 9.6 1Females 31 - 50, not in FSP 7.3 9.0 11.1 11.5 13.6 16.3 8.1 24.0 5.6 7.1 9.1 9.8 1Females 51+, FSP 6.9 8.4 10.3 10.9 12.7 15.6 5.0 4.2 5.7 6.4 7.4 7.6 

51Females 51+, not in FSP 6.5 8.2 10.7 11.4 13.8 17.3 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.5 7.0 7.3 

Infants < 6 months, WIC 5.9 9.3 12.6 13.5 16.6 22.1 ... ... 2.8 4.3 5.9 6.0 

Infants < 6 months, not in WIC 1.8 6.2 9.7 11.2 15.7 19.9 ... ... 1.1 2.5 4.3 4.6 Infants 7 - 11 months, WIC 8.7 12.0 16.1 16.7 20.8 25.4 6.9 7.1 3.9 5.2 6.7 6.8 Infants 7 - months, not in WIC 5.5 8.7 13.6 15.4 20.2 27.7 6.9 17.2 2.9 4.4 6.2 6.3 Toddlers 1 - 3, WIC 7.1 9.1 11.8 12.4 15.0 18.5 3.0 1.1 5.2 6.3 7.8 8.2 Toddlers 1 - 3, not in WIC 6.7 8.3 10.4 11.1 13.1 16.2 3.0 1.3 5.3 6.4 7.7 8.1 Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

aEAR = Estimated Average Requirement. For Vitamin C, the EAR is 35 mg/d higher for smokers. For calcium, the value is an AI = Adequate Intake.bFor most nutrients, the % Inadequate = % < EAR. For iron, the probability approach is used to estimate the % Inadequate.cFSP = Food Stamp Program.dWIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

*(**): p-value for difference between participants and income-eligible nonparticipants is <0.05(0.01) 

WIC participants and income-eligible nonparticipants WIC participants and income-el

FSP participants and income-eligible nonparticipants FSP participants and income-e

Iron (mg/d) Zinc (mg/d

Table 8a
52

distributions and the prevalence of inadequacy less precise than FSP subgroups with larger 

sample sizes.) 

Most differences between FSP participants and income-eligible nonparticipants in the 

percentage with inadequate intake are small, with the following exceptions: 

• The prevalence of inadequate usual intakes of vitamin C is higher for most of the 

adolescent and adult FSP participant groups than for income-eligible nonparticipants, 

although the difference is statistically significant only for females 51 years of age and 

over. 

• Male FSP participants 19 to 30 years of age have a higher prevalence of inadequate 

intake of most nutrients (except iron) than income-eligible nonparticipants. The 

differences are statistically significant for folate and magnesium. 

For calcium, mean usual intake of FSP participants is generally less than the mean usual 

intake for income-eligible nonparticipants. Males 19 to 30 years of age show an unusually large 

and significant difference in mean intakes of calcium—800 mg/d for FSP participants compared 

with 1,134 mg/d for income-eligible nonparticipants. For children 4 to 8 years and males 14-18 

years and 31-50 years, however, the mean calcium intake of FSP participants is close to or even 

higher than the mean for nonparticipants. 

Differences in nutrient adequacy for WIC participants and nonparticipants show that infants 

and toddlers participating in WIC generally have higher mean intakes, as well as higher usual 

intake percentiles, than income-eligible nonparticipants (Table 8a). For most nutrients, however, 

the prevalence of inadequacy is low and differences between WIC participants and incomeeligible nonparticipants are not large. For iron, however, 7.1 percent of WIC infants 7 to 11 

months of age have inadequate intakes compared with 17.2 percent of income-eligible 

nonparticipants.

Both the mean and median of usual energy intake of adolescent and adult females, as well as 

the estimated percentiles of the usual energy intake distributions, are considerably less than the 
53

 

comparable percentiles of the EER distributions (Table 8b). This pattern is observed for both 

FSP participants and income-eligible nonparticipants. For males, the difference between mean 

energy intake and mean EER is less than for females and not consistent in direction. For 

children 4 to 8 years, mean energy intake exceeds the mean estimated energy requirement, while 

for children 9 to 13 years, mean energy intake is close to mean EER. 

For infants and children receiving WIC, and for eligible nonparticipating children, mean 

energy intake exceeds mean EER (Table 8b). An important caveat to this result, however, is that 

breastfeeding infants and toddlers are included in these analyses. Since the CSFII data do not 

include energy and nutrients from breast milk, energy intake for breastfeeding infants and 

toddlers is underestimated. To the extent that breastfeeding is less prevalent among WIC infants 

than among eligible nonparticipants (Schwartz, et al. 1992), mean energy intake will be 

underestimated more for eligible nonparticipants than for WIC participants. In addition, the 

difference between mean intake and mean EER for both WIC participants and nonparticipants 

would be even larger if the energy from breast milk were included in the nutrient totals.2 

 Results for macronutrients are similar to findings presented for other subgroups. High 

proportions of children, adolescents, and adults have usual fat intake outside the AMDR (above 

the upper bound); lower, but still relatively high, proportions of adult subgroups have usual 

carbohydrate intake below the lower bound of the AMDR; and, for some subgroups, the 

prevalence of inadequate protein intake is moderately high, although the proportion outside the 

AMDR for protein is low, usually under one percent (Table 8c). Some FSP participant 

2

 An alternative would have been to delete breastfeeding infants and toddlers from the 

analysis. However, this would have deleted a large proportion of the infant and toddler sample 

and left a very self-selected sample for analysis purposes. Even with energy and nutrient intakes 

underestimated for infants under age 1 due to the exclusion of breast milk, usual intakes of 

micronutrients are adequate for almost all nutrients examined. 
Table 8b

Estimated Energy Requirements and Usual Intake of Food Energy: FSP and WIC Participants

Distribution Percentiles (kcal) Distribution 

10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th 10th 25th Median 

FSPa participants and income-eligible nonparticipants

Kids 4 - 8, FSP Kids 4 - 8, not in FSP Usual intake 1,354 1,578 1,839 1,877 2,132 2,446 Usual intake 1,328 1,496 1,71 EERb 1,225 1,344 1,525 1,530 1,703 1,854 EER 1,227 1,349 1,49

Kids 9 - 13, FSP Kids 9 - 13, not in FSP Usual intake 1,409 1,665 1,982 2,020 2,333 2,680 Usual intake 1,550 1,720 1,92 EER 1,622 1,802 1,975 2,031 2,240 2,601 EER 1,595 1,789 1,98Males 14 - 18, FSP Males 14 - 18, not in FSP Usual intake 2,185 2,420 2,699 2,719 2,996 3,281 Usual intake 1,940 2,296 2,74 EER 2,384 2,661 2,978 2,953 3,244 3,517 EER 2,489 2,689 2,93Males 19 - 30, FSP Males 19 - 30, not in FSP Usual intake 1,939 2,298 2,727 2,760 3,186 3,624 Usual intake 1,864 2,346 2,93 EER 2,447 2,694 2,829 2,920 3,109 3,616 EER 2,498 2,681 2,84Males 31 - 50, FSP Males 31 - 50, not in FSP Usual intake 1,700 2,081 2,614 2,802 3,363 4,199 Usual intake 1,692 2,024 2,44 EER 2,333 2,402 2,678 2,713 3,018 3,218 EER 2,340 2,529 2,79Males 51+, FSP Males 51+, not in FSP Usual intake 1,204 1,489 1,840 1,876 2,223 2,596 Usual intake 1,082 1,329 1,65 EER 1,990 2,229 2,497 2,506 2,799 2,979 EER 2,041 2,216 2,41

54Females 14 - 18, FSP Females 14 - 18, not in FSP

 Usual intake 1,236 1,476 1,764 1,787 2,073 2,369 Usual intake 1,567 1,783 2,04 EER 1,849 1,985 2,095 2,150 2,336 2,442 EER 1,771 1,884 2,06Females 19 - 30, FSP Females 19 - 30, not in FSP Usual intake 1,225 1,505 1,846 1,879 2,216 2,575 Usual intake 1,245 1,485 1,77 EER 1,945 2,073 2,285 2,334 2,566 2,787 EER 1,877 1,972 2,12Females 31 - 50, FSP Females 31 - 50, not in FSP Usual intake 1,068 1,348 1,702 1,753 2,103 2,504 Usual intake 1,105 1,321 1,58 EER 1,903 2,060 2,220 2,255 2,391 2,712 EER 1,892 2,004 2,19Females 51+, FSP Females 51+, not in FSP Usual intake 885 1,072 1,305 1,337 1,567 1,829 Usual intake 901 1,063 1,26 EER 1,672 1,763 2,031 2,029 2,223 2,498 EER 1,519 1,679 1,88

WICc participants and income-eligible nonparticipants

Infants < 1, WIC Infants < 1, not in WIC Usual intake 410 597 782 805 982 1,220 Usual intake 222 457 72 EER 454 532 653 660 777 886 EER 406 499 61Toddlers 1 - 3, WIC Toddlers 1 - 3, not in WIC Usual intake 939 1,135 1,378 1,408 1,649 1,917 Usual intake 970 1,157 1,37 EER 797 910 1,099 1,105 1,280 1,448 EER 869 999 1,17Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

aFSP = Food Stamp Program.bEER = Estimated Energy Requirement.cWIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

*(**): p-value for difference between participants and income-eligible nonparticipants is <0.05(0.01) 
Table 8c

Usual Nutrient Intake: Macronutrients, FSP and WIC Participants

Fat Carbohydrate Protein

% < AMDRa % > AMDR % < EARb % < AMDR % <Inadeq

% outside 

AMDR

FSP participants and income-eligible nonparticipants

Kids 4 - 8, FSPc < 1 33.4 < 1 1.1 < 1 < 1

Kids 4 - 8, not in FSP < 1 33.8 < 1 2.2 8.1 < 1

Kids 9 - 13, FSP < 1 47.7 < 1 <1 2.3 < 1

Kids 9 - 13, not in FSP < 1 18.3 ** < 1 1.7 15.5 ** 1

Males 14 - 18, FSP < 1 43.8 < 1 <1 < 1 < 1

Males 14 - 18, not in FSP < 1 40.7 < 1 8.4 11.5 3.6

Males 19 - 30, FSP < 1 72.1 < 1 31.5 4.2 < 1

Males 19 - 30, not in FSP < 1 31.8 < 1 23.5 2.2 1.7

Males 31 - 50, FSP < 1 32.9 < 1 20.2 2.7 < 1

Males 31 - 50, not in FSP 1.0 40.6 < 1 29.4 3.9 < 1

Males 51+, FSP < 1 42.0 4.6 37.5 11.9 < 1

Males 51+, not in FSP < 1 43.3 3.3 27.9 22.8 * < 1

Females 14 - 18, FSP < 1 31.4 1.6 <1 6.8 < 1

Females 14 - 18, not in FSP < 1 31.4 < 1 1.8 3.5 2.2

Females 19 - 30, FSP < 1 33.5 1.4 12.1 17.9 1.4

Females 19 - 30, not in FSP 1.9 31.9 < 1 11.9 11.0 1.4

Females 31 - 50, FSP < 1 32.0 3.5 11.7 24.2 2.1

Females 31 - 50, not in FSP < 1 49.2 2.1 22.0 23.9 <1

Females 51+, FSP < 1 35.8 7.9 16.4 37.0 < 1

Females 51+, not in FSP 2.3 28.0 5.2 9.3 34.7 < 1

WICd participants and income-eligible nonparticipants

Toddlers 1 - 3, WIC 25.4 5.5 5.7 4.8 < 1 < 1

Toddlers 1 - 3, not in WIC 20.5 4.9 2.8 11.2 ** 5.1 < 1

Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

a

AMDR = Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range.

b

% Inadequate = % with usual intakes < EAR (Estimated Average Requirement). c

FSP = Food Stamp Program.

d

WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

*(**): p-value for difference between participants and income-eligible nonparticipants is <0.05(0.01) 

55
56

subgroups—children 9 to 13 years and males 19 to 30 years—have a higher proportion with 

usual fat intake outside the AMDR than comparable nonparticipant subgroups, although the 

opposite pattern is observed for males 51 years and over and females 31 to 50 years. In addition, 

males 51 years and over participating in the FSP have a significantly lower prevalence of 

inadequate protein intake than income-eligible nonparticipants. 

For children 1 to 3 years, two interesting results are shown in Table 8c. First, low-income 

children not participating in WIC are significantly more likely than WIC children to have usual 

carbohydrate intake below the lower bound of the AMDR. Second, they are more likely to have 

usual fat intake less than the lower bound of the AMDR compared with older children and adults 

who are more likely to be above the upper bound. This is largely the result of the fact that the 

lower bound of the AMDR for fat is higher for young children. Specifically, the AMDR for fat 

is 30 to 40 percent of energy for children 1 to 3 years, 25 to 35 percent for children 4 to 18, and 

20 to 35 percent for adults. Thus, it is easier for children to have diets with usual fat intake below 

the AMDR. 

Usual dietary fiber intakes are substantially less than the AI (Table 8d). Both participants 

and income-eligible nonparticipants have usual dietary fiber intake distributions that do not come 

close to meeting fiber recommendations. 

NSLP and SBP Participants. Results for the subgroups participating in the NSLP and 

SBP, as well as for nonparticipants of the same age subgroups, confirm many of the findings 

reported for other age groups (Tables 9a and 9b). First, the prevalence of inadequacy for the 

micronutrients is less for younger children than for older children and for males than for females 

(Table 9a). Second, the nutrients with highest prevalence of inadequacy are vitamin E, folate, 

and magnesium. Differences by NSLP or SBP participation status are small for children 4 to 8 

years and inconsistent for older children. 
Table 8d

Usual Intake of Dietary Fiber: FSP and WIC Participants

Usual Intake Distributions (g/d)

AIa 10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th

FSPb

 participants and income-eligible nonparticipants

Kids 4 - 8, FSP 25 8 10 12 13 15 17

Kids 4 - 8, not in FSP 25 9 10 12 12 14 16

Kids 9 - 13, FSP 31/26 9 10 12 12 15 17

Kids 9 - 13, not in FSP 31/26 9 11 13 13 15 18

Males 14 - 18, FSP 38 12 14 15 16 17 19

Males 14 - 18, not in FSP 38 11 13 15 15 18 20

Males 19 - 30, FSP 38 10 13 17 18 22 27

Males 19 - 30, not in FSP 38 11 14 19 20 25 31

Males 31 - 50, FSP 38 9 12 16 17 21 27

Males 31 - 50, not in FSP 38 10 14 18 19 23 28

Males 51+, FSP 30 6 9 13 15 19 26

Males 51+, not in FSP 30 8 11 15 16 19 25

Females 14 - 18, FSP 26 9 11 12 12 14 16

Females 14 - 18, not in FSP 26 12 12 13 13 14 15

Females 19 - 30, FSP 25 7 8 11 11 13 16

Females 19 - 30, not in FSP 25 8 10 13 13 * 16 20

Females 31 - 50, FSP 25 6 8 12 13 16 21

Females 31 - 50, not in FSP 25 7 9 12 12 15 19

Females 51+, FSP 21 7 9 12 12 15 18

Females 51+, not in FSP 21 8 10 12 13 15 18

WICc

 participants and income-eligible nonparticipants

Infants < 1, WIC ... 0 1 2 3 4 7

Infants < 1, not in WIC ... 0 1 2 3 5 8

Toddlers 1 - 3, WIC 19 4 6 9 9 12 15

Toddlers 1 - 3, not in WIC 19 6 7 9 9 11 14

Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

a

AI = Adequate Intake.

b

FSP = Food Stamp Program.

c

WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

*(**): p-value for difference in mean intakes between participants and income-eligible nonparticipants is < 0.05(0.01)

57
10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th EARa % Inadeqb 10th 25th Median Mean 75

NSLPc participants and nonparticipants NSLP participants and nonparticipants

Kids 4 - 8, NSLP 47 65 91 99 124 161 22 < 1 5566 Kids 4 - 8, not in NSLP 52 68 90 95 117 145 22 < 1 4566 Kids 9 - 13, NSLP 48 64 87 93 115 146 39 4.4 5 6 7 7 Kids 9 - 13, not in NSLP 45 64 93 103 131 174 39 6.6 5 6 7 8 Males 14 - 18, NSLP 60 83 117 128 161 210 63 13.7 6 7 9 9 1Males 14 - 18, not in NSLP 44 64 95 108 137 188 63 26.3 6 8 9 10 1Females 14 - 18, NSLP 46 63 89 98 123 162 75 21.7 5 6 7 7 

Females 14 - 18, not in NSLP 38 53 77 86 109 146 75 30.9 5 6 7 7 

SBPd participants and nonparticipants SBP participants and nonparticipants

Kids 4 - 8, SBP 50 67 90 96 119 150 22 < 1 5677 

Kids 4 - 8, not in SBP 47 63 87 94 117 152 22 < 1 5566 Kids 9 - 13, SBP 57 72 92 97 117 143 39 1.5 4 5 7 7 Kids 9 - 13, not in SBP 47 64 89 97 121 157 39 5.3 5 6 7 8 

58NSLP participants and nonparticipants NSLP participants and nonparticipants

Kids 4 - 8, NSLP 162 205 261 275 330 404 160 9.4 591 715 864 884 1,03

Kids 4 - 8, not in NSLP 164 202 252 261 310 369 160 9.0 586 717 880 901 1,06

Kids 9 - 13, NSLP 160 199 250 261 312 376 250 49.8 598 734 908 936 1,10

Kids 9 - 13, not in NSLP 168 209 266 280 336 410 250 42.9 605 753 942 974 1,16

Males 14 - 18, NSLP 180 236 312 333 408 512 330 55.4 608 811 1,097 1,181 1,45

Males 14 - 18, not in NSLP 185 232 294 308 369 448 330 63.3 663 852 1,106 1,164 1,41

Females 14 - 18, NSLP 127 160 203 213 256 311 330 92.9 423 565 754 793 97

Females 14 - 18, not in NSLP 136 165 204 215 253 307 330 93.5 413 516 650 676 * 80

SBP participants and nonparticipants SBP participants and nonparticipantsKids 4 - 8, SBP 173 208 256 266 312 373 160 6.4 619 728 860 873 1,00

Kids 4 - 8, not in SBP 161 204 260 272 327 398 160 9.8 596 722 877 897 1,05

Kids 9 - 13, SBP 170 200 238 242 279 321 250 58.1 672 763 871 880 98

Kids 9 - 13, not in SBP 160 203 261 277 335 415 250 45.2 578 724 914 948 1,13

NSLP participants and nonparticipants NSLP participants and nonparticipantsKids 4 - 8, NSLP 165 189 217 221 249 282 110 < 1 410 517 656 690 82Kids 4 - 8, not in NSLP 168 193 223 225 255 285 110 < 1 482 591 730 760 89Kids 9 - 13, NSLP 166 196 231 238 273 317 200 27.8 428 547 705 747 89Kids 9 - 13, not in NSLP 187 216 253 258 295 336 200 15.7 ** 447 562 714 747 89Males 14 - 18, NSLP 208 252 310 321 378 447 340 62.2 398 562 803 890 1,12

Table 9a

Usual Nutrient Intake: Micronutrients, NSLP and SBP Participants

Vitamin E (mg/d

Assessing 

Inadequacy

Vitamin C (mg/d)

Usual Intake Percentiles Usual Intake Percentiles

Folate (mcg/d) Calcium (mg/d

Magnesium (mg/d) Vitamin A (mcg R

Table 9a
10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th EARa % Inadeqb 10th 25th Median Mean 75

Assessing 

Inadequacy Usual Intake Percentiles Usual Intake Percentiles

Males 14 - 18, not in NSLP 216 258 313 322 375 439 340 62.1 420 583 820 897 1,12Females 14 - 18, NSLP 157 183 216 220 252 288 300 92.9 282 388 544 599 74Females 14 - 18, not in NSLP 142 169 205 212 247 290 300 92.1 283 375 511 565 69SBP participants and nonparticipants SBP participants and nonparticipantsKids 4 - 8, SBP 175 195 219 222 246 273 110 < 1 405 494 608 630 74Kids 4 - 8, not in SBP 166 191 221 224 254 285 110 < 1 428 548 706 753 90Kids 9 - 13, SBP 176 195 217 219 241 265 200 30.1 458 544 652 672 77Kids 9 - 13, not in SBP 169 201 241 248 287 336 200 24.3 425 544 700 745 89NSLP participants and nonparticipants NSLP participants and nonparticipantsKids 4 - 8, NSLP 9.5 11.3 13.5 14.1 16.2 19.3 4.1 <1 7.1 8.3 9.8 10.1 11Kids 4 - 8, not in NSLP 10.0 11.6 13.6 14.0 16.0 18.6 4.1 <1 6.9 7.9 9.3 9.5 10Kids 9 - 13, NSLP 10.9 12.9 15.3 15.8 18.2 21.3 5.9 <1 7.9 9.3 11.0 11.4 13Kids 9 - 13, not in NSLP 10.4 12.6 15.6 16.4 19.2 23.3 5.9 <1 7.8 9.2 11.0 11.4 13Males 14 - 18, NSLP 13.0 15.9 19.8 20.7 24.5 29.6 7.7 <1 10.1 12.1 14.7 15.2 17Males 14 - 18, not in NSLP 13.6 16.1 19.2 19.9 23.0 27.2 7.7 <1 10.7 12.1 13.9 14.3 16Females 14 - 18, NSLP 9.1 11.1 13.5 13.9 16.3 19.2 7.9 10.0 7.2 8.6 10.3 10.6 12Females 14 - 18, not in NSLP 8.3 9.9 11.9 12.5 14.4 17.4 7.9 14.5 6.1 7.2 8.6 8.8 10

59SBP participants and nonparticipants SBP participants and nonparticipants

Kids 4 - 8, SBP 10.0 11.5 13.3 13.7 15.5 17.8 4.1 <1 8.0 8.9 10.0 10.2 11Kids 4 - 8, not in SBP 9.6 11.4 13.8 14.3 16.6 19.6 4.1 <1 7.0 8.2 9.7 9.9 11Kids 9 - 13, SBP 10.7 12.1 13.9 14.1 15.9 17.9 5.9 <1 7.8 8.9 10.3 10.6 12Kids 9 - 13, not in SBP 10.4 12.6 15.4 16.2 18.8 22.8 5.9 <1 7.6 9.0 10.9 11.2 13Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

aEAR = Estimated Average Requirement. For Vitamin C, the EAR is 35 mg/d higher for smokers. For calcium, the value is an AI = Adequate Intake.bFor most nutrients, the % Inadequate = % < EAR. For iron, the probability approach is used to estimate the % Inadequate.cNSLP = National School Lunch Program.dSBP = School Breakfast Program.

*(**): p-value for difference between NSLP/SBP participants and nonparticipants is <0.05(0.01) 

Iron (mg/d) Zinc (mg/d)

Table 9a
Table 9b

Estimated Energy Requirements and Usual Intake of Food Energy: NSLP and SBP Participants

Usual and required intake percentiles (kcal) Usual and required 

10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th 10th 25th Median 

NSLPa participants and nonparticipants

Kids 4 - 8, NSLP Kids 4 - 8, not in NSLP Usual intake 1,416 1,602 1,823 1,854 2,071 2,328 Usual intake 1,443 1,606 1,78 EERb 1,336 1,458 1,619 1,635 1,796 1,963 EER 1,337 1,448 1,58Kids 9 - 13, NSLP Kids 9 - 13, not in NSLP Usual intake 1,481 1,721 2,002 2,044 2,318 2,659 Usual intake 1,577 1,810 2,09 EER 1,658 1,806 2,013 2,076 2,264 2,667 EER 1,602 1,781 1,95Males 14 - 18, NSLP Males 14 - 18, not in NSLP Usual intake 1,982 2,353 2,829 2,911 3,379 3,944 Usual intake 1,903 2,247 2,68 EER 2,414 2,622 2,897 2,906 3,170 3,374 EER 2,468 2,695 2,91Females 14 - 18, NSLP Females 14 - 18, not in NSLP Usual intake 1,438 1,672 1,950 1,970 2,245 2,527 Usual intake 1,321 1,540 1,80 EER 1,845 1,951 2,068 2,114 2,192 2,468 EER 1,863 1,987 2,10

SBPc participants and nonparticipants

60Kids 4-8, SBP Kids 4-8, not in SBP

 Usual intake 1,524 1,676 1,856 1,870 2,049 2,235 Usual intake 1,435 1,611 1,81 EER 1,299 1,439 1,584 1,604 1,757 1,886 EER 1,339 1,458 1,60Kids 9-13, SBP Kids 9-13, not in SBP Usual intake 1,682 1,840 2,015 2,026 2,198 2,382 Usual intake 1,463 1,719 2,04 EER 1,544 1,794 1,975 2,037 2,220 2,621 EER 1,641 1,806 1,99Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

aNSLP = National School Lunch Program.bEER = Estimated Energy Requirement.cSBP = School Breakfast Program.
61

Usual intakes of food energy are close to the estimated energy requirement distributions for 

the school-age children, regardless of whether they participate in the NSLP or SBP (Table 9b). 

Although children 4 to 8 years have mean energy intake about 13 percent higher than mean EER 

and females 14 to 18 years have mean energy intake less than mean EER, the differences are not 

as pronounced as observed for many of the adult subgroups. 

The usual intake of macronutrients shows high percentages with usual fat intakes, and low 

percentages with usual carbohydrate and protein intakes, that fall outside the AMDRs (Table 9c). 

The percentage with usual fat intakes above the upper bound of the AMDR is higher for three of 

the four NSLP subgroups and both SBP subgroups than for nonparticipants. The prevalence of 

inadequate protein and carbohydrate intake is relatively low for all NSLP and SBP subgroups. 

Table 9c 

Usual Nutrient Intake: Macronutrients, NSLP and SBP Participants 

Fat Carbohydrate Protein 

%< 

AMDRa

% > 

AMDR % Inadeqb

% < 

AMDR % Inadeq 

% outside 

AMDR 

NSLPc Participants and Nonparticipants 

Kids 4-8, NSLP < 1 28.1 < 1 1.4 < 1 < 1 

Kids 4-8, not in NSLP 1.9 16.9* < 1 0.6 < 1 < 1 

Kids 9-13, NSLP < 1 31.5 < 1 1.0 2.5 < 1 

Kids 9-13, not in NSLP 2.2 17.7* < 1 0.4 < 1 < 1 

Males 14-18, NSLP 3.1 34.8 < 1 2.4 < 1 < 1 

Males 14-18, not in NSLP 1.3 22.8 < 1 1.1 2.4 < 1 

Females 14-18, NSLP 2.1 30.4 < 1 2.6 2.4 < 1 

Females 14-18, not in NSLP 5.8 30.5 < 1 6.6 10.4 3.4 

SBPd

 Participants and Nonparticipants 

Kids 4-8, SBP < 1 33.3 < 1 1.5 < 1 < 1 

Kids 4-8, not in SBP < 1 23.2* < 1 1.0 < 1 < 1 

Kids 9-13, SBP < 1 47.9 < 1 1.4 1.5 < 1 

Kids 9-13, not in SBP < 1 26.4* < 1 1.2 1.7 < 1 

Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII. 

a

AMDR = Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range 

b

% Inadequate = % with usual intakes < EAR (Estimated Average Requirement). c

NSLP = National School Lunch Program 

d

SBP = School Breakfast Program 

*(**): p-value for difference between NSLP/SBP participants and nonparticipants is < 0.05(0.01) 
62

As with all other subgroups examined, dietary fiber intakes are far less than requirements 

(Table 9d). Differences on dietary fiber intakes by NSLP and SBP participation status are small. 

Table 9d 

Usual Intake Distributions of Dietary Fiber: NSLP and SBP Participants 

Usual Intake Distributions (g/d) 

AIa 10th 25th Median Mean 75th 90th 

NSLPb Participants and Nonparticipants 

Kids 4-8, NSLP 25 9 10 12 12 14 16 

Kids 4-8, not in NSLP 25 9 10 12 12 14 16 

Kids 9-13, NSLP 31/26 9 11 13 13 16 19 

Kids 9-13, not in NSLP 31/26 10 12 14 15* 17 20 

Males 14-18, NSLP 38 12 14 17 18 21 25 

Males 14-18, not in NSLP 38 11 14 17 17 21 24 

Females 14-18, NSLP 26 9 10 12 12 14 16 

Females 14-18, not in NSLP 26 9 11 13 13 15 18 

SBPc

 Participants and Nonparticipants 

Kids 4-8, SBP 25 10 11 13 13 14 16 

Kids 4-8, not in SBP 25 9 10 12 12 14 16 

Kids 9-13, SBP 31/26 9 10 12 12 14 16 

Kids 9-13, not in SBP 31/26 9 11 14 14* 17 21 

Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII. 

a

AI = Adequate Intake 

b

NSLP = National School Lunch Program 

c

SBP = School Breakfast Program 

*(**): p-value for difference in mean intakes between NSLP/SBP participants and nonparticipants is < 0.05(0.01) 

C. PREVALENCE OF EXCESSIVE USUAL INTAKE LEVELS 

Assessing nutrient adequacy involves determining not just the prevalence of inadequate 

intakes but also the likelihood of excessive intakes. With the newly released Tolerable Intake 

Levels (ULs), the risk of excessive intakes is assessed by estimating the percentage with usual 

intakes above the UL. The ULs vary considerably across nutrients; for some nutrients, the UL 

applies to intakes from foods, beverages, and supplements; for other nutrients, the UL applies to 

intakes from supplements or fortified foods only; and for others, the UL is not yet determined. 

Since the CSFII data do not include intakes from supplements, the analysis of the prevalence of 
63

 

excessive intake levels could not be conducted for nutrients where the UL applies to intakes from 

supplements, pharmacological agents, synthetic forms of the nutrient, or fortified foods only. As 

a result, using the CSFII data, estimates of the percentage with intakes above the UL are obtained 

only for vitamin C, calcium, iron, and zinc. In addition, given that the CSFII data were collected 

prior to more recent fortification of foods with calcium, the prevalence of intakes above the UL 

for calcium may be lower for some subgroups than what would be observed with more recent 

dietary intake data. 

The principal findings regarding the percentage with usual intakes from food and beverages 

exceeding the UL are the following:3

• For vitamin C and iron, the prevalence of excessive intake is very low. For vitamin 

C, the prevalence is zero; the highest value of usual vitamin C intake is far less than 

the UL for all subgroups examined. For iron, less than 1 percent of each subgroup 

has usual intakes exceeding the UL. 

• For almost all subgroups, the 99th percentile of usual calcium intake is less than the 

UL, suggesting a low prevalence of excessive calcium intake from food. 

Adolescent males and males 19 to 30 years have 99th percentiles of usual calcium 

intake close to the UL, suggesting that, at most, only 1 to 2 percent of these two 

subgroups may be at risk of excessive calcium intake. 

• The prevalence of excessive zinc intake is low for older children, adolescents, and 

adults, but is high for toddlers and young children. 

- About 60 percent of WIC and income-eligible nonparticipating children 1 to 3 

years of age have usual zinc intakes exceeding the UL. 

- More than 10 percent of children 4 to 8 years of age have usual zinc intakes 

exceeding the UL. 

 Because the CSFII data do not include intakes from supplements, these estimates are 

underestimates of the percentage exceeding the UL. As discussed earlier, NHANES III data do 

3

 Because of the sheer number of subgroups and nutrients, and because the prevalence of 

excessive intake levels is fairly low, detailed tables on the percentage with usual intakes above 

the UL are not presented. The text describes the noteworthy analysis findings on the percentage 

exceeding the UL. 
64

include information on supplement intake, based on a food-frequency type of questionnaire on 

supplement use. Because supplement use data are from a food frequency type of questionnaire, 

however, there are some methodological challenges in combining dietary recall data on foods 

consumed with dietary recall data on supplements consumed. 

 To examine the effects of supplement use on estimates of the prevalence of excessive 

intakes, we conducted an additional analysis, based on NHANES III data, combining dietary 

recall data with food frequency data on supplement use to obtain estimates of usual intake from 

food and supplements. Specifically, estimates of usual intake at the individual level were added 

to reported usual supplement intakes of individuals from a food frequency questionnaire for a 

selected group of nutrients and subgroups—vitamin C, zinc, and vitamin B12 for male and female 

older adults and adolescent females. Estimates of the percentage with usual intakes exceeding 

the UL was less than 1 percent and was consistent with findings from the CSFII. 
65

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

This study is a comprehensive analysis of the nutrient adequacy of subgroups at risk of 

inadequate nutrient intake, excessive intake, or dietary imbalances. It adds to a growing 

literature that uses improved knowledge of nutrient requirements (DRIs) and recommended 

nutrient assessment methods to assess nutrient intakes. The study indicates inadequate intakes of 

key micronutrients, especially magnesium, calcium, folate, and vitamin E; reported energy 

intakes less than estimated energy requirements for adults; too much food energy from fat and 

not enough from carbohydrate; and inadequate intakes of fiber. In addition, the adequacy of 

diets deteriorates as individuals get older. Children—especially infants and young children—

have diets that are more nutritionally adequate than adolescents and adults. 

In interpreting these results, several limitations of the data must be noted. First, the CSFII 

data are nearly 10 years old now, and there have been substantial changes in food fortification, 

program regulations, and food consumption patterns since the CSFII data collection. For 

example, although the study results indicate a high prevalence of inadequacy for folate, current 

estimates of inadequacy based on Dietary Folate Equivalents are likely to be much lower. 

Starting in 1998, enriched cereal grains were required to be fortified with folic acid. The effect 

of this fortification is twofold; it increases both the amount of folate consumed and the 

absorption of folic acid compared with food folate, suggesting that usual folate intakes are much 

higher now compared with the time of the 1994-96 CSFII (Lewis et al. 1999; and Suitor and 

Bailey 2000). 

The results for NSLP and SBP participants also are important to interpret in the context of 

the timing of the 1994-1996 CSFII. USDA regulations in June 1995 required school food 

authorities to prepare meals that met new nutrition standards for fat, saturated fat, and other key 
66

nutrients. These requirements were not imposed on most schools during the period covered by 

the 1994-1996 CSFII, so dietary intakes of NSLP and SBP participants surveyed during that time 

period do not accurately reflect current intakes of program participants. 

Another limitation of the CSFII data is that nutrients from dietary supplements are not 

available. To examine the possible effects of dietary supplements, a limited analysis of data 

from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) was 

conducted. The results from the analysis of NHANES III data suggest that including 

supplements does not change estimates of inadequacy much. Results on supplement use from 

another study suggest that for some groups, supplement use may contribute to closing the gap 

between nutrient consumption from foods and nutrient requirements (Fox and Cole 2004). That 

study, also based on NHANES III data, found that among adults over age 60 with incomes below 

130 percent of poverty, 25 percent reported taking a multivitamin or vitamin/mineral 

combination. Higher income seniors were even more likely to take such a supplement (37 

percent), but many groups reported smaller proportions: only 7 percent of male teens in 

households below 130 percent of poverty reported taking a multivitamin or vitamin/mineral 

combination. 

Few respondents reported taking a single mineral supplement such as calcium, and the 

calcium content of most multivitamin supplements is low relative to requirements; thus intakes 

of calcium appear to be unlikely to have been increased substantially by supplement use. 

Similarly, fiber intake from supplements is probably low for all groups other than older adults. 

For micronutrients such as vitamins E, A, and C, however, the prevalence of inadequacy could 

be somewhat lower with supplement use taken into account. Further research is needed to 

determine whether supplement use is higher for individuals with lower nutrient intakes from 

foods, and how regularly supplements are actually consumed. In addition, the limited sample 
67

sizes of some of the vulnerable subgroups in NHANES III, as well as methodological issues on 

how to combine food frequency data on supplement with 24-hour dietary recall data on foods 

consumed, suggest that additional research is needed on how best to collect and analyze data on 

supplement use in studies of nutrient adequacy. 

The difference between mean estimated energy requirements (EERs) and mean energy 

intakes for adolescents and adults suggests that some individuals are underreporting intakes. If 

energy intakes are less than requirements for specific subgroups, then individuals cannot 

maintain their weight and these subgroups would then experience weight loss. It is well 

documented, however, that the opposite has occurred; over the past three to four decades, there 

has been an increase in the prevalence of overweight and obesity. Given the increase in the 

prevalence of overweight and obesity, underreporting of food intakes is the likely explanation for 

the difference between mean EER and mean energy intakes. Moreover, given that the difference 

between mean EER and mean energy intakes is typically greater for overweight than for nonoverweight subgroups, underreporting appears to be associated with overweight. 

Given the underreporting of energy intakes, an important question is the extent to which the 

prevalence of inadequacy for micronutrients and protein is therefore overestimated. It is not 

possible to answer this question precisely since it depends on the extent of underreporting and 

the correlation between energy and micronutrient intakes. Nonetheless, given the very high 

prevalence of inadequacy for some micronutrients—vitamin E and magnesium in particular—

and the low intakes of calcium, it is unlikely that underreporting accounts fully for the apparent 

deficiencies in the intakes of these nutrients. For protein, however, it is likely that 

underreporting accounts for much of the prevalence of inadequacy for some subgroups, 

especially in light of the finding that the percentage with usual protein intakes outside the 

AMDR is low for almost all subgroups. 
68

For children, underreporting of energy intakes does not appear to be an issue. In fact, the 

opposite is observed; mean energy intakes are considerably larger than mean EERs for children 1 

to 3 years and 4 to 8 years. Although the increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity 

among children is consistent with an excess of energy intakes over requirements, the magnitude 

of the difference between mean intake and mean EER suggests that parents or caregivers parents 

either overestimate what their child actually consumes or report weight and height of their child 

that results in an underestimate of mean EER (underestimate their child’s weight or overestimate 

their child’s height). This finding of excess energy intakes relative to energy requirements also 

has been observed in other studies (Devaney et al. 2004). An interesting implication is the extent 

to which overreporting food intakes (because of its social desirability) leads to overfeeding of 

foods to children. In addition, if parents overreport the intakes of children, then the true 

prevalence of inadequacy for children may be higher than that estimated from dietary recall data. 

Caution is needed when interpreting the high prevalence of inadequacy for vitamin E. 

Vitamin E shows extremely high levels of inadequacy; for some subgroups, the prevalence is 

100 percent, and it is the only nutrient with a high prevalence of inadequacy among young 

children. This result of apparent inadequate vitamin E intakes has been found in other studies 

(Devaney et al. 2004; Suitor and Gleason 2002). However, clinical data on vitamin E 

inadequacy suggest otherwise. Data from NHANES III show that, although a majority of age 

and gender subgroups had a large proportion with usual intakes below the EAR, less than 5 

percent had low plasma vitamin E levels (Institute of Medicine 1997). The possible reasons for 

the very high estimate of nutrient inadequacy in light of a low prevalence of clinical inadequacy 

include the difficulty in providing accurate information on the types and amounts of oils and fats 

added during cooking and potential issues related nutrient databases. In addition, the results for 
69

vitamin E may also suggest additional research is needed to support the DRIs established for 

vitamin E. 

For magnesium, the proportion with inadequate intake is high for most subgroups examined. 

For adolescent and adult subgroups, the estimates all exceed 50 percent and are as high as 98 

percent for adolescent females. Other studies also report this finding about high levels of 

inadequacy for zinc (Suitor and Gleason 2002; and Institute of Medicine 2004). 

For all subgroups examined, mean intakes of dietary fiber are far below the AI for total 

fiber. Since total fiber includes both dietary fiber and functional fiber, it is somewhat misleading 

to compare intakes of dietary fiber with an AI for total fiber. However, the discrepancy between 

the intakes of dietary fiber and the AI—even the 90th percentile of dietary fiber is usually less 

than the AI—suggests that the U.S. population as a whole does not consume enough fiber. 

Interestingly, a substantial proportion of children, especially young children, have usual 

intakes of zinc exceeding the UL. This finding is reported in other studies (Devaney et al. 2004; 

and Institute of Medicine 2004) and is apparently the result of a narrow margin between the 

RDA and UL for zinc in young children. In addition, this finding of a substantial proportion of 

children having usual zinc intakes above the UL appears inconsistent with empirical evidence 

showing few adverse health outcomes associated with excessive zinc consumption. 

While the discussion and caveats above clearly suggest caution in interpreting the results 

presented in this report, concerns persist about dietary inadequacies and imbalances. Mean 

calcium intake of all adolescent and adult females is far below the AI set for calcium, suggesting 

calcium inadequacy. In addition, usual fat and carbohydrate intakes as a percent of food energy 

intake indicate an imbalance in diets of many adolescent and adult subgroups—too much fat and 

not enough carbohydrate. Finally, many of the dietary concerns are more pronounced among 
70

low-income and overweight individuals, as well as some age and gender subgroups known to 

have dietary problems—adolescent females and older adults. 
 

71

REFERENCES 

Adrian, J., and R. Daniel. “Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on Consumption of Selected Food 

Nutrients in the United States.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 58, no. 1, 

February 1976, pp. 31-38. 

Andrews, M., M. Nord, G. Bickel, and S. Carlson. “Household Food Security in the United 

States, 1999.” Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report, no. 8, fall 2000. 

Bandini, L.G., D. Vu, A. Must, H. Cyr, A. Goldberg, and W.H. Dietz. “Comparison of HighCalorie, Low-Nutrient-Dense Food Consumption Among Obese and Non-Obese 

Adolescents.” Obesity Research, vol. 7, 1999, pp. 438-443. 

Basiotis, P., M. Brown, S.R. Johnson, and K.J. Morgan. “Nutrient Availability, Food Costs, and 

Food Stamps.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 65, 1983, pp. 683-693. 

Basiotis, P.P., S.R. Johnson, K.J. Morgan, and Jain-Shing A. Chen. “Food Stamps, Food Costs, 

Nutrient Availability, and Nutrient Intake.” Journal of Policy Modeling, vol. 9, no. 3, 1987, 

pp. 383-404. 

Beaton, G.H. “Criteria of an Adequate Diet.” In Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, 8th 

edition, edited by M.E. Shils, J.A. Olson, and M. Shike. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 

1994, pp. 1491-1505. 

Beaton, G.H., J. Milner, P. Corey, V. McGuire, M. Cousins, E. Stewart, M. de Ramos, D. 

Hewitt, V. Grambsch, N. Kassim, and J.A. Little. “Sources of Variance in 24-Hour Dietary 

Recall Data: Implications for Nutrition Study Design and Interpretation.” American Journal 

of Clinical Nutrition, no. 32, 1979, pp. 2546-2559. 

Besharov, D., and P. Germanis. Rethinking WIC: An Evaluation of the Women, Infants, and

Children Program. Washington, DC: The AEI Press, 2001. 

Briefel, R.R., C.T. Sempos, M.A. McDowell, S. Chien, and K. Alaimo. “Dietary Methods 

Research in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Underreporting of 

Energy Intake.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 65 (Supplement 4), April 1997, 

pp. 1203S-1209S. 

Briefel, R.R., M.A. McDowell, K. Alaimo, C.R. Caughman, A.L. Bischof, M.D. Carroll, and 

C.L. Johnson. “Total Energy Intake of the US Population: The Third National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1991.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 62 

(Supplement 5), November 1995, pp. 1072S-1080S. 

Briefel, R.R., K. Bialostosky, J. Kennedy-Stephenson, M.A. McDowell, R. Bethene Ervin, and J. 

D. Wright. “Zinc Intake of the U.S. Population: Findings from the Third National Health 
 

72

and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994. Journal of Nutrition, vol. 130, no. 2000, pp. 

1367S-1373S. 

Butte NF, Ellis KJ. “Comment on Obesity and the Environment: Where Do We Go From Here?" 

Science, vol. 301, Issue 5633, August 2003; pp. 598-601. 

Carriquiry, A.L. “Assessing the Prevalence of Nutrient Inadequacy.” Public Health Nutrition, 

vol. 2, 1999, pp. 23-33. 

Carriquiry, A.L., W.A. Fuller, J.J. Goyeneche, and K.W. Dodd. “Estimation of Usual Intake 

Distributions of Ratios of Dietary Components.” Dietary Assessment Research Series Report 

5, Staff Report 95-SR 79. Ames, Iowa: Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, 

Iowa State University, 1995, pp. 50011-51070. 

Carriquiry, A.L., G. Camaño-García, and B. Devaney. “Modeling Day-to-Day Variability in 

Daily Intakes.” Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, 2004.

Cristofar, S.P., and P. Bassiotis. “Dietary Intakes and Selected Characteristics of Women Ages 

19-50 Years and Their Children Ages 1-5 Years by Reported Perception of Food 

Sufficiency.” Journal of Nutrition Education, vol. 24, 1992, pp. 53-58. 

Devaney, B., Ziegler, P., Pac, S., Karwe, V., and Barr, S. “Nutrient Intakes of Infants and 

Toddlers.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 104, no. 1, January 2004 

Supplement 1, pp. S14-S21. 

Devaney, B., and Stuart, E.A. “Eating Breakfast: Effects of the School Breakfast Program.” 

Family Economics and Nutrition Review, vol. 11, no. 4, Winter 1998, pp. 60-63. 

Drewnowski, A., and S.E. Specter. “Poverty and Obesity: The Role of Energy Density and 

Energy Cost.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 79, no. 1, January 2004, pp. 6-

16. 

Dwyer, J.T. “Screening Older Americans’ Nutritional Health: Current Practices and Future 

Possibilities.” Washington, DC: Nutrition Screening Initiative, 1991. 

Eck, L.H., and C. Hackett-Renner. “Calcium Intake in Youth: Sex, Age, and Racial Differences 

in NHANES II.” Preventive Medicine, vol. 21, no. 4, 1992, pp. 473-482. 

Flegal, K.M., M.D. Carroll, C.L. Ogden, and C.L. Johnson. “Prevalence and Trends in Obesity 

Among US Adults, 1999-2000.” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 288, no. 

14, October 9, 2002, pp. 1728-1732. 

Fox, M.K., W. Hamilton, and B-H. Lin. Effects of Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs on 

Nutrition and Health: Volume 3, Literature Review. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. 19-3, 

October 2004. 
 

73

Fox, M.K., and N. Cole. Nutrition and Health Characteristics of Low-Income Populations: 

Volume I, Food Stamp Program Participants and Nonparticipants. U. S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, December 2004. 

Gleason, P. M. and C.W. Suitor. “Eating at School: How the National School Lunch Program 

Affects Children’s Diets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 85, no. 4, 

November 2003, pp. 1057-1071. 

Gleason, P.M., and C.W. Suitor. “Children’s Diets in the Mid-1990s: Dietary Intake and its 

Relationship with School Meal Participation.” Final report submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy 

Research, January 2001. 

Gordon, A.R., Devaney, B.L., and Burghardt, J.A. “Dietary Effects of the National School 

Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program.” American Journal of Clinical 

Nutrition, vol. 61, no. 1(S), January 1995, pp. 221S-231S. 

Herbert, V. “Everyone Should be Tested for Iron Disorders,” Journal of the American Dietetic 

Association, vol. 92, 1991, pp. 1502-1507. 

Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes: Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty 

Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 

2002. 

Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes: Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, 

Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and 

Zinc. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2001. 

Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes: Applications in Dietary Assessment. 

Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000a. 

Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Selenium, and 

Carotenoids. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000b. 

Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, 

Folate, Vitamin B12, Panththenic Acid, Biotin, and Choline. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press, 1998. 

Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin 

D, and Fluoride. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1997. 

Institute of Medicine. Proposed Criteria for Selecting the WIC Food Packages: A Preliminary 

Report of the Committee to Review the WIC Food Packages. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press, 2004. 

Jacobson, M.S., J.M. Reese, N.H. Golden, and C.E. Irwin. Adolescent Nutritional Disorder: 

Prevention and Treatment. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, vol. 817, 1997. 
 

74

Johansson, L., Solvoll, K., Bjorneboe, A., and Drevon, C.A. “Under- and Over-Reporting of 

Energy Intake Related to Weight Status and Lifestyle in a Nationwide Sample.” American 

Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 68, 1998, pp. 266-274. 

Jones, S.J., L. Jahns, B.A. Laraia, and B. Haughton. “Lower Risk of Overweight in School-aged 

Food Insecure Girls Who Participate in Food Assistance.” Archives of Pediatrics and 

Adolescent Medicine, vol. 157, no. 8, August 2003, pp. 780-784. 

Kant, A. “Reported Consumption of Low-Nutrient-Density Foods by American Children and 

Adolescents: Nutritional and Health Correlates, NHANES III, 1988 to 1994.” Archives of 

Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, vol. 157, August 2003, pp. 789-796. 

Kant, A. “Consumption of Energy-Dense, Nutrient-Poor Foods by Adult Americans: Nutritional 

and Health Implications. The Thirds National Health and Nutritional examination Survey, 

1988-1994.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 72, 2000, pp. 929-936. 

Kuczmarski, R.J., K.M. Fiegal, S.M. Campbell, and C.L. Johnson. “Increasing Prevalence of 

Overweight Among US Adults. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 

1960-1991.” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 272, no. 3, July 20, 1994, 

pp. 205-211. 

Lewis, C.J., N.T. Crane, D.B. Wilson, and E.A. Yetley. “Estimating Folate Intakes: Data 

Updated to Reflect Food Fortification, Increased Bioavailability, and Dietary Supplement 

Use.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 70, 1999, pp. 198-207. 

Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. 

Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States: Executive Summary. Prepared 

for the Interagency Board for Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995. 

Mei, A., K.S. Scanlon, L.M. Grummer-Strawn, D.S. Freedman, R. Yip, and F.L. Trowbridge. 

“Increasing Prevalence of Overweight Among US Low-Income Preschool Children: The 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance, 1983-1995.” 

Pediatrics, no. 1, vol. 101, January 1998, pp. 1-6. 

Mertz, W., Tsui, J.C., Judd, J.T., Reiser, S., Hallfrisch, J., Morris, E.R., Steele, P.D., and 

Lashley, E. “What Are People Really Eating? The Relation Between Energy Intake 

Derived From estimated Diet Records and the Intake Determined to Maintain Body 

Weight.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 54, 1991, pp. 291-295. 

Munoz, K.A., S.M. Krebs-Smith, R. Ballard-Barbash, and L.E. Cleveland. “ Food Intakes of US 

Children and Adolescents Compared With Recommendations.” Pediatrics, vol. 100, no. 3, 

September 1997, pp. 323-329. 

Munro, H.N., P.M. Suter, and R.M. Russell. “Nutritional Requirements of the Elderly.” Annual 

Review of Nutrition, vol. 7, July 1987, pp. 23-49. 
 

75

Murphy, S.P., J.A. Foote, and L.R. Wilkens. “Dietary Variety Increases the Probability of 

Nutrient Adequacy.” Presentation at Experimental Biology, April 2004. 

National Research Council. Nutrient Adequacy. Assessment Using Food Consumption Surveys. 

Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1986. 

Nord, M., M. Andrews, and S. Carlson. “Household Food Security in the United States, 2003.” 

Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report-42, Economic Research Service, October 

2004. 

Nusser, S.M., A.L. Carriquiry, K.W. Dodd, and W.A. Fuller. “A Semiparametric 

Transformation Approach to Estimating Usual Daily Intake Distributions.” Journal of the 

American Statistical Association, no. 91, 1996, pp. 1440-1449. 

Ogden, C.L., K.M. Flegal, M.D. Carroll, and C.L. Johnson. “Prevalence and Trends in 

Overweight Among US Children and Adolescent.” Journal of the American Medical 

Association, vol. 288, no. 14, October 9, 2002, pp. 1722-1727. 

Oliviera, V., and Gundersen, C. “WIC and the Nutrient Intake of Children.” Economic 

Research Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Assistance and Nutrition Research 

Report No. 5, March 2000. 

Ponza, M., J.C. Ohls, and B.M. Posner. “Elderly Nutrition Program Evaluation Literature 

Review.” Report submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services Administration 

on Aging. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., March 1994. 

Rose, D., and V. Oliveira. “Nutrient Intakes of Individuals from Food-Insufficient Households 

in the United States.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 87, no. 12, December 1997, 

pp. 1956-1961. 

Rose, D., K.M. Flegal, R.J. Kuczmarski, S.M. Campbell, and C.L. Johnson. “Economic 

Determinants and Dietary Consequences of Food Insecurity in the United States.” Journal of 

Nutrition, vol. 129, 1991, pp. 517S-520S. 

Rossi, P. Feeding the Poor: Assessing Federal Food Aid. Washington, DC: The AEI Press, 

1998. 

Ryan, A.S., L.D. Craig, and S.C. Finn. “Nutrient Intakes and Dietary Patterns of Older 

Americans: A National Study.” Journal of Gerontology, vol. 47, no. 5, 1992, pp. M145-

M150. 

Schoeller, D.A. “Validation of Habitual Energy Intake.” Public Health Nutrition, vol. 5, 2002, 

pp. 883-888. 

Schwartz, J.B., D.K. Guilkey, J.S. Akin, and B.M. Popkin “The WIC Breastfeeding Report: The 

Relationship of WIC Program Participation to the Initiation and Duration of Breastfeeding.” 

Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 

Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, September 1992. 
 

76

Sempos, C.T., C.E. Johnson, E.L. Smith, and C. Gilligan. “Effects of Intraindividual Variation 

in Repeated Dietary Records.” American Journal of Epidemiology, no. 121, 1985, pp. 120-

130. 

Stang, J., and CT Bayerl. “Child and Adolescent Food and Nutrition Programs.” Journal of the 

American Dietetic Association, vol. 102, 2002, pp. 39-45. 

St-Onge, M.P., K.L. Keller, and S.B. Heymsfield. “Changes in Childhood Consumption 

Patterns: A Cause for Concern in Light of Increasing Body Weight.” American Journal of 

Clinical Nutrition, vol. 78, no. 6, December 2003, pp. 1068-1073. 

Suitor, C.W., and P.M. Gleason. “Using Dietary Reference Intake-Based Methods to Estimate 

the Prevalence of Inadequate Nutrient Intake Among School-Aged Children.” Journal of the 

American Dietetic Association, vol. 102, no. 4, April 2002, pp. 530-536 

Suitor, C.W., and L.B. Dailey. “Dietary Folate Equivalents: Interpretation and Application.” 

Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 100, 2000, pp. 88-94. 

Troiano, R.P., R.R. Briefel, M.D. Carroll, K. Bialostosky. “Energy and Fat Intake of Children 

and Adolescent in the United States: Data from the National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Surveys.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 72, no. 5, November 

2000, pp. 1343S-1353S. 

Troiano, R.P. “Overweight Prevalence and Trends for Children and Adolescents. The National 

Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1963 to 1991.” Archives of Pediatrics and 

Adolescent Medicine, vol. 149, October 1995, pp. 1085-1091. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. February 1999 Data Tables: 

Food and Nutrient Intakes by Income, 1994-96. Online. ARS Food Surveys Research 

Group, available on the “Products” page at 

<http://www.barc.usda.gov/bhnrc/foodsurvey/home.htm>. 
APPENDIX A 

USUAL NUTRIENT INTAKE DISTRIBUTIONS: 

INDIVIDUALS IN FOOD INSUFFICIENT VERSUS 

FOOD SUFFICIENT HOUSEHOLDS

A.3 

 This appendix includes distributions of usual intake for individuals from food insufficient 

and food sufficient households. Overall, these results suggest that individuals in food 

insufficient households have poor dietary outcomes. For all age groups, the prevalence of 

inadequacy is higher for individuals in food insufficient households than for individuals in food 

sufficient households. In addition, mean intakes of calcium, food energy, and fiber are lower for 

individuals in food insufficient households than for individuals in food sufficient households. In 

some of these cases, these differences are statistically significant. 

 Because of small sample sizes, however, these results need to be interpreted with caution. 

Only a very small number of individuals report living in households that sometimes or often do 

not have enough to eat. Thus, even large differences are generally not statistically significant. 

Further, those differences that are statistically significant often involve percentages close to 0 or 

100, and statistical tests for the difference in the percentages inadequate (percentage with usual 

intake < EAR) are not reliable at these two extremes. Finally, as with the other comparisons, the 

analysis does not account for other factors affecting intake or for potential selection bias. 

Sex-Age Category N Mean 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 

Kids 4-13, Food Insufficient 173 82 60 64 71 81 91 101 Kids 4-13, Food Sufficient 4,949 101 38 47 66 93 127 165 Males 14-30, Food Insufficient 58 71 20 26 41 63 92 126 Males 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,317 120 35 45 68 104 153 214 Males 31-50, Food Insufficient 56 56 12 16 27 45 73 110 Males 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,741 106 30 39 60 92 137 189 Males 51+, Food Insufficient 25 44 22 26 33 43 54 65 Males 51+, Food Sufficient 2,361 106 26 36 58 92 139 195 Females 14-30, Food Insufficient 43 97 34 43 61 88 124 163 Females 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,286 90 30 38 55 81 116 155 

A.5

Females 31-50, Food Insufficient 50 62 34 39 48 60 73 88 Females 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,674 87 26 34 50 76 112 154 Females 51+, Food Insufficient 37 91 19 26 44 73 119 178 Females 51+, Food Sufficient 2,222 94 28 36 56 85 122 164 

aEAR = Estimated Average Requirement.

Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

Usual Nutrient Intake: Vitamin C (mg/d), Individuals 

in Food Insufficient versus Sufficient Households

*(**): p-value for difference between food insufficient and food sufficient is < .05(.01)
Usual Nutrient Intake: Vitamin E (mg/d), Individuals 

in Food Insufficient versus Sufficient Households

Sex-Age Category N Mean 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 9Kids 4-13, Food Insufficient 173 7 4 5 6 7 9 10 Kids 4-13, Food Sufficient 4,949 7 4 5 5 7 8 9 Males 14-30, Food Insufficient 58 10 5 6 8 9 11 14 Males 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,317 10 5 6 7 9 12 15 Males 31-50, Food Insufficient 56 8 3 4 5 7 10 13 Males 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,741 10 5 6 7 10 12 16 Males 51+, Food Insufficient 25 5 3 3 4 5 6 7 Males 51+, Food Sufficient 2,361 9 4 5 6 9 11 15 Females 14-30, Food Insufficient 43 6 4 4 5 6 6 7 Females 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,286 7 4 5 6 7 9 10 

A.6

Females 31-50, Food Insufficient 50 6 4 4 5 6 7 8 Females 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,674 7 4 4 5 7 9 11 Females 51+, Food Insufficient 37 5 3 3 4 5 6 7 Females 51+, Food Sufficient 2,222 7 3 4 5 6 8 11 

Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

aEAR = Estimated Average Requirement.

*(**): p-value for difference between food insufficient and food sufficient is < .05(.01)
Usual Nutrient Intake: Folate (mcg/d), Individuals in Food Insufficient versus Sufficient 

Sex-Age Category N Mean 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 9Kids 4-13, Food Insufficient 173 265 149 167 202 251 312 382 Kids 4-13, Food Sufficient 4,949 275 137 158 202 261 332 407 Males 14-30, Food Insufficient 58 310 158 182 228 292 372 460 Males 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,317 319 147 172 222 293 388 499 Males 31-50, Food Insufficient 56 244 113 134 176 232 299 370 Males 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,741 302 141 165 213 280 366 466 Males 51+, Food Insufficient 25 123 71 79 96 119 145 173 Males 51+, Food Sufficient 2,361 291 126 150 197 268 360 460 Females 14-30, Food Insufficient 43 235 146 162 192 230 272 315 Females 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,286 228 109 127 163 214 278 345 

A.7

Females 31-50, Food Insufficient 50 179 83 100 131 171 219 268 Females 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,674 225 102 121 157 209 276 350 Females 51+, Food Insufficient 37 193 98 112 139 178 231 293 Females 51+, Food Sufficient 2,222 225 104 123 160 210 273 345 

Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

aEAR = Estimated Average Requirement.

*(**): p-value for difference between food insufficient and food sufficient is < .05(.01)
Usual Nutrient Intake: Calcium (mg/d), Individuals 

in Food Insufficient versus Sufficient Households

Sex-Age Category N Mean 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th Kids 4-13, Food Insufficient 173 916 580 643 758 900 1,057 Kids 4-13, Food Sufficient 4,949 922 514 587 723 894 1,092 Males 14-30, Food Insufficient 58 919 437 506 646 848 1,112 Males 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,317 1,050 490 579 752 983 1,272 Males 31-50, Food Insufficient 56 709 314 377 500 669 874 Males 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,741 915 ** 414 491 644 853 1,116 Males 51+, Food Insufficient 25 571 337 380 459 558 669 Males 51+, Food Sufficient 2,361 777 * 349 416 550 732 955 Females 14-30, Food Insufficient 43 600 281 329 426 561 731 Females 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,286 705 350 409 524 675 853 

A.8

Females 31-50, Food Insufficient 50 550 390 421 478 545 617 Females 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,674 657 303 360 472 624 806 Females 51+, Food Insufficient 37 478 300 333 392 467 552 Females 51+, Food Sufficient 2,222 603 * 274 327 431 571 741 Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.*(**): p-value for difference between food insufficient and food sufficient is < .05(.01)
Usual Nutrient Intake: Magnesium (mg/d), Individuals 

in Food Insufficient versus Sufficient Households

Sex-Age Category N Mean 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 9Kids 4-13, Food Insufficient 173 226 185 193 207 224 242 260 Kids 4-13, Food Sufficient 4,949 235 148 163 192 229 271 314 Males 14-30, Food Insufficient 58 314 180 203 246 302 370 440 Males 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,317 329 179 205 254 315 388 471 Males 31-50, Food Insufficient 56 281 125 152 205 272 347 421 Males 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,741 337 185 213 263 325 398 475 Males 51+, Food Insufficient 25 223 150 164 189 220 254 287 Males 51+, Food Sufficient 2,361 305 159 186 234 294 364 440 Females 14-30, Food Insufficient 43 203 105 122 155 196 244 292 Females 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,286 226 133 150 180 220 265 310 

A.9

Females 31-50, Food Insufficient 50 208 125 141 169 204 243 280 Females 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,674 238 132 152 187 231 280 333 Females 51+, Food Insufficient 37 194 117 132 156 186 223 267 Females 51+, Food Sufficient 2,222 233 131 150 184 226 274 325 

Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

aEAR = Estimated Average Requirement.

*(**): p-value for difference between food insufficient and food sufficient is < .05(.01)
0

Usual Nutrient Intake: Vitamin A (mcg RAE), Individuals 

in Food Insufficient versus Sufficient Households

Sex-Age Category N Mean 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 9Kids 4-13, Food Insufficient 173 673 428 471 552 656 775 897 Kids 4-13, Food Sufficient 4,949 741 363 419 537 697 896 1,116 1Males 14-30, Food Insufficient 58 639 195 248 364 549 812 1,140 1Males 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,317 818 312 381 523 732 1,015 1,360 1Males 31-50, Food Insufficient 56 516 148 196 302 460 669 908 1Males 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,741 839 305 376 525 744 1,041 1,411 1Males 51+, Food Insufficient 25 403 164 199 270 372 501 645 Males 51+, Food Sufficient 2,361 982 318 397 541 818 1,217 1,757 2Females 14-30, Food Insufficient 43 575 218 269 374 525 722 945 1Females 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,286 624 233 287 397 557 773 1,037 1

A.1

Females 31-50, Food Insufficient 50 418 120 157 239 367 540 744 Females 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,674 654 252 309 425 592 811 1,072 1Females 51+, Food Insufficient 37 464 210 245 319 426 567 732 Females 51+, Food Sufficient 2,222 715 276 335 459 644 891 1,183 1Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

aEAR = Estimated Average Requirement.

*(**): p-value for difference between food insufficient and food sufficient is < .05(.01)
1

Usual Nutrient Intake: Iron (mg/d), Individuals in Food Insufficient versus Sufficient 

Sex-Age Category N Mean 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Kids 4-13, Food Insufficient 173 14.3 10.3 11.0 12.4 14.0 15.9 17.9 Kids 4-13, Food Sufficient 4,949 15.1 8.9 9.9 11.8 14.4 17.6 21.1 Males 14-30, Food Insufficient 58 18.0 10.8 11.9 14.1 17.2 20.9 25.1 Males 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,317 19.8 11.2 12.6 15.1 18.7 23.3 28.4 Males 31-50, Food Insufficient 56 15.0 7.2 8.6 11.3 14.6 18.3 22.0 Males 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,741 19.0 10.2 11.5 14.2 17.8 22.4 27.9 Males 51+, Food Insufficient 25 10.6 7.2 7.9 9.1 10.4 11.9 13.7 Males 51+, Food Sufficient 2,361 17.1 8.5 9.9 12.4 15.9 20.5 25.8 Females 14-30, Food Insufficient 43 11.3 6.1 7.0 8.7 10.9 13.4 16.0 Females 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,286 13.5 7.6 8.5 10.3 12.8 16.0 19.3 

A.1

Females 31-50, Food Insufficient 50 11.8 6.3 7.3 9.2 11.6 14.2 16.7 Females 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,674 13.1 7.0 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.6 19.3 Females 51+, Food Insufficient 37 10.7 5.2 6.1 7.8 10.2 13.0 16.0 Females 51+, Food Sufficient 2,222 12.4 6.7 7.7 9.4 11.8 14.7 18.0 

Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

aEAR = Estimated Average Requirement.
2

Usual Nutrient Intake: Zinc (mg/d), Individuals 

in Food Insufficient versus Sufficient Households

Sex-Age Category N Mean 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 9Kids 4-13, Food Insufficient 173 9.7 7.1 7.7 8.5 9.6 10.7 12.0 Kids 4-13, Food Sufficient 4,949 10.5 6.5 7.2 8.5 10.2 12.2 14.3 Males 14-30, Food Insufficient 58 12.7 6.5 7.4 9.3 11.9 15.2 18.9 2Males 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,317 14.9 8.6 9.6 11.7 14.3 17.4 20.9 2Males 31-50, Food Insufficient 56 11.4 5.9 6.9 8.7 11.1 13.8 16.5 Males 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,741 14.3 8.2 9.2 11.1 13.7 16.8 20.1 2Males 51+, Food Insufficient 25 8.0 4.5 5.1 6.2 7.6 9.4 11.3 Males 51+, Food Sufficient 2,361 12.5 6.6 7.5 9.2 11.7 14.9 18.5 2Females 14-30, Food Insufficient 43 8.0 4.2 4.8 6.0 7.6 9.6 11.8 Females 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,286 9.7 5.7 6.4 7.6 9.3 11.3 13.3 

A.1

Females 31-50, Food Insufficient 50 8.4 4.3 5.0 6.4 8.1 10.2 12.3 Females 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,674 9.6 5.3 6.0 7.3 9.1 11.3 13.8 Females 51+, Food Insufficient 37 8.1 5.9 6.3 7.1 8.0 9.0 9.9 Females 51+, Food Sufficient 2,222 8.6 4.9 5.5 6.6 8.2 10.1 12.2 Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.

aEAR = Estimated Average Requirement.

*(**): p-value for difference between food insufficient and food sufficient is < .05(.01)
Sex-Age Category N Mean 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 

Kids 4-13, Food Insufficient 

Usual intake 173 1,866 1,331 1,439 1,621 1,834 2,074 EERa 103 1,763 1,167 1,257 1,470 1,644 1,924 

Kids 4-13, Food Sufficient

Usual intake 4,949 1,941 1,295 1,411 1,629 1,898 2,205 EER 4,214 1,820 1,270 1,354 1,520 1,770 2,043 

Males 14-30, Food Insufficient 

Usual intake 58 2,643 1,361 1,566 1,966 2,508 3,172 EER 55 2,793 2,242 2,354 2,447 2,783 2,974 

Males 14-30, Food Sufficient

Usual intake 1,317 2,827 1,652 1,870 2,253 2,725 3,291 EER 1,303 2,911 2,352 2,449 2,675 2,894 3,126 

A.13

Males 31-50, Food Insufficient 

Usual intake 56 2,143 1,076 1,287 1,666 2,116 2,587 EER 49 2,761 2,241 2,326 2,481 2,767 2,985 

Males 31-50, Food Sufficient

Usual intake 1,741 2,549 * 1,534 1,713 2,044 2,475 2,969 EER 1,729 2,810 2,313 2,393 2,575 2,793 3,022 

Males 51+, Food Insufficient

Usual intake 25 1,475 771 911 1,162 1,458 1,769 EER 25 2,366 1,859 1,866 2,131 2,288 2,549 

Males 51+, Food Sufficient

Usual intake 2,361 2,069 ** 1,166 1,336 1,642 2,012 2,431 EER 2,338 2,542 1,937 2,093 2,300 2,543 2,777 

Females 14-30, Food Insufficient 

Usual intake 43 1,611 937 1,073 1,313 1,595 1,891 EER 38 2,146 1,729 1,829 1,973 2,071 2,276 

Females 14-30, Food Sufficient

Usual intake 1,286 1,860 1,169 1,307 1,547 1,826 2,134 EER 1,248 2,199 1,817 1,873 2,002 2,150 2,343 

Estimated Energy Requirements and Usual Intake of Food Energy (kcal): In

in Food Insufficient versus Sufficient Households
Sex-Age Category N Mean 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 

Females 31-50, Food Insufficient

Usual intake 50 1,714 935 1,085 1,354 1,683 2,040 EER 46 2,224 1,806 1,851 2,027 2,223 2,442 

Females 31-50, Food Sufficient

Usual intake 1,674 1,700 1,045 1,175 1,400 1,664 1,958 EER 1,610 2,176 1,741 1,817 1,960 2,149 2,351 

Females 51+, Food Insufficient 

Usual intake 37 1,302 841 935 1,100 1,292 1,493 EER 33 2,057 1,513 1,740 1,932 2,059 2,139 

Females 51+, Food Sufficient

Usual intake 2,222 1,488 918 1,029 1,225 1,458 1,717 EER 2,149 1,970 1,505 1,598 1,764 1,961 2,154 

aEER = Estimated Energy Requirement.

A.14

Source: 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII.*(**): p-value for difference between food insufficient and food sufficient is < .05(.01)
Usual Nutrient Intake: Fat, Carbohydrate, and Protein, Individuals 

in Food Insufficient versus Sufficient Households

Fat Carbohydrate Protein

N % < AMDRa % > AMDR % < EARb

% outside

AMDR % < EAR

% outside 

AMDR

Kids 4-13, Food Insufficient 173 <1 33.6 < 1 2.9 <1 <1Kids 4-13, Food Sufficient 4,949 1.5 23.7 <1 2.5 <1 <1Males 14-30, Food Insufficient 58 <1 46.7 <1 15.7 3.8 <1Males 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,317 <1 27.0 <1 14.0 2.1 <1Males 31-50, Food Insufficient 56 <1 36.8 2.8 8.1 7.2 <1Males 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,741 <1 39.0 <1 27.5 3.3 <1Males 51+, Food Insufficient 25 <1 9.0 <1 5.6 35.0 1.0Males 51+, Food Sufficient 2,361 1.4 40.3 1.3 28.7 10.2 <1

A.15

Females 14-30, Food Insufficient 43 2.1 16.7 2.4 7.1 22.8 8.4Females 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,286 1.0 28.0 <1 12.9 7.8 1.7Females 31-50, Food Insufficient 50 <1 5.8 1.1 4.6 27.2 <1Females 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,674 <1 34.4 2.1 20.7 13.1 <1Females 51+, Food Insufficient 37 <1 51.0 7.6 29.5 25.8 <1Females 51+, Food Sufficient 2,222 2.2 30.9 3.0 18.2 17.7 <1Source: 1994-1996 CSFII.

a

AMDR = Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range. bEAR = Estimated Average Requirement.
Usual Nutrient Intake: Fiber (g/d), Individuals 

in Food Insufficient versus Sufficient Households

Sex-Age Category N Mean 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th Kids 4-13, Food Insufficient 173 12.9 4.6 5.8 8.3 11.3 15.3 Kids 4-13, Food Sufficient 4,949 13.1 7.7 8.6 10.3 12.6 15.3 Males 14-30, Food Insufficient 58 19.0 8.7 10.4 13.7 18.1 23.3 Males 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,317 18.1 9.0 10.5 13.4 17.1 21.7 Males 31-50, Food Insufficient 56 16.3 7.7 9.1 11.9 15.6 19.9 Males 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,741 18.8 9.4 11.0 14.0 17.9 22.6 Males 51+, Food Insufficient 25 11.8 7.9 8.5 9.8 11.4 13.4 Males 51+, Food Sufficient 2,361 18.3 * 8.0 9.7 13.0 17.3 22.4 Females 14-30, Food Insufficient 43 12.3 5.6 6.7 8.8 11.6 15.1 Females 14-30, Food Sufficient 1,286 13.1 6.8 7.9 9.9 12.5 15.7 

A.16

Females 31-50, Food Insufficient 50 12.1 8.5 9.2 10.5 12.0 13.6 Females 31-50, Food Sufficient 1,674 13.9 6.5 7.7 10.1 13.3 17.0 Females 51+, Food Insufficient 37 11.9 5.9 7.0 8.9 11.5 14.4 Females 51+, Food Sufficient 2,222 14.3 6.8 8.1 10.5 13.7 17.4 Source: 1994-1996 CSFII.*(**): p-value for difference between food insufficient and food sufficient is < .05(.01)