Little is known about zinc intakes and status during complementary feeding. This is particularly true for baby-led approaches, which encourage infants to feed themselves from the start of complementary feeding, although self-feeding may restrict the intake of zinc-rich foods.
To determine the zinc intakes, sources, and biochemical zinc status of infants following Baby-Led Introduction to SolidS (BLISS), a modified version of Baby-Led Weaning (BLW), compared with traditional spoon-feeding.
Secondary analysis of the BLISS randomized controlled trial.
Between 2012 and 2014, 206 community-based participants from Dunedin, New Zealand were randomized to a Control or BLISS group.
BLISS participants received eight study visits (antenatal to 9 months) providing education and support regarding BLISS (ie, infant self-feeding from 6 months with modifications to address concerns about iron, choking, and growth).
Dietary zinc intakes at 7 and 12 months (weighed 3-day diet records) and zinc status at 12 months (plasma zinc concentration).
Regression analyses were used to investigate differences in dietary intakes and zinc status by group, adjusted for maternal education and parity and infant age and sex.
There were no significant differences in zinc intakes between BLISS and Control infants at 7 (median: 3.5 vs 3.5 mg/day; P=0.42) or 12 (4.4 vs 4.4 mg/day; P=0.86) months. Complementary food groups contributing the most zinc at 7 months were "vegetables" for Control infants, and "breads and cereals" for BLISS infants, then "dairy" for both groups at 12 months. There was no significant difference in mean±standard deviation plasma zinc concentration between the Control (62.8±9.8 μg/dL [9.6±1.5 μmol/L]) and BLISS (62.8±10.5 μg/dL [9.6±1.6 μmol/L]) groups (P=0.75).
BLISS infants achieved similar zinc intake and status to Control infants. However, the BLISS intervention was modified to increase iron intake, which may have improved zinc intake, so these results should not be generalized to infants following unmodified BLW.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2018.
All research outputs
#8,884,576
of 27,788,803 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
#952
of 1,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,457
of 347,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
#13
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,788,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,859 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.4. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 347,105 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
