Comparison of growth and nutritional status in infants receiving goat milk–based formula and cow milk–based formula: a randomized, double-blind study
Objective: To compare the growth and nutritional status of infants fed goat milk–based formula (GMF) and cow milk–based formula (CMF). Methods: The study was conducted in Beijing, China. It was a double-blind randomized controlled trial. A total of 79 infants aged 0–3 months old were recruited and r...
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Swedish Nutrition Foundation
2015-12-01
|
Series: | Food & Nutrition Research |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/28613/43898 |
id |
doaj-594047a829a948e3928b2e9b0ce7a7b1 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-594047a829a948e3928b2e9b0ce7a7b12020-11-24T22:35:03ZengSwedish Nutrition FoundationFood & Nutrition Research1654-661X2015-12-015901710.3402/fnr.v59.2861328613Comparison of growth and nutritional status in infants receiving goat milk–based formula and cow milk–based formula: a randomized, double-blind studyMeihong Xu0Yibin Wang1Zhiyong Dai2Yanchun Zhang3Yong Li4Junbo Wang5Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, ChinaDepartment of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, ChinaAusnutria Hyproca Dairy Group BV, Changsha, ChinaAusnutria Hyproca Dairy Group BV, Changsha, ChinaDepartment of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, ChinaDepartment of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, ChinaObjective: To compare the growth and nutritional status of infants fed goat milk–based formula (GMF) and cow milk–based formula (CMF). Methods: The study was conducted in Beijing, China. It was a double-blind randomized controlled trial. A total of 79 infants aged 0–3 months old were recruited and randomized in GMF or CMF group. The infants were fed the allocated formula to 6 months. The weight, length, and head circumference were measured at the enrolment, 3 and 6 months. The start time and types of solid food were recorded. Blood elements, urinal, and fecal parameters were also tested. Results: The average weight of infants in the GMF group (mean±SD) was 4.67±0.99 kg and in the CMF group 4.73±1.10 kg at enrolment, and 8.75±0.98 kg (GMF) and 8.92±0.88 kg (CMF) at 6 months. There were no differences in the adjusted intention-to-treat analyses of weight, length, head circumference, and BMI z-scores between the two formula-fed groups over the 6-month study. Similarly, there were no remarkable differences in the timing and types of solid food, blood elements, urinal, and feces parameters, between the GMF and CMF group. No group differences have been shown in bowel motion consistency, duration of crying, ease of settling, or frequency of adverse events. Conclusions: GMF-provided growth and nutritional outcomes did not differ from those provided by CMF.http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/28613/43898infantformulagoat milkgrowthnutritional status |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Meihong Xu Yibin Wang Zhiyong Dai Yanchun Zhang Yong Li Junbo Wang |
spellingShingle |
Meihong Xu Yibin Wang Zhiyong Dai Yanchun Zhang Yong Li Junbo Wang Comparison of growth and nutritional status in infants receiving goat milk–based formula and cow milk–based formula: a randomized, double-blind study Food & Nutrition Research infant formula goat milk growth nutritional status |
author_facet |
Meihong Xu Yibin Wang Zhiyong Dai Yanchun Zhang Yong Li Junbo Wang |
author_sort |
Meihong Xu |
title |
Comparison of growth and nutritional status in infants receiving goat milk–based formula and cow milk–based formula: a randomized, double-blind study |
title_short |
Comparison of growth and nutritional status in infants receiving goat milk–based formula and cow milk–based formula: a randomized, double-blind study |
title_full |
Comparison of growth and nutritional status in infants receiving goat milk–based formula and cow milk–based formula: a randomized, double-blind study |
title_fullStr |
Comparison of growth and nutritional status in infants receiving goat milk–based formula and cow milk–based formula: a randomized, double-blind study |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparison of growth and nutritional status in infants receiving goat milk–based formula and cow milk–based formula: a randomized, double-blind study |
title_sort |
comparison of growth and nutritional status in infants receiving goat milk–based formula and cow milk–based formula: a randomized, double-blind study |
publisher |
Swedish Nutrition Foundation |
series |
Food & Nutrition Research |
issn |
1654-661X |
publishDate |
2015-12-01 |
description |
Objective: To compare the growth and nutritional status of infants fed goat milk–based formula (GMF) and cow milk–based formula (CMF). Methods: The study was conducted in Beijing, China. It was a double-blind randomized controlled trial. A total of 79 infants aged 0–3 months old were recruited and randomized in GMF or CMF group. The infants were fed the allocated formula to 6 months. The weight, length, and head circumference were measured at the enrolment, 3 and 6 months. The start time and types of solid food were recorded. Blood elements, urinal, and fecal parameters were also tested. Results: The average weight of infants in the GMF group (mean±SD) was 4.67±0.99 kg and in the CMF group 4.73±1.10 kg at enrolment, and 8.75±0.98 kg (GMF) and 8.92±0.88 kg (CMF) at 6 months. There were no differences in the adjusted intention-to-treat analyses of weight, length, head circumference, and BMI z-scores between the two formula-fed groups over the 6-month study. Similarly, there were no remarkable differences in the timing and types of solid food, blood elements, urinal, and feces parameters, between the GMF and CMF group. No group differences have been shown in bowel motion consistency, duration of crying, ease of settling, or frequency of adverse events. Conclusions: GMF-provided growth and nutritional outcomes did not differ from those provided by CMF. |
topic |
infant formula goat milk growth nutritional status |
url |
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/28613/43898 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT meihongxu comparisonofgrowthandnutritionalstatusininfantsreceivinggoatmilkbasedformulaandcowmilkbasedformulaarandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT yibinwang comparisonofgrowthandnutritionalstatusininfantsreceivinggoatmilkbasedformulaandcowmilkbasedformulaarandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT zhiyongdai comparisonofgrowthandnutritionalstatusininfantsreceivinggoatmilkbasedformulaandcowmilkbasedformulaarandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT yanchunzhang comparisonofgrowthandnutritionalstatusininfantsreceivinggoatmilkbasedformulaandcowmilkbasedformulaarandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT yongli comparisonofgrowthandnutritionalstatusininfantsreceivinggoatmilkbasedformulaandcowmilkbasedformulaarandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT junbowang comparisonofgrowthandnutritionalstatusininfantsreceivinggoatmilkbasedformulaandcowmilkbasedformulaarandomizeddoubleblindstudy |
_version_ |
1725724983359963136 |