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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Meihong Xu, Yibin Wang, Zhiyong Dai, Yanchun Zhang, Yong Li, Junbo Wang
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