Cited by 471Food composition and propertiesNutritional Studies and DietNutrition, Health, and Society Studies

Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Health implications of dietary fiber

Dahl, Wendy J., Stewart, Maria L.·2015·Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

Abstract

It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that the public should consume adequate amounts of dietary fiber from a variety of plant foods. Dietary fiber is defined by the Institute of Medicine Food Nutrition Board as "nondigestible carbohydrates and lignin that are intrinsic and intact in plants." Populations that consume more dietary fiber have less chronic disease. Higher intakes of dietary fiber reduce the risk of developing several chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers, and have been associated with lower body weights. The Adequate Intake for fiber is 14 g total fiber per 1,000 kcal, or 25 g for adult women and 38 g for adult men, based on research demonstrating protection against coronary heart disease. Properties of dietary fiber, such as fermentability and viscosity, are thought to be important parameters influencing the risk of disease. Plant components associated with dietary fiber may also contribute to reduced disease risk. The mean intake of dietary fiber in the United States is 17 g/day with only 5% of the population meeting the Adequate Intake. Healthy adults and children can achieve adequate dietary fiber intakes by increasing their intake of plant foods while concurrently decreasing energy from foods high in added sugar and fat, and low in fiber. Dietary messages to increase consumption of whole grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, and nuts should be broadly supported by food and nutrition practitioners.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jand.2015.09.003

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dahl, W. J., & Stewart, M. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida (US)
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
Venue
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
115
Issue
11
Pages
1861-1870
ISSN
2212-2672 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2115195275
Cited by
471
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 1
FWCI
37.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Nutrition, Health, and Society Studies
Keywords
dietary fiber, chronic disease prevention, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer risk, body weight, dietary fiber intake, plant-based foods, whole grains, Fabaceae, fruits and vegetables, nuts, added sugars, dietary recommendations
MeSH terms
Academies and Institutes, Whole Grains, Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Body Weight, Cardiovascular Diseases, Child, Child, Preschool, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diet, Dietary Fiber, Dietetics, Female, Fruit, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Fabaceae, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Nutritional Status, Nuts, Pregnancy, United States, Vegetables, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Gastrointestinal Tract, Young Adult, Prebiotics, Recommended Dietary Allowances

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review