Amy J. Krauss
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Amy J. Krauss has a total of 10 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Amy Taetzsch
University of New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Nutrition, and Food Systems, 129 Main St, Durham, NH 03824, USA
2 shared publications - Sai Krupa Das
Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University Boston Massachusetts USA
2 shared publications - Susan B. Roberts
Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, USA
2 shared publications - Adrienne Hatch-McChesney
Military Nutrition Division, U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, 10 General Greene Ave, Natick, MA 01760, USA
1 shared publication - Alice H. Lichtenstein
Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111, USA
1 shared publication - Asma S. Bukhari
US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine , Natick, MA 01760, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
Are Gluten-Free Diets More Nutritious? An Evaluation of Self-Selected and Recommended Gluten-Free and Gluten-Containing Dietary Patterns
Gluten-free (GF) eating patterns are frequently perceived to be healthier than gluten-containing (GC) ones, but there has been very little research to evaluate this viewpoint. The effect of GF eating patterns on dietary composition was assessed using two independent approaches. One approach compared macronutrients and typical shortfall nutrients between MyPlate example menus developed with either GC or equivalent GF foods. In this analysis, the GF menus were significantly lower in protein, magnesium, potassium, vitamin E, folate, and sodium (p = 0.002–0.03), with suggestive trends towards lower calcium and higher fat (p = 0.06–0.08). The second approach was a meta-analysis of seven studies comparing information on the nutrient intakes of adults with celiac disease following a GF diet with control subjects eating a GC diet, and differences were evaluated using paired t-tests or Wilcoxon Signed rank tests. In this analysis, consuming a GF diet was associated with higher energy and fat intakes, and lower fiber and folate intakes compared to controls (p < 0.001 to p = 0.03). After adjusting for heterogeneity and accounting for the large mean effect size (−0.88 ± 0.09), the lower fiber remained significant (p < 0.001). These combined analyses indicate that GF diets are not nutritionally superior except for sodium, and in several respects are actually worse.
Open AccessAre Gluten-Free Diets More Nutritious? An Evaluation of Self-Selected and Recommended Gluten-Free and Gluten-Containing Dietary Patterns
Gluten-free (GF) eating patterns are frequently perceived to be healthier than gluten-containing (GC) ones, but there has been very little research to evaluate this viewpoint. The effect of GF eating patterns on dietary composition was assessed using two independent approaches. One approach compared macronutrients and typical shortfall nutrients between MyPlate example menus developed with either GC or equivalent GF foods. In this analysis, the GF menus were significantly lower in protein, magnesium, potassium, vitamin E, folate, and sodium (p = 0.002–0.03), with suggestive trends towards lower calcium and higher fat (p = 0.06–0.08). The second approach was a meta-analysis of seven studies comparing information on the nutrient intakes of adults with celiac disease following a GF diet with control subjects eating a GC diet, and differences were evaluated using paired t-tests or Wilcoxon Signed rank tests. In this analysis, consuming a GF diet was associated with higher energy and fat intakes, and lower fiber and folate intakes compared to controls (p < 0.001 to p = 0.03). After adjusting for heterogeneity and accounting for the large mean effect size (−0.88 ± 0.09), the lower fiber remained significant (p < 0.001). These combined analyses indicate that GF diets are not nutritionally superior except for sodium, and in several respects are actually worse.