You are on page 1of 23

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The School age comprises nearly half of the growing period. The obvious changes in
physical size and shape associated with the onset of puberty. The social and psychological
changes those are equally transformative in magnitude. Worldwide, changes are altering the
conditions under which children are developing into adulthood. (Frisancho A.R)
The review of literature collected on the nutritional and health status of the children have
revealed the impact of poor nutrition on health. Recognizing the relevance of nutritional and
health status of the children, which has an impact on the country`s population, the present study
was carried out among the selected school children in Bangalore city. The general survey
covering a study group of 720 children in the age group of 11 to 15 years was carried out to
determine the Socio-economic status, dietary pattern, anthropometric measurements, clinical
assessment and morbidity pattern.
The results of the study conducted on “Nutrition and Health Status of School Going Children:
Perspectives of Socio- Economic Conditions are presented in this chapter. The results pertaining
to assessing the health nutritional status are included in the first part (Part I) of the study. The
second part (Part II) deals with the development of iron rich products, their acceptability and
intervention programme. Results of the study are presented under the following headings:
Part I
Background information of the families
Dietary pattern
Frequency of consumption of foods
Food and nutrient intake
Assessment of Somatic status of the children by
Combined low, middle and high income group.
Age group

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Anthropometric indices
Health status
Clinical symptoms
Morbidity status
Hemoglobin level of school children
Classification of anemia based on hemoglobin status.
PART II
Development of product
Sensory Evaluation
Intervention programme.

4 per cent having studied up to tenth standard and 73. Remaining families had a family income between Rs. ordinal positions were included in background information. religion. Majority i.e.e. Whereas in middle income group majority of the children (43.15000.6 per .20000 to 25000/ month categories.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Background information of the families Background information of children has been presented in Table 1 to 2. Around 60 to 70 per cent children are first child for their parents.Out of 240 children. Lower income families had 5 to 6 members in their family but most children of the middle and high income families belonged to 4 members family. Remaining 88 children were belonged to Rs.67 %) and remaining 7.75 %) belonged to Rs. 83. .42%) were working as labourers while small percentage were government employees (6.91 percent were doing business. family type. Among the middle income group equal proportion of fathers were employed either in the government service or doing business i. Family background and educational status of the parents has been illustrated in these tables. 38. while smaller fraction of about 18. which was 52.58 %).3 per cent mothers were working as labourers in lower income group where as they were home makers in the middle income group (76%). The general information of the school children indicated that out of 720 children 240 children were categorized as low income had a family income less than Rs. The level of education obtained by the male and female heads of the households was higher in middle income group. Age.3 per cent and 39.25000/month. only twenty nine children belonged to family income less than Rs 5000/ month. and thirty two families had family income between 10000 to 15000.5000 to Rs. Majority of the children belonged to general category.58 per cent had a family income above Rs..34 per cent were employed either in government or private sector.2 per cent respectively. Majority of the fathers of children of Low income group (85. 10000 / month (74.15000 to 20000 category and 19. gender.

4 8 3.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION cent up to graduation.0 3.4 Table -1 Background Information of the Respondents .4 6.0 4.6 5.7 6.2 10.8 36.2 204 36 85.0 82 34.9 72. Characteristics Low Income N Religion Hindu Muslim Christian Caste General SC/ST Others Family Size ≤ 4 members % Middle Income N % 216 21 3 90.5 128 53.8 14.4 5.9 15.325 * 65.2 226 10 4 94.2 4.92 * 93.542 NS 98 40.0 187 37 16 77.2 99 41.2 1.6 2.33 40 16 16.4 5.0 8.8 72 8 30.3 24 10.6 182 34 24 75.6 Type of Family Nuclear Joint Ordinal Position 153 87 63.0 221 19 92.1 7.7 Respondents Upper Middle Income N % 224 12 4 x2 93.8 1.3 * First Child Second Child Third Child 167 69.3 49 20.8 160 66.0 1.3 13 5.67 184 76.225 NS 217 12 11 90.6 150 62.0 15.4 8. The number of non-literates was 64 per cent among the females in low income group.7 5 – 6 members ≤7 members 121 21 50.

35000 Rs.42 192 44 4 - 80.50 128 23 89 53.91 77 73 90 32. 10001 .34 9.42 37.25 44.25 19.25 10.6 548. Service/MNC Private Business Mother’s Occupation House Wife Labour Govt.08 2.92 1.42 6.15000 Rs. 35001.42 - 2 20 151 56 11 0.58 - 70 90 80 29.67 3. 30001.16 12. 20001. 25001.25 54.09 74. 45000 % Respondents Middle Upper Middle Income Income N % N % 56 159 24 1 - 23.92 23.25000 Rs.83 196 20 17 7 81.00 30.58 43.40000 Rs.67 - 4 8 63 130 31 4 1.42 29 179 32 - 12.33 66.08 47 191 2 19.42 6.67 7.33 62.9 632.92 183 46 10 1 76.10000 Rs.42 205 16 19 85.33 x2 856.75 36.33 5.17 37.67 1 15 107 104 13 0.50 33.3 764.67 19. 40001.45000 ≥ Rs.00 18.30000 Rs.7 1440.33 4.58 37.58 13.59 0.2 Background information of the family Characteristics Low Income N Father’s Education Illiterate Primary School High School PUC Graduation Post Graduation Mother’s Education Illiterate Primary School High School PUC Graduation Post Graduation Father’s Occupation Labour Govt. 15001 .16 0.20000 Rs.33 - 105 88 47 - 43.58 47 120 73 19.58 79.00 0. Service/MNC Private Business Family Income < Rs 5000/ Rs 5001 .67 8.17 4.08 30.0 .33 26.83 8.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table .58 50.33 7.33 1.

It was significant at 1% level. Whereas 16.1 Eggerian 4 1.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table .3 % of middle and high income respondents consumed 4 meals a day respectively.2 11 4.7 24 10.3 Four - - 40 16.4 Three 212 88.7 % and 38. A similar study conducted by Hande et al.3%) consumed 3 meals a day.4 186 77. More percentage of respondents from middle and high income were vegetarian when compared to low income.7 92 38.3 Non Vegetarian 229 95. Most of the respondents from lower income (88.3 2 Value 48.3 56 23.0 13 5.5 173 72.66%) predominated followed by vegetarians (38%) and ova-vegetarians (9.9 44 18.6 Two 28 11.3 135 56.33%). (2008) observed that non-vegetarians (52.79 119. .3 Dietary patterns of the subjects Low Income Characters Food habit Number of meals consumed/ day Category Middle Income High Income Sample (n=240) % Sample (n=240) % Sample (n=240) % Vegetarian 7 2.3 176 73. It was significant statistically.33 * Significant at 5% Level ** Significant at 1% Level From table 3 it is very clear that majority of respondents were non vegetarian irrespective of their income.7 10 4.

Very few (4.5) 64 (8.3) 29 36 25 22 105 (14.7) 58 (8.0) 437 (60.0) 2 Value .8%) had the habit of going to canteen.4) 25 (3.7) 240 (33. Respondents from low income group were from government school where mid day meal was provided by Akshayapatra scheme. So none of carried lunch to school.3) 14 128 98 43 (6.8) 240 (33.3) 10 - 35 (4.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Meal pattern of the subjects (Table 4) showed that maximum respondents from middle and high income group carried lunch to school.1) 6 7 (0. Mostly they skipped either breakfast or dinner Eating Pattern Low Income Middle Income High Income Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Carrying Lunch to School Always 111 101 212 108 108 Some 8 5 13 3 9 Times Never 120 120 240 1 14 15 9 3 Alternate Arrangements Skip 1 1 3 3 Lunch Going 8 1 2 6 2 Home Canteen 1 17 25 3 7 Mid Day 120 120 240 Meal Skipping Meals Yes 5 6 11 5 13 18 9 5 No 90 99 189 71 49 120 67 61 Some 25 15 40 44 58 102 44 54 Times Type of meal Skipped Break fast 17 8 25 20 31 51 29 Lunch 7 7 5 16 21 2 34 Tea/Snack 1 2 3 12 16 28 12 13 Dinner 12 4 16 12 8 20 10 12 Table 4: Meal Pattern of the Subjects Total (Combined) Total 216 12 428 (59. Children who did not carry lunch were going home for lunch.8) 56 (7. Number of respondents skipped meal was almost same in all the groups.5) 12 267 (37.9) 8 10 (1.

6 23.0 2.4 3.6 6.0 10.4 100.0 3.0 0.0 1.3 3.0 6.0 46.7 30.0 0.6 0.3 6.3 53.0 100.3 16.0 35.3 33.0 10.3 30.0 16.2 16.0 6.0 23.4 26.0 3.5 2.0 0.2 0.0 80.0 6.0 3.3 0.4 43.6 33.6 26.5 10.3 23.0 100.4 13.4 2.7 2.7 - .4 0.0 17.4 20.8 13.0 56.4 70.6 13.0 0.0 100.6 3.0 13.4 80 36.0 13.6 - 66.3 6.3 10.3 12.0 14.0 11.0 70.3 7.3 62.3 4.6 13.6 13.3 56.3 6.6 43.3 100.0 12.7 53.0 0.6 2.6 - 3.3 12.5 20.3 10.3 40.6 10.0 - 13.3 5.6 - 13.0 0.6 53.3 38.3 6.0 100.4 50.5 3.0 3.0 100.3 - 3.4 33.0 3.2 3.0 13.6 0.4 21.6 3.0 23.5 6.0 0.0 93.8 3.3 - Weekly thrice - Weekly twice - Weekly once -- Fort nightly - Monthly Occasio nally - Never 3.0 0.4 53.3 92.5 - 33.0 92.3 6.9 6.6 7.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5: Frequency of Consumption of Foods by Different Income Group Respondents (Percentage) Food Stuff Rice Ragi Wheat Pulses and Dhal GLV Roots and tubers Other vegetables Fruits Milk and Milk products Fats and Oils Sugar Jaggery Flesh foods LI MI HI LI MI HI LI MI HI LI MI HI LI MI HI LI MI HI LI MI HI LI MI HI LI MI HI LI MI HI LI MI HI LI MI HI LI MI HI Daily 100.3 62.0 3.5 6.0 6.6 95.3 38.0 24.3 6.0 0.8 6.0 100.3 0.0 33.4 26.3 - - - - 3.0 30.6 13.4 43.0 6.0 23.6 6.5 3.7 40.3 36.6 36.0 6.6 10.0 3.0 3.0 0.3 9.0 11.6 16.3 13.0 12.3 5.3 20.6 0.0 63.6 43.4 23.3 8.

6 6.6 10.7 - 46.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Fast foods LI MI HI 16.0 13.6 6.6 0. HI: High Income 50.0 26.3 20.4 14.0 LI: Low Income.3 10.7 - .0 26.0 12.0 13.6 10.6 25.6 - 26.0 16. MI: Middle Income.0 46.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5 depicts the frequency of consumption of different foods by the respondents of different income group. NNMB (2002) data also shows the same trend with respect to consumption of milk and milk products. It is clear from the table that rice was consumed by all the respondents regularly . This is partly attributable to the soaring cost of pulses and inability of the poor to purchase adequate quantity in spite of higher expenditure on pulses. Majority of the respondents from all the group consumed Green leafy vegetables weekly twice Fats and oils were consumed daily by majority of children from low income group where as all the respondents from middle and high income consumed fats and oils daily. which are a major source of protein in Indian diets. sex and socio economic status of the respondents was compared with RDA in table 6. Mean Consumption of different foods at different age group. Data on time trends in dietary intake in rural areas and urban slums in nine states was available from surveys conducted by the . Ninety five percent of high income group children consumed pulses daily where as only 36. 7. 8.6 %) from low income group consumed Ragi regularly. and 9. Consumption of cereals are on par with RDA or some times more in all the three income levels.Majority of the respondents (46. Milk and milk products was consumed regularly.6 percent from middle income group respondents consumed pulses daily. which is an important aspect of nutrition. According to the report there has been a decline in the dietary intake of pulses. The same results were recorded by NNMB report. It is observed from the table that frequency of consumption of protective foods such as fruits was quite low. and high income group were less than RDA. middle. Frequency of consumption of vegetables was found to be quiet low in all the groups. though inadequate in quantity. Adequacy of consumption of pulses of low. The mean consumption of all the foods except cereals was below the recommended dietary intakes for all the respondents.

there was an extremely low consumption of fruits and vegetables across all groups. green leafy vegetables and fruits between the two income groups. Fat and oil consumption was more than RDA among High income group except for the girls between 13.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION NNMB. Dietary intake pattern of two hundred and seventy two schoolchildren aged between 12 and 14 years. belonging to two groups of different socio-economic status was studied by Vijayapushpam et al. (2003).2002). The results of this study also showed a significant difference in the intake of protective foods like milk and milk products. and socio economic status consumed less vegetables and fruits. .4per cent of the children were having fruits daily. Only 39. But the present study is not supported this data may be because over the period there has been a substantial decline in the cost of cereals and improvement in availability of and access to cereals. This may due to consumption of chips and other deep fried items as their snack Consumption of all types of vegetables was less than RDA in all the groups. age. Consumption of sugar was very high among middle and high income group in all the age group irrespective of sex. It was surprising to note that consumption of cereals did not increase with their age in both boys and girls. (2006) reported in his study that. However. Data from NNMB surveys shows that over the last decade there has been some decline in cereal intake both in urban and rural areas. 1979 . children from the high SES background preferred fast foods such as noodles and corn flakes to traditional foods. All the respondents irrespective of gender.(NNMB Reports. Singh et al.15 years and less among the entire low income group. Intake of fruit was better among high income group when compared to low and middle income though did not meet the RDA.

2 293.6 36.6 21.6 92.8 68.5 24.5 73.7 61.5 42.4 73.2 44.7 15.13 Years Girls 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 LI MI HI .9 52.8 83.1 45.1 38.1 137.1 127.9 83.7 52.7 50.1 41.3 73.3 38.3 115.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 6: Mean Consumption of Different Food Groups by 11.8 51.3 ** ** 200 100 30 35 85.7 61.6 78.7 59.3 59.4 86.1 77.0 122.9 38.5 82.2 75.8 73.7 111.8 477.8 311.4 NS ** ** 100 100 92.7 84.2 120.3 93.2 32.1 * ** ** ** Fig 1: Mean Consumption of Different Food Groups by 11.1 45.7 62.0 61.6 68.1 289.13 Years Girls Food Groups RDA Low Income Middle Income High Income (gm) ‘F’ Value Between Groups Cereals Pulses Milk and Milk Products Roots & Tubers Green Leafy Vegetables Other Vegetables Fruits Sugar Fats and Oils Foods % Foods % Foods % (gm) Adequacy (gm) Adequacy (gm) Adequacy 240 60 500 277.3 95.6 78.

1% of RDA among low income group children. Consumption of sugar and fats were than RDA (127.1%) in high income group girls. She found that. Consumption pattern of different foods by 13 -15 years showed a different picture (Table-7).7 &111. Low income girls consumed more GLV than middle and high income group. But consumption of sugar increased significantly. fat and sugar between the groups.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 6 depicts the Mean consumption of different food by 11. She assessed the nutritional status of school children aged 6 to 12 years from rural Bihar. Highly Significant difference was observed with respect to the consumption of Milk.13 years girl's respondents from different income groups.15 Years Girls . Table 7: Mean Consumption of Different Food Groups by 13. Whereas consumption of other foods did not change with the age. Similar results found in a study by Sunita and Jain (2005). Consumption of cereals and fat was reduced as the age increased. sugar and fats all the other foods were below RDA in all the groups. Among the group middle income girls consumed more sugar than their counterparts. Consumption of milk was only 15. Except sugar none of the other foods were meeting the RDA in all the groups. Except cereals. Food intake for all the food groups except for fats and oils were inadequate for both boys and girls.

4 60.1 99.0 200 100 25 40 79.3 14.0 82.2 39.5 Fig 2:: Mean Consumption of Different Food Groups by 13.8 75.8 46.9 54.15 Years Girls 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 LI MI HI .1 58.7 30.9 41.9 54.0 141.7 99.6 86.3 100 100 79.2 90.3 81.9 69.0 35.5 461.8 53.1 58.5 63.8 41.5 317.8 92.3 93.8 56.7 21.3 146.8 77.2 24.0 72.3 41.3 79.7 60.6 51.8 81.2 86.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Food Groups RDA Low Income Middle Income High Income ‘F’ Value (gm) Between Groups Cereals Pulses Milk and Milk Products Roots & Tubers Green Leafy Vegetables Other Vegetables Fruits Sugar Fats and Oils Foods % Foods % Foods % (gm) Adequacy (gm) Adequacy (gm) Adequacy 330 60 500 327.0 73.2 98.3 36.6 328.7 85.6 77.3 36.8 72.2 38.5 312.9 69.4 94.

1%) by low income of both the age group. The consumption pattern was almost on par with the girls of their counterparts.7 and 17.15 years boys. Milk and milk products were consumed very less (11.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 8 and 9 shows the mean consumption of different foods by boys from 11 to 13 years and 13 to 15 years. Consumption of Cereals was slightly excess in case of 11 to 13 years boys where as slightly less than RDA in case of 13 to 15 years boys. Consumption of fat was more in high income group than low and middle income group. Consumption of fruits was 50% of RDA of both low and middle income group of 13 . . Unlike girls boys consumed more sugar irrespective of age and economic status.

7 200 100 30 35 81.3 102.2 80.7 307.7 27.2 20.1 30.1 86.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 8: Mean Consumption of Different Food Groups by 11.7 71.0 66.4 80.2 45.13 Years Boys .6 65.0 131.9 Fig 3: Mean Consumption of Different Food Groups by 11.5 28.7 312.3 43.6 49.3 113.3 34.13 Years Boy Food Groups ‘F’ Value (gm) Low Income Middle Income High Income Between RDA Cereals Pulses Milk and Milk Products Roots & Tubers Green Leafy Vegetables Other Vegetables Fruits Sugar Fats and Oils Groups Foods % Foods % Foods % (gm) Adequacy (gm) Adequacy (gm) Adequacy 300 60 500 309.1 86.1 71.2 55.4 42.2 58.2 82.2 71.6 103.4 75.0 333.7 86.9 63.9 63.7 11.0 47.0 57.9 100 100 75.0 60.5 104.5 94.1 71.1 40.0 39.2 75.0 60.0 78.3 120.6 65.0 86.3 55.3 404.4 27.1 40.

8 95.7 38.3 53.6 72.7 72.9 86.0 72.4 98.8 51.5 46.1 53.2 53.1 370.9 17.0 60.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 LI MI HI Table 9: Mean Consumption of Different Food Groups by 13.6 41.2 65.3 150 100 69.5 74.3 26.3 362.3 66.0 77.3 131.15 Years Boys ‘F’ Value Food Groups (gm) Low Income Middle Income High Income Between RDA Cereals Pulses Milk and Milk Products Roots & Tubers Green Leafy Vegetables Other Vegetables Fruits Sugar Fats and Oils Groups Foods % Foods % Foods % (gm) Adequacy (gm) Adequacy (gm) Adequacy 420 75 500 413.5 405.3 66.3 53.6 96.3 37.5 56.15 Years Boys .3 20.7 47.5 60.6 79.3 188.7 193.7 85.5 68.5 104.1 476.0 69.7 200 100 20 45 76.5 63.0 43.3 82.5 88.4 Fig 4: Mean Consumption of Different Food Groups by 13.0 92.8 38.5 82.7 38.5 63.5 49.7 79.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 LI MI HI .

14 59.49 (mg) Retinol 559.71 48.50 NS 4.69 388.4 86.70 ±23.58 101.95 62.00 582.17 86.40 Middle Income Mean Adequac ± SD y (%) 1935.2 7 40.22 NS 600 ±27.11 Protein ±8.54 3.53 NS RDI* High Income Mean Adequacy ± SD (%) 2269 ±519.88 64.72 ±31.88** 40 ±2.91 0.93 1.35 16.22 1.77 93.60NS ±5.3 ±0.63 NS 40 ±1.01 1.82 94.12 Thiamine ** NS 1.45 38.55 13.3 ±0.40 91.01 259.95 ** ±11.24 21 ±2.49 562.44 ±8.1 ±0.18 (mg) 1 1.65 314.34 51.68 (µg) 600 ±35.62 91.85 0.68 (mg) 13 ±1.86 37.Mean nutrient intake of 11 -13 years Boys Nutrients Energy (Kcal) RDI* 1875 ±398 Low Income Mean Adequac ± SD y (%) 1652 ±131.58 88.36 6.79 ±6.75** 76.16 90.70 1.42 392.29 13.31** 1.00 4.19 1.63 1.02 125.11* 96.19 1.53** 105.46* 800 ±51.9 2 41.32 e ±22.15** 77.04 110.07 ±73.56 1.08 39.77 93.17 1.85 5.29 NS 101.4 9 .23 Riboflavin .14 5.1 31.38 1.62** 13 ±1.92 1.28 t Value 1.24 37.3 ±0.7 40.35** ±30.3 ±3.42 ±9.82 Total Fat ±11.27 Iron ** NS 21 ±2.77 296.08 63.19 * RDI: Values are mean RDI computed using ICMR recommendation for adolescents based on ideal body weight ** CHO: Values are mean RDI computed using ICMR recommendation on PE ratio for adolescents.13 21 ±2.25 4.61 0.83 1.55 5.31 40.76 NS 800 ±44.25** 600 ±32.82 2.1 ±1.62 0.77 1.1 ±6.89 ±4.35 (g) Calcium 566.32 8.23 2.50 ±163.52 NS 1.91 93.28 NS 13 ±1.92** .33 (g) 52.95 2114 ±175.13 NS 80.93 12.12 91.10 9.79 93.05 NS 134.52 96.1 ±0. *** FAT: Values are mean RDI computed using ICMR recommendation for adolescents based on Recommended Energy Intake (2010) * – Significant at 5 % level t Value 93.46 NS (g) Carbohydrat 285.67 1.74 NS 102.53 582.70 612.48 4.51 72.63 Ascorbic 40 ±2.12 (mg) Niacin 11.17 0.11 2.82 2.89 Acid (mg) 1.73 69.68 1.20 ±424.66 ±7.46 NS 76.51** 97.02 64.43 (mg) 800 ±40.26 ** RDI* 2243.11 t Value 9.62 70.19 14.38** ±14.13 1.3 4 55.46 ±89.

4 86.43 1.96 36.51 87.4 76.23 1.40 ±0.32 0.65 NS 87.39 ±32.40 1. t Value 89.61 92.38 ±0.05** 92.67 ±25.85 74.75** .98 22.14 2.99 ** 0.81 ±10.55 1.26** 77.75 329.41 ±4.46 579.87 ±2.28** 2878.03* 93.63 2.23 ±0.22 9.81** 97.64 37.86 800 53.03 2.33 17.16 1.52 ±2.02 ±3.23 21.70 ±453.99 86.57 68.61 73.07 ±10.51 60.88 2.96 0.50 ±56.16 13.6 83.47 8.4 1.65 ±25.15 12.00 51.53 NS 40 87.09 97.50 1.41 ±35.25 2.27* 16 74.72 61.85 77.89 ±4.21 346.31 ±30.95 ±14.01 NS 79.50 ±40.79 3.18 1.14 14.17 1.61 ±7.16 ±3.43 6.51 59.** Significant at 1% Level NS – Non Significant Mean nutrient intake of 13 -15 years Boys Nutrients Energy (Kcal) Protein (g) Carbohydrat e (g) Total Fat (g) Calcium (mg) Iron (mg) Retinol (µg) Ascorbic Acid (mg) Thiamine (mg) Riboflavin (mg) Niacin (mg) RDI* 2310 ±389 52.22 ±0.15* 1.42** 32 96.75 NS 89.2 ±10.32 ±1.61 ±4.01 NS 84.92 621.81** 600 91.10 ±0.17 112.71 ±3.42 586.87** 32 95.25 ±534.07 NS 800 68.27 672.16** 5.6 79.38 1.23 NS Middle Income Mean Adequac ± SD y (%) 2313.60 493.09 383.66NS 2674.28 6.65** 86.06 2.69 1.43 ±24.51 2589.90 6.25 1.09* 1.89 t Value RDI* 1.1 800 32 600 40 1.16 ±149.38 5.10 462.34 6.74 ±78.25 5.88 36.66** 70.28 ±1.57 5.11 ±2.31 571.94 ±95.93 ±236.15** 1.8 354.91 37.03 ±8.72 ±23.82 53.6 16 Low Income Mean Adequac ± SD y (%) 2056 ±149.52** 600 92.46** * RDI: Values are mean RDI computed using ICMR recommendation for adolescents based on ideal body weight ** CHO: Values are mean RDI computed using ICMR recommendation on PE ratio for adolescents.86 64.70 ±1.74 t Value RDI* High Income Mean Adequacy ± SD (%) 8.33 584.61 9.73 57.01 NS 120.53* 40 78.23 0.9 ±8.38 4.55 ** 74.42** 16 5.92 ±48.30 NS 1.22 3.11 1.08 89.30 ±12.51 ±6.21 ±0.

62 38.28 576.01 0.09 2.19 1.04 0.0 95.45 ±39.80 16.06 2115 ±212.53 32.46 * 13 90.33 7.40 305.24 ±3.01 84.49 800 27 600 40 1.58 6.19 3.61 557.57 289.58 94.62 ±7.39 NS 0.73 0.2 78.69 2.2 13 t Value RDI* 80.18 ±1.27 1.01** 6.2 84.65 ±3.26 ±6.51 37.23 ±1.26 ** 600 95.92 267.9 1552 ±223.24 ±27.11 ±8.01NS 40 104.51** 2357 ±432.42 91.2 ±6.73 ±49.25 42.76 675.07 ±4.14 ±0.29 * 800 59.0 90.19 17.17 1.04** 27 53.01 NS 104.08 1.83 48.94 ± 7.38* 95.32 ±14.97 ± 0.43 ±4.57 ±8.18 11.94 56.00 ±1.61 76.18 0.13 41.32 3.98 ±2.4 215.59 t Value RDI* High Income Mean Adequacy ± SD (%) 7.88 15.02NS 65.18** 118 0.91 39.20 3.08 47.00 0.04 ±0.09 5.93 Middle Income Mean Adequac ± SD y (%) 1923 ±243.06 ±0.42 3.92 ** 56.09 ±0.69 713.48** 800 59.09 ±46.65 ±45.52 ±61.32 47.07** 81.14 88.09 ±81.21 1.36NS 13 t Value 89.00 0.13 1.05 51.78 NS 1.97 ± 6.29 1.54 1.30 NS 40 97.47 ±8.72 442.0 ± 43.0 1.65 0.74** 89.63 ±8.68 ±10.42 8.62 1.49 ±12.43 NS 0.83 1.71NS .85 0.58 ** 2027 ±505.12 113.31 4.25 ±1.*** FAT: Values are mean RDI computed using ICMR recommendation for adolescents based on Recommended Energy Intake (2010) * – Significant at 5 % level ** Significant at 1% Level NS – Non Significant Mean nutrient intake of 11 -13 years Girls Nutrients RDI* Low Income Mean Adequacy ± SD (%) Energy (Kcal) Protein (g) Carbohydrat e (g) Total Fat (g) Calcium (mg) Iron (mg) Retinol (µg) Ascorbic Acid (mg) Thiamine (mg) Riboflavin (mg) Niacin (mg) 1715 ±306.03 ±2.72** 93.01NS 1.20NS 69.16 4.87 600 95.69 ** 27 90.81 542.01NS 118.56NS 65.01NS 92.30NS 1.66 380.28NS 88.06 72.37 2.09** 86.60 0.90 ±53.32 571.94 69.39 ±50.03 NS 1.18 11.7 ±37.18 10.37 4.58 38.00 0.

1 ±7.99 94.59 2.45 ±39.71 51.27 ±10.94 89.04NS 0. *** FAT: Values are mean RDI computed using ICMR recommendation for adolescents based on Recommended Energy Intake (2010) * – Significant at 5 % level ** Significant at 1% Level NS – Non Significant Mean nutrient intake of 13 -15 years Girls Nutrients Energy (Kcal) Protein (g) Carbohydrat e (g) Total Fat (g) Calcium (mg) Iron (mg) Retinol (µg) Ascorbic Acid (mg) Thiamine (mg) Riboflavin (mg) RDI* 1964 ±298.38 575.86 3.03 1.65 ±385.14 ±8.93 ±162.03 ±38.28 NS 40 82.46 61.47 RDI* 2368.26 ±6.78 1.1 2 49.001 NS 75.2 85.16 86.15 9.67 ±1.44 ±54.49 36.01NS 107.51NS 27 95.86 4.95 ±3.12 ±8.4 Low Income Mean Adequacy ± SD (%) 1976 ±181.21 High Income Mean Adequacy ± SD (%) 2114.41 1.88 1.01 NS 105.55 NS 27 92.73 17.78 ±65.15NS 800 64.71 378.88 NS 5.62 406.52 586.59 53.49 ** 800 63.53 NS 80.31 4.33 4.33 ±62.85 ±8.33 ±6.69 293.30 554.91 3.40 305.17 63.47 99.71 ±4.0 ±31.95 ±4.00 ±0.2 1.19 ±0.28 53.82 86.79 ±10.9 100.17 1.19 75.15 t Value 0.17 73.99 ±0.68 1.82 ±66.44 1.16 ±0.4 t Value 0.20** 1.32** .16 1.86 ** ** RDI* 2205.22 1.21 53.09 1.54 54.62 49.88 568.53 ±8.54** 87.39 ±2.26 ** 1.18 NS 94.32 NS 84.06 34.86 1.17 2.01 0.51 Middle Income Mean Adequacy ± SD (%) 2086.55 17.* RDI: Values are mean RDI computed using ICMR recommendation for adolescents based on ideal body weight ** CHO: Values are mean RDI computed using ICMR recommendation on PE ratio for adolescents.77 NS 0.71 18.92 65.42 381.45 ±28.07 ±2.28 800 27 600 40 1.65 ** 600 91.01 ±0.00 3.25 ±33.33 1.59 ±212.19 0.48* 82.49** 69.5 ±8.10 ±35.75 ±5.01 ±39.54 1.09 ±0.19* 8.69 703.61 6 48.19 1.2 77.42 37.64** 83.54 ±64.47 56.58** 94.74 5.50 3.08 NS 1.43 ** 1.4 t Value 0.00 36.43 341.79 NS 40 83.82 ±3.00 6.11 NS 600 92.08 328.43 1.80 603.

31 11.48 Niacin ** ** 14 ±1.60 12.87 (mg) * RDI: Values are mean RDI computed using ICMR recommendation for adolescents based on ideal body weight ** CHO: Values are mean RDI computed using ICMR recommendation on PE ratio for adolescents.30 14 ±1. *** FAT: Values are mean RDI computed using ICMR recommendation for adolescents based on Recommended Energy Intake (2010) * – Significant at 5 % level ** Significant at 1% Level NS – Non Significant 89.86 6.68 5.11.97 14 ±1.64 82.14 1.76 53.67 NS .