n intake were statistically significantly different among the two groups for weight-for-height. The prevalence of wasting was lower among participants and much higher among the nonparticipants.
This study focused only on two major nutrients; calories and proteins. On average, the school lunch which consisted of maize and beans in the selected schools, provided each child with 841 kilocalories, which is 33.6% of RDA and 40g of protein, which is 88.8% of RDA. On the other hand, the home lunch for the non-participants provided each child on average with 720 kilocalories, which is 28.8% of RDA and 24g of protein, which is 53.3% of RDA. The lunch nutrient intake of the participants was significantly higher than that of the nonparticipants.
There was a significant relationship between school lunch and nutritional status (weight-forage and weight-for-height). The regression coefficients with school lunch variables; kilocalorie and protein intake were significant for weight-for-age and weight-for-height. Thus, higher kilocalorie and protein intake at school was associated with reduced prevalence of underweight and wasting.
Table 1 shows the mean caloric and protein intake of index children. The results indicated a significantly higher intake of kilocalories (2089 ± 12.41 Kcal) among participants than the non-participants (1841 ± 15.68 Kcal) for all the three meals. There was no significant difference in protein intake at breakfast and supper between the two groups. At lunchtime however, protein intake was significantly higher among participants (40 ± 7.2) than the nonparticipants (24 ± 1.4g). Thus, the total protein intake per day was significantly higher among participants (58 ± 7.5 g) than the non-participants (40 ± 2.4g). Lunch and supper contributed higher amounts of nutrients to the daily nutrient intake of children in both groups than breakfast.Adequacy of dietary intake
Children in both groups took fewer calories and more proteins than the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA). For both groups, breakfast and supper contributed less than 30% of the RDA for calories as well as proteins. For breakfast and lunch, the caloric adequacy of participants was significantly higher (24 ± 3.2% and 33.6 ± 4.3% of RDA) than that of the non-participants (20.4 ± 2.6% and 28.8 ± 5.6% of RDA). Even though the caloric adequacy at supper was not significantly (P>0.05) different between the two groups, the participants had higher intake than the non-participants.
Though there was no significant difference in protein adequacy for breakfast and supper between the two groups, there was a significantly higher (P<0.05) protein adequacy for lunch, among the participants (88.8 ± 125% of RDA) than the non-participants (53.3 ± 98% of RDA). The overall caloric adequacy per day was significantly higher among participants (83.5 ± 0.4% of RDA) than among the non-participants (73.3 ± 98% of RDA). Similarly, the protein adequacy among the participants (129 ± 16% of RDA) was significantly higher than among the non-participants (88.8 ± 5.4% of RDA).
Majority of parents who were found at home at the time of study were females. Most men had gone to work. The dependency ratio and household size are in line with results seen in other developing countries according to the FAO/WHO report . Large household sizes may have a negative effect on childrens' nutritional status due to a scarcity of resources especially food.
For both groups, lunch was the most important meal and source of kilocalories and proteins for children. There was a higher intake of kilocalories and proteins at lunch time than at both breakfast and supper. The lunch nutrient intake of participants was however significantly higher than the non-participants and contributed more than 30% of the RDA. This concurs with World Health Organization (WHO)  food composition tables' requirement that lunch should provide at least a third of RDA. This means that the school lunch contributed significantly to the total daily nutrient intake of participants and thus played a vital role in improving the nutritional status