| Literature DB >> 21931814 |
Carlos A Celis-Morales1, Francisco Perez-Bravo, Luis Ibañes, Ruth Sanzana, Edison Hormazabal, Natalia Ulloa, Carlos Calvo, Mark E S Bailey, Jason M R Gill.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effects of urbanisation on diabetes risk appear to be greater in indigenous populations worldwide than in populations of European origin, but the reasons are unclear. This cross-sectional study aimed to determine whether the effects of environment (Rural vs. Urban), adiposity, fitness and lifestyle variables on insulin resistance differed between individuals of indigenous Mapuche origin compared to those of European origin in Chile. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21931814 PMCID: PMC3169638 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024690
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Demographic and anthropometric variables by ethnic group and environment.
| Mapuche | European |
| ||||
| Rural | Urban | Rural | Urban | Ethn | Env | |
|
| ||||||
| N (men / women) | 54 / 69 | 45 / 79 | 36 / 55 | 42 / 92 | - |
|
| Age | 36.7 ±11.9 | 34.1±12.5 | 40.9±13.7 | 37.5±12.4 |
| 0.014 |
| Smoking Status(Never / Ex / Current) | 80 / 16 / 27 | 50 / 25 / 49 | 50 / 16 / 25 | 44 / 36 / 54 | - | - |
| Socio economic Level(Lower / Middle / Higher) | 95 / 21 / 7 | 24 / 65 / 35 | 38 / 33 / 20 | 32 / 42 / 60 | - | - |
| Education Level(Primary / Secondary / Tertiary) | 94 / 18 / 11 | 10 / 83 / 31 | 30 / 40 / 21 | 7 / 52 / 75 | - | - |
|
| ||||||
| Normal / Overweight / Obese a | 18 / 51 / 54 | 39 / 55 / 30 | 17 / 41 / 33 | 48 / 47 / 39 |
| - |
| Body mass (kg) | 75.8±11.8 | 73.3±12.5 | 73.9±13.3 | 71.2±13.1 | 0.327 | 0.018 |
| Height (m) | 1.57±6.9 | 1.61±8.6 | 1.59±9.4 | 1.59±8.5 | 0.007 | 0.126 |
| BMI (kg.m-2) | 30.5±4.3 | 28.4±4.8 | 29.2±4.9 | 28.2±5.4 | 0.008 |
|
| Waist (cm) | 106.9±11.5 | 102.1±12.8 | 104.2±14.5 | 101.8±15.7 | 0.155 | 0.012 |
| Hip (cm) | 117.2±11.1 | 113.3±10.7 | 114.9±13.0 | 112.2±13.1 | 0.042 | 0.008 |
| Body fat (%) | 29.4±5.3 | 31.2±5.2 | 28.6±6.1 | 31.5±6.0 | 0.021 |
|
Data are presented as mean ± SD for continuous variables or as numbers of individuals in each category for categorical variables. Statistical analysis (except for age) was undertaken on age- and sex-adjusted data. For continuous variables, p values shown are for comparisons of means between Rural Mapuche, Urban Mapuche, Rural European and Urban European groups for main effects of ethnicity (Ethn) and of environment (Env). Results of further models assessing the Ethnicity x environment (Ethn x Env) interaction effect are not shown as interaction terms in all the models were non-significant (all p>0.28). Significant p values (i.e. p<0.004) are shown in bold. aParticipants were classified into BMI categories using the standard cut-offs: normal (<25.0 kg/m2), Overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m2) or Obese (>30.0 kg/m2). No formal comparisons between groups were made for the categorical variables.
Metabolic variables by ethnic group and environment.
| Mapuche | European |
| |||||
| Rural | Urban | Rural | Urban | Ethn | Env | Ethn x Env Interaction | |
| Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg) | 120.3±15.3 | 124.3±17.9 | 120.7±16.7 | 123.7±16.9 | 0.356 |
| 0.948 |
| Diastolic Blood Pressure (mmHg) | 76.6±11.8 | 75.7±12.6 | 75.5±12.0 | 75.8±11.9 | 0.300 | 0.776 | 0.503 |
| Glucose (mmol.l−1) | 5.28±1.21 | 5.42±1.40 | 5.26±0.93 | 5.79±1.03 | (0.428) |
| 0.049 |
| Insulin (pmol.l−1)a | 6.7±8.5 | 20.7±15.8 | 3.4±2.3 | 5.9±4.6 |
|
|
|
| HOMAIR a | 1.65±2.03 | 4.90±3.05 | 0.82±0.61 | 1.55±1.34 |
|
|
|
| Triglyceride (mmol.l−1) | 1.05±0.45 | 1.36±0.68 | 1.21±0.54 | 1.23±0.75 | 0.569 |
| 0.154 |
| Total cholesterol (mmol.l−1) | 4.51±1.00 | 4.76±1.27 | 4.73±1.33 | 4.79±1.20 | 0.868 | 0.019 | 0.554 |
| HDL cholesterol (mmol.l−1) | 1.08±0.40 | 0.90±0.37 | 0.95±0.40 | 0.90±0.36 | 0.607 |
| 0.170 |
| LDL cholesterol (mmol.l−1) | 2.95±1.08 | 3.24±1.37 | 3.23±1.42 | 3.32±1.30 | 0.900 | 0.009 | 0.520 |
| Leptin (ng.ml−1) | 9.79±8.0 | 19.4±14.2 | 8.92±7.04 | 13.2±14.0 |
|
| 0.026 |
| GGT (U.L−1)a | 31.3±19.1 | 50.4±41.7 | 27.1±17.4 | 30.7±24.4 |
|
| 0.099 |
| ALT (U.L−1)a | 3.60±0.65 | 3.37±0.65 | 3.45±0.55 | 3.36±0.68 | 0.159 | 0.061 | 0.186 |
| HsCRP (mg.l−1)a | 1.04±1.08 | 1.43±1.56 | 1.23±1.22 | 1.56±1.48 | 0.416 |
| 0.612 |
Data are presented as mean ± SD. Statistical analysis was undertaken on age- and sex-adjusted data. p values shown are for comparisons of means between Rural Mapuche, Urban Mapuche, Rural European and Urban European groups for main effects of ethnicity (Ethn) and of environment (Env), and the Ethnicity x environment (Ethn x Env) interaction effect: for the main effects, those in parentheses indicate residual main effects in a model with a significant interaction term, while those not in parentheses indicate main effects in a model without the interaction term. Significant p values (i.e. p<0.004) are shown in bold. a Statistical analyses performed on log-transformed data.
Figure 1Effect of ethnicity and environment on HOMAIR in European and Mapuche participants.
Bars show mean±SEM for all groups. p (interaction) describes the ‘ethnicity x environment’ interaction for HOMAIR in age- and sex-adjusted analysis.
Fitness, physical activity and dietary intake variables by ethnic group and environment.
| Mapuche | European |
| |||||
| Rural | Urban | Rural | Urban | Ethn | Env | Ethn x Env Interaction | |
|
| |||||||
| VO2max (ml.kg.min−1) | 53.3±12.3 | 44.7±10.5 | 45.7±11.8 | 41.7±9.9 | (0.010) |
|
|
| Sedentary time (min.day−1) | 499.3±74.8 | 536.9±98.1 | 505.9±95.9 | 546.7±87.2 | 0.725 |
| 0.929 |
| Light activity (min.day−1) | 252.4±65.3 | 236.0±82.3 | 260.1±95.2 | 246.8±92.2 | 0.419 | 0.149 | 0.868 |
| Moderate-to-vigorous activity (min.day−1) | 44.1±30.5 | 33.5±23.2 | 41.2±31.4 | 27.7±16.1 | 0.508 |
| 0.909 |
|
| |||||||
| Energy intake (kcal.day−1) | 3362.1±833 | 2714.1±710 | 2392.6±598 | 2228.3±623 |
|
|
|
| Carbohydrate intake (g.day−1) | 461.7±133.4 | 406.7±119.5 | 350.1±101.1 | 318.5±108.6 |
|
| 0.099 |
| Fat intake (g.day−1) | 107.9±42.1 | 74.4±30.6 | 61.9±31.8 | 64.2±27.8 |
|
|
|
| Protein intake (g.day−1) | 108.9±50.2 | 93.4±25.8 | 98.8±35.6 | 83.9±32.0 | 0.034 |
| 0.540 |
| Dietary fibre intake (g.day−1) | 7.9±4.4 | 5.38±3.2 | 4.4±2.63 | 4.0±1.8 |
|
|
|
| Alcohol intake (g.day−1) | 15.3±11.6 | 6.2±4.8 | 5.6±7.7 | 5.6±10.8 |
|
|
|
Data are presented as mean ± SD. Statistical analysis was undertaken on age- and sex-adjusted data. p values shown are for comparisons of means between Rural Mapuche, Urban Mapuche, Rural European and Urban European groups for main effects of ethnicity (Ethn) and of environment (Env), and the Ethnicity x environment (Ethn x Env) interaction effect: for the main effects, those in parentheses indicate residual main effects in a model with a significant interaction term, while those not in parentheses indicate main effects in a model without the interaction term. Significant p values (i.e. p<0.004) are shown in bold.
Figure 2Effects of BMI, waist circumference and body fat on HOMAIR in European and Mapuche participants.
Bars show mean ± SEM for all groups. p (interaction) describes the ‘tertile x environment’ interaction for HOMAIR after adjustment for potential confounding covariates (tertile cut-points shown in Table S2, see text or Table S3 for list of covariates).
Figure 3Effects of sedentary time, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and fitness on HOMAIR in European and Mapuche participants.
Bars show mean ± SEM for all groups. p (interaction) describes the ‘tertile x environment’ interaction for HOMAIR after adjustment for potential confounding covariates (tertile cut-points shown in Table S2, see text or Table S4 for list of covariates).