| Literature DB >> 24345027 |
Jinsong Wang, Barbara C Olendzki, Nicole M Wedick, Gioia M Persuitte, Annie L Culver, Wenjun Li, Philip A Merriam, James Carmody, Hua Fang, Zhiying Zhang, Gin-Fei Olendzki, Liang Zheng, Yunsheng Ma1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dietary guidelines suggest limiting daily sodium intake to <2,300 mg for the general population, and <1,500 mg/d for those with certain cardiovascular risk factors. Despite these recommendations, few Americans are able to achieve this goal. Identifying challenges in meeting these guidelines is integral for successful compliance. This analysis examined patterns and amount of daily sodium intake among participants with metabolic syndrome enrolled in a one-year dietary intervention study.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24345027 PMCID: PMC3878352 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2891-12-163
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr J ISSN: 1475-2891 Impact factor: 3.271
Figure 1The percentage of excess sodium intake over time points.
Sodium intake by participants’ characteristics
| 240 | 2994 (72) | 184 | 2558 (77) | <0.001 | |
| 240 | 1.613 (0.025) | 184 | 1.660 (0.034) | 0.249 | |
| 240 | 1.211 (0.027) | 184 | 1.047 (0.031) | <0.001 | |
| | | | | | |
| 119 | 3063 (99) | 92 | 2415 (110) | <0.001 | |
| 121 | 2927 (98) | 92 | 2694 (110) | ||
| | 0.330 | | 0.074 | | |
| | | | | | |
| 173 | 2742 (77) | 135 | 2380 (88) | <0.001 | |
| 67 | 3645 (125) | 49 | 3051 (146) | ||
| | <0.001 | | <0.001 | | |
| | | | | | |
| 93 | 3211 (112) | 59 | 2546 (140) | <0.001 | |
| 147 | 2857 (89) | 125 | 2564 (96) | ||
| | 0.014 | | 0.916 | | |
| | | | | | |
| 213 | 3034 (74) | 165 | 2545 (84) | 0.145 | |
| 27 | 2683 (208) | 19 | 2670 (248) | ||
| | 0.115 | | 0.634 | | |
| | | | | | |
| 33 | 2989 (189) | 25 | 2843 (217) | 0.005 | |
| 146 | 3054 (90) | 108 | 2561 (104) | ||
| 59 | 2833 (141) | 49 | 2398 (155) | ||
| | 0.509 | | 0.095 | | |
| | | | | | |
| 24 | 3104 (220) | 15 | 2617 (270) | <0.001 | |
| 43 | 3167 (165) | 36 | 2567 (180) | ||
| 40 | 2851 (171) | 33 | 2345 (188) | ||
| 79 | 3167 (122) | 60 | 2612 (139) | ||
| 54 | 2662 (147) | 40 | 2625 (171) | ||
| | 0.096 | | 0.419 | ||
| | | | | | |
| 188 | 3101(78) | 145 | 2550 (89) | 0.027 | |
| 52 | 2607 (149) | 39 | 2590 (172) | ||
| | 0.004 | | 0.837 | | |
| | | | | | |
| 162 | 2979 (85) | 121 | 2590 (99) | <0.001 | |
| 78 | 3026 (123) | 63 | 2498 (137) | ||
| | 0.753 | | 0.584 | | |
| | | | | ||
| 71 | 2820 (126) | 52 | 2573 (166) | <0.001 | |
| 96 | 3171 (108) | 76 | 2639 (126) | | |
| 72 | 2902 (125) | 44 | 2446 (166) | | |
| | 0.096 | | 0.796 | | |
| | | | | | |
| | 195 | 2914 (76) | 169 | 2531 (82) | 0.008 |
| | 44 | 3322 (155) | 15 | 2928 (258) | |
| 0.017 | 0.141 | ||||
1Sodium intakes per meal described with mean ± standard error and were estimated by LSMEANS of PROC MIXED model in SAS.
2P values for time-points were compared at baseline and 1-year and determined from mixed models fitting item, time-points and interaction between them. However, none of the interaction terms were significant in the models.
3P values compared the differences between groups at the same time-point and were determined from LSMEANS of PROC MIXED model in SAS.
Sodium intake (mg/meal) and sodium density (mg/kcal) by meal type, weekday and location at baseline and one year
| | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | ||||||||
| Sodium intake | 487 ± 39 | 425 ± 39 | 1062 ± 474 | 883 ± 49 | 1281 ± 334 | 1058 ± 36 | 228 ± 26 | 215 ± 30 |
| Sodium density | 1.29 ± 0.05 | 1.28 ± 0.06 | 2.22 ± 0.11 | 2.36 ± 0.12 | 1.94 ± 0.06 | 1.91 ± 0.07 | 1.02 ± 0.04 | 1.29 ± 0.14 |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | ||||||||
| Sodium intake | 527 ± 77 | 394 ± 82 | 1102 ± 544 | 841 ± 56 | 1317 ± 142 | 1132 ± 146 | 169 ± 38 | 193 ± 45 |
| Sodium density | 1.38 ± 0.09 | 1.22 ± 0.13 | 2.13 ± 0.09 | 2.04 ± 0.12 | 2.30 ± 0.24 | 2.26 ± 0.34 | 0.94 ± 0.07 | 0.95 ± 0.08 |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | ||||||||
| Sodium intake | 1023 ± 1245 | 881 ± 1615 | 1478 ± 785 | 1488 ± 835 | 1610 ± 804,5 | 1861 ± 825 | 274 ± 103 | 670 ± 2065 |
| Sodium density | 1.68 ± 0.125 | 1.85 ± 0.195 | 2.19 ± 0.13 | 2.29 ± 0.13 | 1.80 ± 0.13 | 2.00 ± 0.14 | 0.81 ± 0.15 | 1.36 ± 0.40 |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | ||||||||
| Sodium intake | 488 ± 44 | 413 ± 42 | 1098 ± 424 | 948 ± 41 | 1256 ± 384 | 1137 ± 40 | 168 ± 27 | 200 ± 30 |
| Sodium density | 1.32 ± 0.05 | 1.28 ± 0.06 | 2.22 ± 0.09 | 2.26 ± 0.09 | 1.91 ± 0.07 | 1.93 ± 0.08 | 0.93 ± 0.04 | 1.25 ± 0.13 |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | ||||||||
| Sodium intake | 587 ± 54 | 464 ± 64 | 1213 ± 544 | 965 ± 63 | 1420 ± 484,6 | 1233 ± 57 | 271 ± 366 | 204 ± 46 |
| Sodium density | 1.37 ± 0.07 | 1.33 ± 0.10 | 2.11 ± 0.10 | 2.16 ± 0.13 | 1.97 ± 0.10 | 1.96 ± 0.11 | 1.09 ± 0.07 | 1.05 ± 0.10 |
1Sodium intakes per meal and sodium density per meal described with mean ± standard error and were estimated by LSMEANS of PROC MIXED model in SAS.
2Model 1: Tested by Proc Mixed model in SAS, fitting sodium intake or sodium density as the dependent variable, independent variables included meal type (P < 0.001), day of week (P < 0.001), time-point (P = 0.238), location (P < 0.001), gender (P < 0.001), condition (P = 0.836) and interaction of meal and location and time-point (P < 0.001) as fixed effects, and subject ID as a random effect.
3Model 2: Tested by Proc Mixed model in SAS, fitting sodium intake or sodium density as dependent variable, independent variables included meal type (P < 0.001), day of week (P < 0.001), time-point (P < 0.001), gender (P < 0.001), condition (P = 0.802) and interaction of meal and weekday and time-point (P = 0.024) as fixed effects, and subject ID as a random effect.
4P < 0.05 and P values compared differences between baseline and one year and were determined from LSMEANS of PROC MIXED model in SAS.
5P < 0.05 and P values compared differences between restaurant/fast food and eaten at home at the same time-point and determined from LSMEANS of PROC MIXED model in SAS.
6P < 0.05 and P values compared differences to weekdays and determined from LSMEANS of PROC MIXED in SAS.
7For sodium intake, Models 3 and 4 were additionally adjusted for total caloric intake and all aforementioned statistically significant differences were attenuated towards the null.