| Literature DB >> 24646652 |
Qibin Qi1, Audrey Y Chu, Jae H Kang, Jinyan Huang, Lynda M Rose, Majken K Jensen, Liming Liang, Gary C Curhan, Louis R Pasquale, Janey L Wiggs, Immaculata De Vivo, Andrew T Chan, Hyon K Choi, Rulla M Tamimi, Paul M Ridker, David J Hunter, Walter C Willett, Eric B Rimm, Daniel I Chasman, Frank B Hu, Lu Qi.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the interactions between genetic predisposition and consumption of fried food in relation to body mass index (BMI) and obesity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24646652 PMCID: PMC3959253 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g1610
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ ISSN: 0959-8138
Baseline characteristics of participants according to frequency of total fried food consumption.* Figures are means (SD) or percentages unless otherwise indicated.
| Frequency/week | P value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <1 | 1-3 | ≥4 | ||
| No of participants | 4993 (52%) | 3027 (31%) | 1603 (17%) | — |
| Age (year) | 52.6 (6.5) | 51.6 (6.8) | 50.2 (6.7) | <0.001 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 23.7 (4.5) | 24.4 (4.9) | 25.0 (5.5) | <0.001 |
| No (%) of current smokers (%) | 949 (19%) | 605 (20%) | 356 (22%) | <0.001 |
| Physical activity (MET-h/week) | 15.7 (20.7) | 12.8 (15.9) | 10.7 (13.5) | <0.001 |
| Television watching (h/week) | 12.7 (11.6) | 13.8 (11.5) | 14.4 (11.9) | <0.001 |
| Total energy intake (kcal/day) | 1633 (489) | 1821 (509) | 2018 (538) | <0.001 |
| Alcohol consumption (g/day) | 7.4 (11.3) | 7.1 (11.7) | 6.2 (10.1) | <0.001 |
| Sugar sweetened beverage intake (servings/day) | 0.22 (0.44) | 0.34 (0.57) | 0.43 (0.63) | <0.001 |
| Alternative health eating index score | 40.7 (10.6) | 37.3 (10.0) | 36.0 (9.6) | <0.001 |
| Western dietary pattern score | −0.35 (0.86) | 0.18 (0.92) | 0.71 (1.06) | <0.001 |
| Genetic risk score | 29.2 (3.8) | 29.1 (3.9) | 29.2 (3.9) | 0.98 |
| No of participants | 2402 (38%) | 2072 (32%) | 1905 (30%) | — |
| Age (year) | 55.7 (8.6) | 54.6 (8.6) | 52.8 (8.6) | <0.001 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 25.4 (3.1) | 25.8 (3.2) | 26.2 (3.4) | <0.001 |
| No (%) of current smokers (%) | 170 (7%) | 170 (8%) | 200 (10%) | <0.001 |
| Physical activity (MET-h/week) | 22.6 (29.4) | 19.1 (24.4) | 17.6 (24.3) | <0.001 |
| Television watching (h/week) | 10.9 (8.6) | 11.7 (8.5) | 12.2 (8.7) | <0.001 |
| Total energy intake (kcal/day) | 1866 (566) | 2025 (592) | 2224 (632) | <0.001 |
| Alcohol consumption (g/day) | 11.8 (15.6) | 13.0 (16.4) | 12.4 (16.4) | 0.17 |
| Sugar sweetened beverage intake (servings/day) | 0.21 (0.42) | 0.31 (0.49) | 0.45 (0.62) | <0.001 |
| Alternative health eating index score | 48.1 (11.2) | 43.4 (10.3) | 41.4 (9.9) | <0.001 |
| Western dietary pattern score | −0.39 (0.76) | 0.11 (0.82) | 0.60 (0.95) | <0.001 |
| Genetic risk score | 29.2 (3.8) | 29.0 (3.9) | 29.0 (3.8) | 0.20 |
| No of participants | 14 702 (69%) | 4790 (22%) | 1929 (9%) | — |
| Age (year) | 55.0 (7.2) | 54.1 (6.8) | 52.9 (6.3) | <0.001 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 25.3 (4.5) | 26.5 (5.2) | 27.5 (5.7) | <0.001 |
| No (%) of current smokers (%) | 1470 (10%) | 504 (11%) | 270 (14%) | <0.001 |
| Physical activity (MET-h/week) | 16.5 (19.7) | 11.7 (14.8) | 9.6 (13.3) | <0.001 |
| Total energy intake (kcal/day) | 1665 (500) | 1842 (529) | 2002 (568) | <0.001 |
| Alcohol consumption (g/day) | 4.6 (8.5) | 4.1 (8.7) | 3.3 (7.5) | <0.001 |
| Sugar sweetened beverage intake (servings/day) | 0.20 (0.48) | 0.33 (0.64) | 0.47 (0.85) | <0.001 |
| Alternative health eating index score | 42.4 (9.6) | 37.4 (9.1) | 34.3 (8.6) | <0.001 |
| Western dietary pattern score | −0.20 (0.72) | 0.32 (0.76) | 0.70 (0.82) | <0.001 |
| Genetic risk score | 28.6 (3.4) | 28.6 (3.4) | 28.5 (3.4) | 0.17 |
*Baseline data from 9623 women in Nurses’ Health Study (1984), 6379 men in Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986), and 21 421 women in Women’s Genome Health Study (1992). Physical activity assessed in 1986 for Nurses’ Health Study. Television watching assessed in 1992 for Nurses’ Health Study and in 1988 for Health Professionals Follow-Up Study.
Body mass index according to frequency of fried food consumption and third of genetic risk score*
| Genetic risk score | Mean BMI by consumption/week | P for trend | P for interaction | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <1 | 1-3 | ≥4 | |||
| Nurses’ Health Study: | |||||
| 1 (<27.5) | 25.6 (0.1) | 25.9 (0.1) | 26.1 (0.2) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 2 (27.5-30.8) | 26.1 (0.1) | 26.6 (0.1) | 26.9 (0.2) | <0.001 | |
| 3 (≥30.9) | 27.0 (0.1) | 27.4 (0.1) | 28.0 (0.2) | <0.001 | |
| Health Professionals Follow-Up Study: | |||||
| 1 (<27.5) | 25.7 (0.1) | 25.9 (0.1) | 26.1 (0.1) | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| 2 (27.5-30.8) | 26.0 (0.1) | 26.2 (0.2) | 26.6 (0.1) | <0.001 | |
| 3 (≥30.9) | 26.4 (0.1) | 26.7 (0.1) | 27.1 (0.1) | <0.001 | |
| Nurses’ Health Study: | |||||
| 1 (<27.5) | 25.7 (0.1) | 25.9 (0.1) | 25.2 (0.3) | 0.58 | 0.02 |
| 2 (27.5-30.8) | 26.1 (0.1) | 26.6 (0.1) | 26.0 (0.3) | 0.002 | |
| 3 (≥30.9) | 27.1 (0.1) | 27.4 (0.1) | 27.4 (0.3) | 0.01 | |
| Health Professionals Follow-Up Study: | |||||
| 1 (<27.5) | 25.8 (0.1) | 25.9 (0.1) | 25.8 (0.3) | 0.53 | 0.07 |
| 2 (27.5-30.8) | 26.1 (0.1) | 26.4 (0.1) | 26.3 (0.3) | 0.04 | |
| 3 (≥30.9) | 26.5 (0.1) | 27.0 (0.1) | 26.6 (0.3) | 0.04 | |
| Nurses’ Health Study: | |||||
| 1 (<27.5) | 25.6 (0.1) | 26.4 (0.2) | 27.9 (0.9) | <0.001 | 0.01 |
| 2 (27.5-30.8) | 26.1 (0.1) | 27.2 (0.2) | 27.8 (0.7) | <0.001 | |
| 3 (≥30.9) | 26.9 (0.1) | 28.4 (0.2) | 28.2 (1.0) | <0.001 | |
| Health Professionals Follow-Up Study: | |||||
| 1 (<27.5) | 25.7 (0.1) | 26.1 (0.1) | 26.3 (0.3) | 0.002 | 0.14 |
| 2 (27.5-30.8) | 26.0 (0.1) | 26.4 (0.1) | 27.4 (0.3) | <0.001 | |
| 3 (≥30.9) | 26.5 (0.1) | 26.9 (0.1) | 27.1 (0.4) | 0.002 | |
| Total fried food consumption: | |||||
| 1 (<27.4) | 25.6 (0.1) | 25.9 (0.1) | 26.3 (0.2) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 2 (27.4-30.6) | 26.1 (0.1) | 26.9 (0.1) | 27.3 (0.2) | <0.001 | |
| 3 (≥30.7) | 26.7 (0.1) | 27.5 (0.1) | 28.6 (0.2) | <0.001 | |
| Fried food consumed at home: | |||||
| 1 (<27.4) | 25.7 (0.1) | 25.9 (0.1) | 25.8 (0.5) | 0.03 | 0.004 |
| 2 (27.4-30.6) | 26.3 (0.1) | 26.7 (0.1) | 26.7 (0.4) | 0.05 | |
| 3 (≥30.7) | 26.9 (0.1) | 27.5 (0.1) | 28.9 (0.5) | <0.001 | |
| Fried food consumed away from home: | |||||
| 1 (<27.4) | 25.6 (0.1) | 26.2 (0.1) | 26.2 (0.5) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 2 (27.4-30.6) | 26.1 (0.1) | 27.2 (0.1) | 28.7 (0.6) | <0.001 | |
| 3 (≥30.7) | 26.8 (0.1) | 28.2 (0.1) | 30.0 (0.6) | <0.001 | |
*Data are least squares means (SE) of BMI (averages over follow-up) across categories of fried food consumption.
†Data derived from repeated measures analysis for women in Nurses’ Health Study (four measures during 1984-98) and in Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (three measures during 1986-98), adjusted for age, source of genotyping data, physical activity, television watching, smoking, alcohol intake, sugar sweetened beverage intake, alternative healthy eating index, and total energy intake. Data on fried food consumption assessed four years before assessment of BMI.
‡Data derived from general linear regression analysis for women in Women’s Genome Health Study, adjusted for age, physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake, sugar sweetened beverage intake, alternative healthy eating index, and total energy intake. Data on fried food consumption assessed three years before assessment of BMI.

Fig 1 BMI according to frequency of fried food consumption and thirds of genetic risk score in pooled data of three cohorts. Data adjusted for age, source of genotyping data, physical activity, television watching, smoking, alcohol intake, intake of sugar sweetened beverages, alternative healthy eating index, and total energy intake in Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS); and age, physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake, intake of sugar sweetened beverages, alternative healthy eating index, and total energy intake In the Women’s Genome Health Study (WGHS). Data from three cohorts were pooled by means of fixed effects meta-analyses (if P≥0.05 for heterogeneity between studies) or random effects meta-analyses (if P<0.05 for heterogeneity between studies)

Fig 2 Genetic associations with BMI according to frequency of fried food consumption in three cohorts. Data are differences (SE) in BMI per 10 risk alleles of genetic risk score and differences (SE) in BMI per risk allele (A-allele) of the FTO (fat mass and obesity associated) variant rs1558902. In Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS), data were adjusted for age, source of genotyping data, physical activity, television watching, smoking, alcohol intake, intake of sugar sweetened beverages, alternative healthy eating index, and total energy intake. In Women’s Genome Health Study (WGHS), data were adjusted for age, physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake, intake of sugar sweetened beverages, alternative healthy eating index, and total energy intake. Data from three cohorts pooled by means of fixed effects meta-analyses (if P≥0.05 for heterogeneity between studies) or random effects meta-analyses (if P<0.05 for heterogeneity between studies)
Multivariable adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) for obesity per increment of 10 risk alleles by frequency of fried food consumption*
| Consumption/week | P for interaction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <1 | 1-3 | ≥ | ||
| Nurses’ Health Study: | ||||
| No of women (obese/normal weight) | 679/2888 | 484/1666 | 356/776 | — |
| Odds ratio (95% CI )† | 1.76 (1.39 to 2.24) | 2.70 (2.00 to 3.65) | 2.54 (1.75 to 3.69) | 0.02 |
| Health Professionals Follow-up Study: | ||||
| No of men (obese/normal weight) | 194/1051 | 216/830 | 269/686 | — |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)† | 2.00 (1.27 to 3.13) | 2.04 (1.31 to 3.20) | 2.86 (1.88 to 4.36) | 0.16 |
| Women’s Genome Health Study: | ||||
| No of women (obese/normal weight) | 743/11673 | 266/3423 | 120/1234 | — |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)‡ | 1.46 (1.19 to 1.78) | 1.57 (1.11 to 2.21) | 2.88 (1.68 to 4.94) | 0.06 |
| Pooled odds ratio (95% CI)§ | 1.61 (1.40 to 1.87) | 2.12 (1.73 to 2.59) | 2.72 (2.12 to 3.48) | 0.002 |
| Nurses’ Health Study: | ||||
| No of women (obese/normal weight) | 808/3181 | 567/1840 | 138/299 | — |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)† | 1.73 (0.92 to 3.27) | 2.46 (1.86 to 3.24) | 4.52 (2.33 to 8.77) | 0.006 |
| Health Professionals Follow-up Study: | ||||
| No of men (obese/normal weight) | 302/1396 | 303/973 | 71/188 | — |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)† | 2.12 (1.47 to 3.05) | 2.57 (1.77 to 3.74) | 1.96 (0.79 to 4.90) | 0.69 |
| Women’s Genome Health Study: | ||||
| No of women (obese/normal weight) | 939/13404 | 208/2778 | 17/211 | — |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)‡ | 1.44 (1.21 to 1.73) | 2.25(1.51 to 3.35) | 2.83 (0.55 to 14.52) | 0.06 |
| Pooled odds ratio (95% CI)§ | 1.57 (1.34 to 1.83) | 2.43 (2.00 to 2.96) | 3.33 (2.00 to 5.55) | 0.003 |
| Nurses’ Health Study: | ||||
| No of women (obese/normal weight) | 1110/4485 | 375/805 | 33/34 | — |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)† | 2.09 (1.73 to 2.52) | 2.68 (1.86 to 3.85)¶ | 0.28 | |
| Health Professionals Follow-up Study: | ||||
| No of men (obese/normal weight) | 351/1647 | 257/810 | 69/104 | — |
| Odds ratio (95% CI)† | 2.08 (1.49 to 2.91) | 2.53 (1.69 to 3.79) | 4.39 (1.26 to 15.25) | 0.30 |
| Women’s Genome Health Study: | ||||
| No of women (obese/normal weight) | 864/13750 | 263/2611 | 11/127 | — |
| Odds ratios (95% CI)‡ | 1.52 (1.27 to 1.83) | 1.84 (1.30 to 2.61) | 5.19 (0.45 to 59.96) | 0.17 |
| Pooled odds ratio (95% CI)§ | 1.81 (1.60 to 2.05) | 2.29 (1.84 to 2.83) | 4.53 (1.49 to 13.79) | 0.02 |
*Derived from logistic regression analyses, using data on fried food consumption assessed at baseline and obesity status assessed four years later in Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study and three years later in Women’s Genome Health Study.
†Data adjusted for age, source of genotyping data, physical activity, television watching, smoking, alcohol intake, sugar sweetened beverage intake, alternative healthy eating index, and total energy intake.
‡Data adjusted for age, physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake, sugar sweetened beverage intake, alternative healthy eating index, and total energy intake.
§Results for three cohorts pooled by means of fixed effects meta-analyses (if P≥0.05 for heterogeneity between studies) or random effects meta-analyses (if P<0.05 for heterogeneity between studies).
¶For fried food consumed away from home in Nurses’ Health Study, participants in categories of 1-3/week and ≥4/week combined because of small sample size in category of ≥4/week.