| Literature DB >> 24785541 |
Jui-Hua Huang1, Shu-Ling Huang2, Ren-Hau Li3, Ling-Hui Wang4, Yu-Ling Chen5, Feng-Cheng Tang6.
Abstract
Workplace health promotion programs should be tailored according to individual needs and efficient intervention. This study aimed to determine the effects of nutrition and exercise health behaviors on predicted risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) when body mass index (BMI) is considered. In total, 3350 Taiwanese workers were included in this cross-sectional study. A self-reported questionnaire was used to measure their nutrition and exercise behaviors. Data on anthropometric values, biochemical blood determinations, and predicted CVD risk (using the Framingham risk score) were collected. In multiple regression analyses, the nutrition behavior score was independently and negatively associated with CVD risk. Exercise was not significantly associated with the risk. However, the interactive effect of exercise and BMI on CVD risk was evident. When stratified by BMI levels, associations between exercise and CVD risk were statistically significant for ideal weight and overweight subgroups. In conclusion, nutrition behavior plays an important role in predicting the CVD risk. Exercise behavior is also a significant predictor for ideal weight and overweight workers. Notably, for underweight or obese workers, maintaining health-promoting exercise seems insufficient to prevent the CVD. In order to improve workers' cardiovascular health, more specific health-promoting strategies should be developed to suit the different BMI levels.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24785541 PMCID: PMC4053920 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph110504664
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Descriptive statistics of the participants’ personal characteristics by gender.
| Characteristic ‡ | Total | Male | Female | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ||
| Age (year) | 47.8 ± 8.4 | 48.3 ± 8.8 | 46.4 ± 7.0 | <0.001 |
| Nutrition health behaviors score | 2.5 ± 0.4 | 2.5 ± 0.4 | 2.6 ± 0.4 | <0.001 |
| Exercise health behaviors score | 2.0 ± 0.6 | 2.1 ± 0.6 | 2.0 ± 0.5 | 0.001 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 24.1 ± 3.4 | 24.4 ± 3.3 | 23.0 ± 3.5 | <0.001 |
| Framingham risk score (%) | 4.7 ± 5.0 | 6.1 ± 5.0 | 0.5 ± 0.8 | <0.001 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | 194.3 ± 34.1 | 194.1 ± 34.1 | 195.0 ± 34.0 | 0.552 |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 125.5 ± 15.4 | 127.7 ± 14.3 | 118.1 ± 16.3 | <0.001 |
| Smoking | ||||
| With | 528 (17.5) | 520 (22.6) | 8 (1.1) | <0.001 |
| Without | 2486 (82.5) | 1778 (77.4) | 708 (98.9) |
† p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. ‡ Continuous data are presented in mean ± SD. Categorical data are presented in number (n) and percent (%).
Comparison of FRS levels on BMI using chi-square test, and on health behaviors using one-way ANOVAs and post-hoc comparisons.
| Framingham risk score levels | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low risk (<10%) | Moderate risk (10%–20%) | High risk (>20%) | ||
| BMI (kg/m2) ‡ | <0.001 | |||
| BMI < 18.5 (underweight) | 82 (94.3) | 5 (5.7) | - | |
| 18.5 ≤ BMI < 24 (ideal weight) | 1241 (88.2) | 157 (11.2) | 9 (0.6) | |
| 24 ≤ BMI < 27 (overweight) | 774 (79.8) | 189 (19.5) | 7 (0.7) | |
| BMI ≥ 27 (obesity) | 373 (75.2) | 110 (22.2) | 13 (2.6) | |
| Health behaviors * | ||||
| Nutrition health behavior score § | 2.6 ± 0.4 | 2.5 ± 0.4 | 2.6 ± 0.5 | 0.012 |
| Exercise health behavior score | 2.0 ± 0.6 | 2.1 ± 0.6 | 2.1 ± 0.6 | 0.157 |
† p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. ‡ Categorical data are presented in number (n) and percent (%). Continuous data are presented in mean ± SD. § indicates significant difference in nutrition health behavior score between low risk and moderate risk groups by Scheffe’s multiple comparisons test (p = 0.015), but other two comparisons (low vs. high, and moderate vs. high) are not significant. * Both nutrition and exercise scores ranged from 1 (never) to 4 (routinely).
Multiple regression models predicting Framingham risk score in relation to nutrition, exercise and BMI.
| Variable | Log Framingham risk score (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | β | 95% CI for B | ||
| Gender | 1.029 | 0.606 | <0.001 | (0.997, 1.062) |
| Age | 0.050 | 0.544 | <0.001 | (0.048, 0.052) |
| Health behaviors | ||||
| Nutrition health behavior | −0.073 | −0.044 | <0.001 | (−0.107, −0.038) |
| Exercise health behavior | −0.018 | −0.014 | 0.176 | (−0.044, 0.008) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.024 | 0.110 | <0.001 | (0.020, 0.028) |
| Nutrition health behavior × BMI | −0.005 | −0.009 | 0.376 | (−0.015, 0.006) |
| Exercise health behavior × BMI | 0.010 | 0.026 | 0.012 | (0.002, 0.018) |
| BMI levels | ||||
| Underweight | ||||
| Gender | 1.000 | 0.680 | <0.001 | (0.847, 1.153) |
| Age | 0.053 | 0.687 | <0.001 | (0.044, 0.061) |
| Exercise health behavior score | −0.086 | −0.057 | 0.294 | (−0.247, 0.076) |
| Ideal weight | ||||
| Gender | 1.068 | 0.652 | <0.001 | (1.024, 0.051) |
| Age | 0.049 | 0.539 | <0.001 | (0.046, 0.051) |
| Exercise health behavior score | −0.056 | −0.044 | 0.001 | (−0.090, −0.022) |
| Overweight | ||||
| Gender | 0.990 | 0.569 | <0.001 | (0.931, 1.048) |
| Age | 0.052 | 0.574 | <0.001 | (0.049, 0.056) |
| Exercise health behavior score | −0.040 | −0.034 | 0.046 | (−0.079, 0.000) |
| Obesity | ||||
| Gender | 1.081 | 0.598 | <0.001 | (0.992, 1.169) |
| Age | 0.047 | 0.546 | <0.001 | (0.043, 0.051) |
| Exercise health behavior score | 0.004 | 0.003 | 0.910 | (−0.058, 0.065) |
All outcomes of the regression analysis are presented in unstandardized coefficients (B), standardized coefficients (â), at a 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for B. Unstandardized coefficient (B) represents the effect of one unit change in the explanatory variable on FRS. For example, in the overweight group, as the exercise score increases one unit, FRS would decrease by 0.040%. Likewise, standardized coefficient (â) represents the effect of one standard deviation change in the explanatory variable on the standardized score of FRS. For example, in the overweight group, as the exercise score increases by one standard deviation, FRS would decrease by 0.034 standard deviation.